I'm starting a new campaign in a custom setting and my players are in character creation process. One of my players, however, has a tendency to think up a character with complete disregard for the setting's lore and will never use any race that isn't Homebrew. This sometimes works out (for example he was into playing a myconid-esque sentient mushroom when I happened to be running a Ravnica campaign. It sort of fit in with the Golgari). Also, whenever he has a character in mind, he will NOT change it.
This time, he wants to play a sentient, animated, and most annoying of all, good-aligned skeleton. In my world, however, undead are pure evil and universally hated side effects of the presence of Lovecraftian horrors. Not really much room for a friendly skeleton.
Any thoughts on how to convince this player to make a character more along the lines of my world's lore like the rest of my players?
Im new to being dm and dnd in general but it comes down to you and this person sitting down and talking about what you each want out of your game. Some like to have a more casual game while others really get into the universe, at the end of the day it's your game and you have final say. If they refuse to create a character within your set atmosphere then maybe they need to sit this campaign out. If that's not an option then you need to see how willing you are to bend to his will.
One of my players, however, has a tendency to think up a character with complete disregard for the setting's lore and will never use any race that isn't Homebrew.
If the concept does not fit your setting. It doesnt play on your table.
This time, he wants to play a sentient, animated, and most annoying of all, good-aligned skeleton. In my world, however, undead are pure evil and universally hated side effects of the presence of Lovecraftian horrors. Not really much room for a friendly skeleton.
As said above.
The character concept does fit the setting and campaign.
Any thoughts on how to convince this player to make a character more along the lines of my world's lore like the rest of my players?
Talk to the player. Explain that all characters are required to fit within the LORE of the campaign setting.
Explain that the LORE of the campaign setting is NOT Required to FIT AROUND a players concept.
Then explain that he/she has a choice to make.
Fit the LORE setting and play. Or find another group.
End of discussion.
NEVER EVER #$$#ING EVER
Change your setting to such an extent that your SETTING no longer resembles any basis of originality to simply suit a players latest character concept.
In my current home brew west march campaign ... 7 games in ... with a cast of 6 players ... within the HUMAN dominated and controlled kingdom of Aurelius .. NON Humans are rare. Dwarfs are seen as relics of a fallen culture ... and ELVES are distrusted if not outright hated.
One player wanted to play a Goliath blood hunter. I explained that yes i am willing to incorporate blood hunter home brew character class into the campaign. However , they are in effect WITCHERS from the WITCH PC GAME SERIES. They are distrusted at best , and feared by the common and elites of the Kingdom at worst.
Add to that your a NON HUMAN 2 meter tall muscle bound oath from the mountains , across a far sea , your arrival within the kingdom at one of the Port cities was greated with ... Fear , distrust , hate , racism , refused services , unlawful arrests for just being....
Most communities simply WONT allow a Goliath to walk past the outer gates of a walled town or city.
Another player is playing a Druid of the circle of spores ... wearing bone armor .... in a campaign were MAGIC and NECROMANCY is feared , if not outlawed outright ... So using willy nilly leads to consequences.
But if you wanted to play a mushroom wizard hybrid my answer is No. That doesnt exist within this world. Neither the Race nor the class. Want to play an undead lich ? No. They do exist... but i am not having one within the campaign because the setting does not allow for it.
I wouldn't go quite as hard as previously suggested.
I'm of the opinion that that GM doesn't own the game, so much as it is a group collaboration. HOWEVER, that said the GM is still a Player, and everyone has to be happy with the collaboration. If you're not happy incorporating what they want to play into the game you want to run, you should not be playing with it in the mix.
Adding new elements and new classes puts most ( if not all ) of the work on the GM - so it's rude to bring whatever you want to the table, and have the expectation that the GM has a obligation to adapt to your wants.
In this case, I'd probably say something along the lines of "It's an interesting concept, but I don't have the time to put in the work to change everything I've already created for this campaign, in order to try and fit your concept into it".
I agree that there are types of Players - and types of GMs - that just aren't compatible with one another. I hate to say it, but it doesn't sound from your OP that this Player's style, and your style, are a good fit. I might not go so far as booting them - yet ( although I've had to do it in the past, personally ) - but if you haven't already had a sit down with your Players and had the discussion about the kind of game you want to run, and find out the game they want to play ( the so-called Session Zero ), and find out where they overlap ( or if they overlap ), then you need to do that now.
If you've had that discussion, then this Player is ignoring that, and you need to remind them of what they agreed to.
If they won't abide by that agreement - then I'd just ease them out of the group ( or, stick them in the GM seat for a one shot, and let them see what the workload and balancing Players is really like :p ).
Edit: The real problem here isn't the class choice they're trying to play. The real problem is their attitude, expectations, and - apparent, from your OP - unwillingness to collaborate with the group.
If they're not willing to change those - you're better off not having them in the group.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I would let him play the skeleton, but give his character the same weakness as a skeleton, i.e. vulnerability to bludgeoning damage, can't read or speak, disadvantage on perception relying on smell or touch, and is constantly wondering if it's still under the control of the one who raised it from the dead or free from their master's control. Don't forget this last paragraph of the monster entry on MM pg 272: "When Skeletons encounter living creatures, the necromantic energy that [animates] them compels them to kill unless they are commanded by their master to refrain from doing so. They attack without mercy and fight until destroyed for they possess little sens of self and even less sense of self-control."
I don't see how he could last more than one session.
"Sorry buddy, that doesn't fit into the campaign. How about a good aligned sentient construct instead? No? Ok, you can sit this campaign out, I'll let you know when we start the next one..."
To play the devil's advocate here ( even against my own post ), is their concept to play a skeleton openly (in which case: yeah, good luck with that)?
Or is their character concept to play a "sentient, animated, and most annoying of all, good-aligned skeleton", who is (magically?) disguised and tries to pass themselves off as a normal humanoid character? That spin on it, might work, even if undead are the "universally hated side effects of the presence of Lovecraftian horrors" - if their Character is sane, sentient, and "good", and yet still animated undead. You'd need some "in world" explanation as to why they are different ( although the Character themselves might not know why).
Characters with secret identities, where they live in mortal fear of being discovered, isn't exactly totally new, nor totally unworkable territory.
Spinning it that way doesn't mean you have to change your world, or you lore - and allows them to preserve most of their original Character concept, so long as they are willing to accept the danger of being discovered and destroyed.
Just a thought.
But if they want to run around openly as undead, then no. And the comments about how it might be better to just ease them out of the group if they're not willing to cooperate or collaborate, still stands.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
All I will say is while it is true the DM does not own the game, the fact is that they're putting in a disproportionately high amount of time into the game and they're responsible for the narrative. While they might be another player, they are not just another player. That said, maybe let the player be an animated skeleton. But as it was said: there are consequences to that. People might be frightened by his appearance, so how can he get around that challenge? He has to wear a full body disguise, right? Well, what if the characters go to dinner at a powerful noble's estate and they're expected to take off their hoods and masks and heavy clothes. How do you get around that?
As for why is he a good skeleton? Well, it could be some accident that caused his personality and spirit to fuse to his bones when they got eldritched into a evil being. Maybe all skeletons still have their old consciousnesses trapped in the construct, but for some reason his retained control. Maybe he's not a skeleton at all, and is instead ... like a character from a certain D&D computer game, is just something that resembles a skeleton.
But if you think the player needs to be handled, maybe talk to him. But maybe he doesn't like D&D without playing some ridiculous race for novelty. Everyone is a bit different, right?
All I will say is while it is true the DM does not own the game, the fact is that they're putting in a disproportionately high amount of time into the game and they're responsible for the narrative. While they might be another player, they are not just another player. That said, maybe let the player be an animated skeleton. But as it was said: there are consequences to that. People might be frightened by his appearance, so how can he get around that challenge? He has to wear a full body disguise, right? Well, what if the characters go to dinner at a powerful noble's estate and they're expected to take off their hoods and masks and heavy clothes. How do you get around that?
I agree with all of that :) My point was that - in my opinion, and table - the DM doesn't have dictatorial control, either. There's a middle ground between ruling the table with an iron hand, and allowing in any casual nonsense the Player manages to create or dig up on the Internet.
I also think it's not the DM's job to figure out the solutions to the problems the Players create for themselves. The most the DM is responsible for there is to explain to the Player the complications that their Character choices will create for them (in case the Player didn't understand all the in-world implications). After that, it's up to the Player to manage, if they elect to stay with that choice.
I have that in my current game, where my wife wanted to play a Drow shadow monk. I explained how and why Drow are not well received in the Forgotten Realms, and she chose to roll with it, and use it as a prompt for role playing. It hasn't always been easy for her, but she's rolling with it.
If the DM has pointed out that the choice is lethal ( undead are universally hated, feared, and destroyed on sight, and the Player has elected to eschew disguise and have an openly undead character ) ... well, good luck with that :p
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
^ At the same time, no point setting a player up for inevitable failure. It could totally derail the storyline and make the whole play about this one character (who, potentially, will be unplayable anyway), which will alienate the other players.
It's not "dictatorial" to set limits on the characters that can be made - it would be if the DM said "you're a <race>, <class>, <etc.>".
With caveat that this is all how I see the Game/Social Contract of the Group. Your Mileage May Vary...
It's not dictatorial to put limits on the campaign, based on Player preferences - and the DM is one of those Players, and has their own preferences. Determining what those are is what Session Zero is for.
It does betray a dictatorial GM bent when someone says "MY campaign, MY world, MY setting, MY game". The implication being that the DM will unilaterally determine what goes into the game, and that Players should bloody well tow the line.
However, I think that's getting waaaaay down into the theoretical weeds.
In this particular case it sounds like there was a decent effort to communicate/create the type of setting to the Players ahead of Character creation ( or at least nothing to contradict that ).
If the Player is ignoring that - if they're unwilling to collaberate or compromise - then there's a huge problem. That's not only a problem for their Character or the Campaign, that's a problem for the Group to have to deal with. The GM and the Player will keep butting heads over and over, over many different issues, in the future. Either the Player changes their approach, or you ease them out.
If the Player is willing to work their Character concept into the limits of the world ( see the post above regarding how you could keep the Campaign setting unchanged, and give them their entire undead Character concept, with a disguise thrown over it ), and they accept the consequences, then I don't see why any practiced GM couldn't run with it. If that Character runs a risk of failure, then - too bad - they chose that. Failure can still be satisfying if you're a Narrativist type of Player. If their failure "derail[s] the storyline and make[s] the whole play about this one character, which ... alienate[s] the other players", then that's on the GM. Spotlight, attention, story, and table management is GM'ing 101.
If the GM can work the Character concept into the world, with alterations, and without breaking the Setting, or having to throw away the work they've done to date, and they choose not to, because it violates how they see the Game unfolding, then it's just become a GM/Player pissing contest, and it's the GM which is the problem as they try and maintain their "artistic integrity".
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Literally what you are saying here , i agree with whole heartedly.
For me , the Game world i have created the back drop for in our campaign , is a mixed collaboration between 7 people. Most of the background lore for the different factions has come about due to player character creation and background exploration during that creation process.
Ie: War Cleric Dwarf : Created the family name for his Noble House ... which led to the creation of the House Leader , council , important NPCS of that Household , The two additional Houses and the idea they all act under the auspice of one house's direction forming the official CLAN.
House A + House B + House C = Clan named after House C ( the ruling household ).
Alot of the background filler for our campaign world came from a series of session zero's with individual players , before the campaign world was to my liking , and done so in such a way that the other players felt they had a vested and interested stake in the campaign and its world lore.
Does the campaign require collaboration between DM and Players .. yes.
However , If i invite you to dinner , if i put on all the food , purchase the drinks etc ... and stipulate that attire is black and white ( Suits basically ) and you arrive in board shorts because that is how your role YO! ... your not welcome at this dinner. And you can leave.
That said , if i talk to you and a few friends about organizing a dinner , and you mention a more casual afternoon bbq would be more interest to you ... then its up to me to choose to accommodate you to gain your attendance or still go with my original idea of a more up market setting so to speak.
LOL - I think we have a lot of people here that essentially agree on many of the larger points - but we're kicking the minutiae around ;)
Again, this is all just my take on it, etc. etc. ......
I suspect we're using the term Session Zero in different ways. You seem to be using it as an origin session you have with the Player, before their Characters are integrated into the larger Party and the Adventure, and you're using a lot of the trimmings and results of those 1:1 sessions to fill in background lore of the world, and help make your Players feel connected to the world (if I understand correctly). That's a really good approach, IMHO.
However, I'm using Session Zero to mean a general discussion, outside of any play or character creation, about the social contract for the group, the stylistic preferences of the Players,and the types of fun that the Players enjoy, for that particular group. See herefor a more detailed post on what I like to stuff into Session Zero (although it is always evolving, and I emphasize different points than I did then, but it's a good place to start).
To leverage your metaphor, my Session Zero is like starting a discussion with your friends along the lines of "hey, we should all get together for a dinner party. What kind of soiree does everyone feel like having"? Where you are deciding you want a Black & White dinner, and then deciding if you want to invite someone because they like BBQ better, I'm trying to discover what kind of party ( or parties, plural ) would work for the group as a whole, before I start doing any party planning. You're keeping control of the party planning tight to your chest, and while I am kind of am doing that as well ( for example, if I find out that everyone would be happy with a Black & White dinner, and everyone would also be totally fine with a Hawaiian Luau, and also would enjoy having an Oktoberfest style festival, I'll cast the deciding vote and choose the one I like best ), I don't go into the Session Zero with a new group, with a pre-conception of the type of game we're having ( or dinner Party we're having ); I let the discussion sketch out the possibilities first.
It absolutely may turn out to be the case that there is no common ground. All the game options or party styles are hated by someone in the circle of friends. That happens. Those people shouldn't all be trying to have dinner together at once, and that group should not be playing an RPG together. It may turn out that everyone else wants to have a cheese fondue Party (or a 70s style string of dungeon crawls), and I hate that - in which case I shouldn't be hosting that party ( or GM'ing for those people ). But I would argue that I discover that up front, and that if there's a style which is acceptable to everyone (including me) that we discover that up front as well. We don't go down the path of picking a dinner party ( or Campaign ) style up front, and then having to wedge Player(s) into the Game which just don't fit (or kicking them out).
I'm also not sure that it's the case that you're putting on all the food, purchasing the drinks, etc. Or - at least - you don't have to. It's undeniable that the GM has a disproportionately large share of the workload in creating material for the game, but I cannot count the times I've taken inspiration from what the Players have developed in the course of their play, or outright stolen bits out of their whacky Player theories. This dinner party is at least partly pot-luck. Besides, I run games because I like running the game, and I like writing the material. I don't think I'm atypical in that. So - can we really claim some sort of right-of-control-by-virtue-of-work for the fun we get out of preparing the game? If you're the kind of person who likes putting on fancy dinners, can you really lord the amount of work it takes to organize the party over your friends (especially if they're chipping in for the drinks and food as well), since you're doing something you enjoy?
I don't know enough about the OP's situation to be 100% sure if they communicated their expectations clearly enough to the group, that everyone agreed ( at least tacitly ), and the Player is now back-pedalling and being a pain in the ass. It's also possible that they all had a sit down discussion about the kind of game they wanted it to be, and the Player is now back-pedalling and being a pain in the ass. They might actually be showing up to the party in board shorts, when they knew full well it was a Black & White dinner, in which case they're in the wrong.
It's also possible that the GM went in with expectations of ownership of the style of the game - what I've been dubbing a "dictatorial GM bent" - without discussing it with the Players ahead of time or knowing the preferences of that Player, that they picked a style which is not acceptable to everyone at the table, and now have a point of friction in the group. In which case, it's really on the GM.
I'm not sure it even matters. The point of friction exists, no matter who is responsible.
I still maintain that the point of disagreement - having an undead skeletal PC in the Party, in this setting - is not insurmountable, and that neither the DM's world lore, nor the Player's Character concept needs to be thrown out, just adjusted a miniscule amount.
The only time this actually becomes an insurmountable issue is when egos get involved, and one side, or the other, or both, refuse to budge. At that point - if there really is an irreconcilable difference in the Group, and no one is willing to collaborate or compromise - then the makeup of the Group needs to change.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Maybe meet this guy halfway? Instead of being an undead skeleton maybe create a new warforged/golem like character where he is a construct made of bones and metal which has its own sentience, however warn him that he will be viewed with suspicion if not outright agression unless you he has some way of hiding his form from other people, hell you could have the party mistrust him at first as well.
But if they want to run around openly as undead, then no. And the comments about how it might be better to just ease them out of the group if they're not willing to cooperate or collaborate, still stands.
Well, I think will help me a lot. I will admit however, that I was the one who made him feel entitled to Homebrew characters. When we first started playing, I just had a generic fantasy "anything goes" setting and when he didn't like any of the official races, I told him that in D&D, there's this thing called "Homebrew".
From then on, he has always just made characters with no consideration for the setting (he hears I'm starting a campaign and thinks "I want to play a cyborg who looks like the Terminator and has a gun!"), and when he finds out that neither firearms or cybernetics exist in the campaign world, he tells me "Well, couldn't you just Homebrew it in?".
I don't think kicking him out of the campaign is an option, so I'll try talking to him. Again, thank you all for your advice!
I am of a very iconoclastic view, and diametrically opposed to Vexadent on this issue. This is the game you are willing to run, this is the game world/setting and adventure series you are willing to create and run for your players. A player has only two choices then: create a character that can mesh well with not only the character's his fellows are creating but also mesh well with the genre, world and scenarios as laid out. I cannot play an Everyman style two-fisted NASCAR driver in my friend's 5e game set in the Dalelands and Sembia. That PC does not fit. Neither would a Last Son of Krypton in my last ToA series. It is incumbent on the player to create a PC that fits or he can find another game to play in. Simple.
A DM takes on so much that to demean us as another player at the table is honestly a high insult. It is not dictatorial to establish rules and boundaries. Play, meaningful and not, occurs within boundaries. DMing is a service that we provide to our Players, and most of us happily do it, but a Player should not seek to force the DM to accept anything that they want. Agency refers to what a Player wants his Character to do. It is not restricting Agency when certain options, like playing Undead or Clones of Kryptonians are considered. Or to look at this another way, what if this Player was insisting on playing as a Tier 3 14 Level Cleric in a game where it is stated and agreed that PCs will start at level one. There is no wiggle room here, the Player is flat wrong. Same with the Skeleton.
I have never said run games you are not willing to run, or games you don't personally enjoy, in order to cater to all your Players' whims.
If you don't want to accommodate "two-fisted NASCAR driver in my friend's 5e game set in the Dalelands and Sembia", then don't. Find a middle ground both you and your Players both enjoy, and will work in the setting. If you are incapable of finding a way to accommodate the aspects of the Character concept that actually appeal to the Player - even if you are unwilling to allow the exact incarnation they initially envisioned - then I would judge you suffering from a severe lack of imagination, and I'd question whether you've got what is needed to be a good DM.
In this particular case, that point is moot, as the Player is apparently completely unwilling to compromise, and I've said repeatedly that if they're not willing to collaborate, then they are the problem.
I have never advocated that a Player should "seek to force the DM to accept anything that they want" - in fact I explicitly called that out as rude and unacceptable behavior in a previous post. I am not advocating letting your Players dictate your game to you. I also disagree that you have some inherent right to dictatorially impose a game style on your Players, without regard for your Players' preferences, because you bought the DM's Guide. I am advocating finding ways to make the game work for everyone - Players and DMalike.
Your post is a classic strawman argument. You are objecting to points I have not made, and your reductio ad absurdum counter-examples verge into territory I've said I wouldn't go (unless both me and my Players wanted to go there, in which case there's no issue).
Just for the record, I've also not advocated the DM buy the Players dinner, or pay their mortgages, in case you were going to object to that next.
A DM takes on so much that to demean us as another player at the table is honestly a high insult.
WOW. Just WOW. Do your Players know that you hold them in contempt?! Do you reallythink that the term Player as a demeaning "high insult"? I wouldn't walk away from a table with a DM with a self-aggrandizing ego-laden attitude like that, I'd run.
People who are unwilling to work with the people around them, and attempt to impose their vision on the people around them, for no other reason that "because I F'ing said so", aren't "iconoclastic". They're not rugged individualist hipsters bravely bucking a questionable social convention. They're not groundbreakers. They're dictatorial ********.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I am in agreement with Vedexent on this one, I think that having a sit down and discussion with your player that wants to play something out side of what you had envisioned for your world is a must. that way you can figure out the middle ground.
one thing I did in a campaign was I wanted to play a race that was outside what the DM had intended for us, and so after talking it out with him he tasked me with figuring out how I would work my character as well as my race into the world, their history, lore, and origin, then once I figured that out we discussed it and tweaked it so that it worked for both of us, and the rest of the group.
It has been proven time and time again, that with a little understanding and humility, people can work out most issues and move forward, on the flip side lashing out against someone for not seeing things the way you do will only serve to burn bridges and make people retaliate and not want to have anything to do with you.
Vex, I did not mean to disrespect you. I only used your handle instead of naming someone like Jim Davis from Web DM, who has similar ideas to your posting, because well Mr. Davis didn't post to this thread. I did not intentionally try to represent your viewpoints as "straw men", I only held that I know we have a diametrically opposed view of roles in an RPG. Again, I meant no disrespect.
To me a player is just that, a player. They are the puppeteers of a single doll in a multiverse. A DM is everything else that doll is not, from the wind that caresses a baby's cheek to the unfathomable depths of the ocean to the myriad races and species that populate the world to the unending cosmos and planes above. Even that is not a fully inclusive list.
When I say I consider it an insult to be considered "just" another player at the table, I mean it. My role and responsibility are so much greater that the comparison to a player is laughable. I rankle at the assertion that my work is comparable to the role-playing of the player that insists his Scottish accented Dwarf #9 gets drunk and starts hitting on barmaids.
In my decades of playing TTRPGs, I have lost track of the amount of times a player has lost their character sheet. They only had *one* job! Or, forgotten how a particular part of their character kit works, like simple stuff about how a spell or superpower works, or heck forgotten to bring their dice! Not to mention the times they were late or simply skipped the game because of...stuff. I mean, I am an adult, I know stuff happens, but we are talking about having lame or no excuses and showing up late or ghosting the whole shebang.
But, you know what?
None of that really bothers me. I'll run the game without that player's presence. I'll "derezz" that PC, and wait for the player to show up...or not. They are only handicapping their own experience.
Now, if I the DM pulled any of that, the game cannot go on. I am not only the opposing team, I am the coach, the celebrity announcers, the cheerleaders, the stadium full of fans and the millions watching at home, I am the city that hosts the game, and league that organizes it. I master the lonely starship that cradles that game as it hurtles through the void. Without me...there is no game.
I repeat, there is no game.
Sure, I need players to do their part, but if I am delayed or fail to show up the show cannot go on. They, the players, will drift off and play Titan or something. I am the lynchpin and keystone of the game.
I have read a few statements that some very good players can game without a DM. I challenge this assertion. In these situations, those players as stepping beyond their role as mere players and into the greater role of the DM or game master. They are cooperatively shouldering the responsibility of providing a good game for all. Again, these are not simply players but something greater. On the flip side, I do concur that without the players my role is unfulfilled. As Matt Colville said "If they had fun, I had fun.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hello everyone, I need some advice.
I'm starting a new campaign in a custom setting and my players are in character creation process. One of my players, however, has a tendency to think up a character with complete disregard for the setting's lore and will never use any race that isn't Homebrew. This sometimes works out (for example he was into playing a myconid-esque sentient mushroom when I happened to be running a Ravnica campaign. It sort of fit in with the Golgari). Also, whenever he has a character in mind, he will NOT change it.
This time, he wants to play a sentient, animated, and most annoying of all, good-aligned skeleton. In my world, however, undead are pure evil and universally hated side effects of the presence of Lovecraftian horrors. Not really much room for a friendly skeleton.
Any thoughts on how to convince this player to make a character more along the lines of my world's lore like the rest of my players?
Im new to being dm and dnd in general but it comes down to you and this person sitting down and talking about what you each want out of your game. Some like to have a more casual game while others really get into the universe, at the end of the day it's your game and you have final say. If they refuse to create a character within your set atmosphere then maybe they need to sit this campaign out. If that's not an option then you need to see how willing you are to bend to his will.
First thing.
YOUR starting a new campaign.
Its YOUR world.
Its YOUR setting.
Dont ever forget that part.
If the concept does not fit your setting. It doesnt play on your table.
As said above.
The character concept does fit the setting and campaign.
Work with the DM or find another game.
Talk to the player.
Explain that all characters are required to fit within the LORE of the campaign setting.
Explain that the LORE of the campaign setting is NOT Required to FIT AROUND a players concept.
Then explain that he/she has a choice to make.
Fit the LORE setting and play.
Or find another group.
End of discussion.
NEVER
EVER
#$$#ING EVER
Change your setting to such an extent that your SETTING no longer resembles any basis of originality to simply suit a players latest character concept.
In my current home brew west march campaign ... 7 games in ... with a cast of 6 players ... within the HUMAN dominated and controlled kingdom of Aurelius ..
NON Humans are rare. Dwarfs are seen as relics of a fallen culture ... and ELVES are distrusted if not outright hated.
One player wanted to play a Goliath blood hunter. I explained that yes i am willing to incorporate blood hunter home brew character class into the campaign.
However , they are in effect WITCHERS from the WITCH PC GAME SERIES. They are distrusted at best , and feared by the common and elites of the Kingdom at worst.
Add to that your a NON HUMAN 2 meter tall muscle bound oath from the mountains , across a far sea , your arrival within the kingdom at one of the Port cities was greated with ...
Fear , distrust , hate , racism , refused services , unlawful arrests for just being....
Most communities simply WONT allow a Goliath to walk past the outer gates of a walled town or city.
Another player is playing a Druid of the circle of spores ... wearing bone armor .... in a campaign were MAGIC and NECROMANCY is feared , if not outlawed outright ...
So using willy nilly leads to consequences.
But if you wanted to play a mushroom wizard hybrid my answer is No. That doesnt exist within this world. Neither the Race nor the class.
Want to play an undead lich ? No. They do exist... but i am not having one within the campaign because the setting does not allow for it.
DOnt like it.... Not .. my... problem.
:)
I wouldn't go quite as hard as previously suggested.
I'm of the opinion that that GM doesn't own the game, so much as it is a group collaboration. HOWEVER, that said the GM is still a Player, and everyone has to be happy with the collaboration. If you're not happy incorporating what they want to play into the game you want to run, you should not be playing with it in the mix.
Adding new elements and new classes puts most ( if not all ) of the work on the GM - so it's rude to bring whatever you want to the table, and have the expectation that the GM has a obligation to adapt to your wants.
In this case, I'd probably say something along the lines of "It's an interesting concept, but I don't have the time to put in the work to change everything I've already created for this campaign, in order to try and fit your concept into it".
I agree that there are types of Players - and types of GMs - that just aren't compatible with one another. I hate to say it, but it doesn't sound from your OP that this Player's style, and your style, are a good fit. I might not go so far as booting them - yet ( although I've had to do it in the past, personally ) - but if you haven't already had a sit down with your Players and had the discussion about the kind of game you want to run, and find out the game they want to play ( the so-called Session Zero ), and find out where they overlap ( or if they overlap ), then you need to do that now.
If you've had that discussion, then this Player is ignoring that, and you need to remind them of what they agreed to.
If they won't abide by that agreement - then I'd just ease them out of the group ( or, stick them in the GM seat for a one shot, and let them see what the workload and balancing Players is really like :p ).
Edit: The real problem here isn't the class choice they're trying to play. The real problem is their attitude, expectations, and - apparent, from your OP - unwillingness to collaborate with the group.
If they're not willing to change those - you're better off not having them in the group.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I would let him play the skeleton, but give his character the same weakness as a skeleton, i.e. vulnerability to bludgeoning damage, can't read or speak, disadvantage on perception relying on smell or touch, and is constantly wondering if it's still under the control of the one who raised it from the dead or free from their master's control. Don't forget this last paragraph of the monster entry on MM pg 272: "When Skeletons encounter living creatures, the necromantic energy that [animates] them compels them to kill unless they are commanded by their master to refrain from doing so. They attack without mercy and fight until destroyed for they possess little sens of self and even less sense of self-control."
I don't see how he could last more than one session.
"Sorry buddy, that doesn't fit into the campaign. How about a good aligned sentient construct instead? No? Ok, you can sit this campaign out, I'll let you know when we start the next one..."
More Interesting Lock Picking Rules
To play the devil's advocate here ( even against my own post ), is their concept to play a skeleton openly (in which case: yeah, good luck with that)?
Or is their character concept to play a "sentient, animated, and most annoying of all, good-aligned skeleton", who is (magically?) disguised and tries to pass themselves off as a normal humanoid character? That spin on it, might work, even if undead are the "universally hated side effects of the presence of Lovecraftian horrors" - if their Character is sane, sentient, and "good", and yet still animated undead. You'd need some "in world" explanation as to why they are different ( although the Character themselves might not know why).
Characters with secret identities, where they live in mortal fear of being discovered, isn't exactly totally new, nor totally unworkable territory.
Spinning it that way doesn't mean you have to change your world, or you lore - and allows them to preserve most of their original Character concept, so long as they are willing to accept the danger of being discovered and destroyed.
Just a thought.
But if they want to run around openly as undead, then no. And the comments about how it might be better to just ease them out of the group if they're not willing to cooperate or collaborate, still stands.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
All I will say is while it is true the DM does not own the game, the fact is that they're putting in a disproportionately high amount of time into the game and they're responsible for the narrative. While they might be another player, they are not just another player. That said, maybe let the player be an animated skeleton. But as it was said: there are consequences to that. People might be frightened by his appearance, so how can he get around that challenge? He has to wear a full body disguise, right? Well, what if the characters go to dinner at a powerful noble's estate and they're expected to take off their hoods and masks and heavy clothes. How do you get around that?
As for why is he a good skeleton? Well, it could be some accident that caused his personality and spirit to fuse to his bones when they got eldritched into a evil being. Maybe all skeletons still have their old consciousnesses trapped in the construct, but for some reason his retained control. Maybe he's not a skeleton at all, and is instead ... like a character from a certain D&D computer game, is just something that resembles a skeleton.
But if you think the player needs to be handled, maybe talk to him. But maybe he doesn't like D&D without playing some ridiculous race for novelty. Everyone is a bit different, right?
I agree with all of that :) My point was that - in my opinion, and table - the DM doesn't have dictatorial control, either. There's a middle ground between ruling the table with an iron hand, and allowing in any casual nonsense the Player manages to create or dig up on the Internet.
I also think it's not the DM's job to figure out the solutions to the problems the Players create for themselves. The most the DM is responsible for there is to explain to the Player the complications that their Character choices will create for them (in case the Player didn't understand all the in-world implications). After that, it's up to the Player to manage, if they elect to stay with that choice.
I have that in my current game, where my wife wanted to play a Drow shadow monk. I explained how and why Drow are not well received in the Forgotten Realms, and she chose to roll with it, and use it as a prompt for role playing. It hasn't always been easy for her, but she's rolling with it.
If the DM has pointed out that the choice is lethal ( undead are universally hated, feared, and destroyed on sight, and the Player has elected to eschew disguise and have an openly undead character ) ... well, good luck with that :p
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
^ At the same time, no point setting a player up for inevitable failure. It could totally derail the storyline and make the whole play about this one character (who, potentially, will be unplayable anyway), which will alienate the other players.
It's not "dictatorial" to set limits on the characters that can be made - it would be if the DM said "you're a <race>, <class>, <etc.>".
With caveat that this is all how I see the Game/Social Contract of the Group. Your Mileage May Vary...
It's not dictatorial to put limits on the campaign, based on Player preferences - and the DM is one of those Players, and has their own preferences. Determining what those are is what Session Zero is for.
It does betray a dictatorial GM bent when someone says "MY campaign, MY world, MY setting, MY game". The implication being that the DM will unilaterally determine what goes into the game, and that Players should bloody well tow the line.
However, I think that's getting waaaaay down into the theoretical weeds.
In this particular case it sounds like there was a decent effort to communicate/create the type of setting to the Players ahead of Character creation ( or at least nothing to contradict that ).
If the Player is ignoring that - if they're unwilling to collaberate or compromise - then there's a huge problem. That's not only a problem for their Character or the Campaign, that's a problem for the Group to have to deal with. The GM and the Player will keep butting heads over and over, over many different issues, in the future. Either the Player changes their approach, or you ease them out.
If the Player is willing to work their Character concept into the limits of the world ( see the post above regarding how you could keep the Campaign setting unchanged, and give them their entire undead Character concept, with a disguise thrown over it ), and they accept the consequences, then I don't see why any practiced GM couldn't run with it. If that Character runs a risk of failure, then - too bad - they chose that. Failure can still be satisfying if you're a Narrativist type of Player. If their failure "derail[s] the storyline and make[s] the whole play about this one character, which ... alienate[s] the other players", then that's on the GM. Spotlight, attention, story, and table management is GM'ing 101.
If the GM can work the Character concept into the world, with alterations, and without breaking the Setting, or having to throw away the work they've done to date, and they choose not to, because it violates how they see the Game unfolding, then it's just become a GM/Player pissing contest, and it's the GM which is the problem as they try and maintain their "artistic integrity".
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Literally what you are saying here , i agree with whole heartedly.
For me , the Game world i have created the back drop for in our campaign , is a mixed collaboration between 7 people.
Most of the background lore for the different factions has come about due to player character creation and background exploration during that creation process.
Ie: War Cleric Dwarf : Created the family name for his Noble House ... which led to the creation of the House Leader , council , important NPCS of that Household ,
The two additional Houses and the idea they all act under the auspice of one house's direction forming the official CLAN.
House A + House B + House C = Clan named after House C ( the ruling household ).
Alot of the background filler for our campaign world came from a series of session zero's with individual players , before the campaign world was to my liking , and done so in such a way that the other players felt they had a vested and interested stake in the campaign and its world lore.
Does the campaign require collaboration between DM and Players .. yes.
However , If i invite you to dinner , if i put on all the food , purchase the drinks etc ... and stipulate that attire is black and white ( Suits basically ) and you arrive in board shorts because that is how your role YO! ... your not welcome at this dinner. And you can leave.
That said , if i talk to you and a few friends about organizing a dinner , and you mention a more casual afternoon bbq would be more interest to you ... then its up to me to choose to accommodate you to gain your attendance or still go with my original idea of a more up market setting so to speak.
LOL - I think we have a lot of people here that essentially agree on many of the larger points - but we're kicking the minutiae around ;)
Again, this is all just my take on it, etc. etc. ......
I suspect we're using the term Session Zero in different ways. You seem to be using it as an origin session you have with the Player, before their Characters are integrated into the larger Party and the Adventure, and you're using a lot of the trimmings and results of those 1:1 sessions to fill in background lore of the world, and help make your Players feel connected to the world (if I understand correctly). That's a really good approach, IMHO.
However, I'm using Session Zero to mean a general discussion, outside of any play or character creation, about the social contract for the group, the stylistic preferences of the Players, and the types of fun that the Players enjoy, for that particular group. See here for a more detailed post on what I like to stuff into Session Zero (although it is always evolving, and I emphasize different points than I did then, but it's a good place to start).
To leverage your metaphor, my Session Zero is like starting a discussion with your friends along the lines of "hey, we should all get together for a dinner party. What kind of soiree does everyone feel like having"? Where you are deciding you want a Black & White dinner, and then deciding if you want to invite someone because they like BBQ better, I'm trying to discover what kind of party ( or parties, plural ) would work for the group as a whole, before I start doing any party planning. You're keeping control of the party planning tight to your chest, and while I am kind of am doing that as well ( for example, if I find out that everyone would be happy with a Black & White dinner, and everyone would also be totally fine with a Hawaiian Luau, and also would enjoy having an Oktoberfest style festival, I'll cast the deciding vote and choose the one I like best ), I don't go into the Session Zero with a new group, with a pre-conception of the type of game we're having ( or dinner Party we're having ); I let the discussion sketch out the possibilities first.
It absolutely may turn out to be the case that there is no common ground. All the game options or party styles are hated by someone in the circle of friends. That happens. Those people shouldn't all be trying to have dinner together at once, and that group should not be playing an RPG together. It may turn out that everyone else wants to have a cheese fondue Party (or a 70s style string of dungeon crawls), and I hate that - in which case I shouldn't be hosting that party ( or GM'ing for those people ). But I would argue that I discover that up front, and that if there's a style which is acceptable to everyone (including me) that we discover that up front as well. We don't go down the path of picking a dinner party ( or Campaign ) style up front, and then having to wedge Player(s) into the Game which just don't fit (or kicking them out).
I'm also not sure that it's the case that you're putting on all the food, purchasing the drinks, etc. Or - at least - you don't have to. It's undeniable that the GM has a disproportionately large share of the workload in creating material for the game, but I cannot count the times I've taken inspiration from what the Players have developed in the course of their play, or outright stolen bits out of their whacky Player theories. This dinner party is at least partly pot-luck. Besides, I run games because I like running the game, and I like writing the material. I don't think I'm atypical in that. So - can we really claim some sort of right-of-control-by-virtue-of-work for the fun we get out of preparing the game? If you're the kind of person who likes putting on fancy dinners, can you really lord the amount of work it takes to organize the party over your friends (especially if they're chipping in for the drinks and food as well), since you're doing something you enjoy?
I don't know enough about the OP's situation to be 100% sure if they communicated their expectations clearly enough to the group, that everyone agreed ( at least tacitly ), and the Player is now back-pedalling and being a pain in the ass. It's also possible that they all had a sit down discussion about the kind of game they wanted it to be, and the Player is now back-pedalling and being a pain in the ass. They might actually be showing up to the party in board shorts, when they knew full well it was a Black & White dinner, in which case they're in the wrong.
It's also possible that the GM went in with expectations of ownership of the style of the game - what I've been dubbing a "dictatorial GM bent" - without discussing it with the Players ahead of time or knowing the preferences of that Player, that they picked a style which is not acceptable to everyone at the table, and now have a point of friction in the group. In which case, it's really on the GM.
I'm not sure it even matters. The point of friction exists, no matter who is responsible.
I still maintain that the point of disagreement - having an undead skeletal PC in the Party, in this setting - is not insurmountable, and that neither the DM's world lore, nor the Player's Character concept needs to be thrown out, just adjusted a miniscule amount.
The only time this actually becomes an insurmountable issue is when egos get involved, and one side, or the other, or both, refuse to budge. At that point - if there really is an irreconcilable difference in the Group, and no one is willing to collaborate or compromise - then the makeup of the Group needs to change.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Maybe meet this guy halfway? Instead of being an undead skeleton maybe create a new warforged/golem like character where he is a construct made of bones and metal which has its own sentience, however warn him that he will be viewed with suspicion if not outright agression unless you he has some way of hiding his form from other people, hell you could have the party mistrust him at first as well.
He does in fact want to play openly as undead.
Well, I think will help me a lot. I will admit however, that I was the one who made him feel entitled to Homebrew characters. When we first started playing, I just had a generic fantasy "anything goes" setting and when he didn't like any of the official races, I told him that in D&D, there's this thing called "Homebrew".
From then on, he has always just made characters with no consideration for the setting (he hears I'm starting a campaign and thinks "I want to play a cyborg who looks like the Terminator and has a gun!"), and when he finds out that neither firearms or cybernetics exist in the campaign world, he tells me "Well, couldn't you just Homebrew it in?".
I don't think kicking him out of the campaign is an option, so I'll try talking to him. Again, thank you all for your advice!
I am of a very iconoclastic view, and diametrically opposed to Vexadent on this issue. This is the game you are willing to run, this is the game world/setting and adventure series you are willing to create and run for your players. A player has only two choices then: create a character that can mesh well with not only the character's his fellows are creating but also mesh well with the genre, world and scenarios as laid out. I cannot play an Everyman style two-fisted NASCAR driver in my friend's 5e game set in the Dalelands and Sembia. That PC does not fit. Neither would a Last Son of Krypton in my last ToA series. It is incumbent on the player to create a PC that fits or he can find another game to play in. Simple.
A DM takes on so much that to demean us as another player at the table is honestly a high insult. It is not dictatorial to establish rules and boundaries. Play, meaningful and not, occurs within boundaries. DMing is a service that we provide to our Players, and most of us happily do it, but a Player should not seek to force the DM to accept anything that they want. Agency refers to what a Player wants his Character to do. It is not restricting Agency when certain options, like playing Undead or Clones of Kryptonians are considered. Or to look at this another way, what if this Player was insisting on playing as a Tier 3 14 Level Cleric in a game where it is stated and agreed that PCs will start at level one. There is no wiggle room here, the Player is flat wrong. Same with the Skeleton.
I have never said run games you are not willing to run, or games you don't personally enjoy, in order to cater to all your Players' whims.
If you don't want to accommodate "two-fisted NASCAR driver in my friend's 5e game set in the Dalelands and Sembia", then don't. Find a middle ground both you and your Players both enjoy, and will work in the setting. If you are incapable of finding a way to accommodate the aspects of the Character concept that actually appeal to the Player - even if you are unwilling to allow the exact incarnation they initially envisioned - then I would judge you suffering from a severe lack of imagination, and I'd question whether you've got what is needed to be a good DM.
In this particular case, that point is moot, as the Player is apparently completely unwilling to compromise, and I've said repeatedly that if they're not willing to collaborate, then they are the problem.
I have never advocated that a Player should "seek to force the DM to accept anything that they want" - in fact I explicitly called that out as rude and unacceptable behavior in a previous post. I am not advocating letting your Players dictate your game to you. I also disagree that you have some inherent right to dictatorially impose a game style on your Players, without regard for your Players' preferences, because you bought the DM's Guide. I am advocating finding ways to make the game work for everyone - Players and DM alike.
Your post is a classic strawman argument. You are objecting to points I have not made, and your reductio ad absurdum counter-examples verge into territory I've said I wouldn't go (unless both me and my Players wanted to go there, in which case there's no issue).
Just for the record, I've also not advocated the DM buy the Players dinner, or pay their mortgages, in case you were going to object to that next.
WOW. Just WOW. Do your Players know that you hold them in contempt?! Do you really think that the term Player as a demeaning "high insult"? I wouldn't walk away from a table with a DM with a self-aggrandizing ego-laden attitude like that, I'd run.
People who are unwilling to work with the people around them, and attempt to impose their vision on the people around them, for no other reason that "because I F'ing said so", aren't "iconoclastic". They're not rugged individualist hipsters bravely bucking a questionable social convention. They're not groundbreakers. They're dictatorial ********.
That's not just D&D, that's life.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I am in agreement with Vedexent on this one, I think that having a sit down and discussion with your player that wants to play something out side of what you had envisioned for your world is a must. that way you can figure out the middle ground.
one thing I did in a campaign was I wanted to play a race that was outside what the DM had intended for us, and so after talking it out with him he tasked me with figuring out how I would work my character as well as my race into the world, their history, lore, and origin, then once I figured that out we discussed it and tweaked it so that it worked for both of us, and the rest of the group.
It has been proven time and time again, that with a little understanding and humility, people can work out most issues and move forward, on the flip side lashing out against someone for not seeing things the way you do will only serve to burn bridges and make people retaliate and not want to have anything to do with you.
Vex, I did not mean to disrespect you. I only used your handle instead of naming someone like Jim Davis from Web DM, who has similar ideas to your posting, because well Mr. Davis didn't post to this thread. I did not intentionally try to represent your viewpoints as "straw men", I only held that I know we have a diametrically opposed view of roles in an RPG. Again, I meant no disrespect.
To me a player is just that, a player. They are the puppeteers of a single doll in a multiverse. A DM is everything else that doll is not, from the wind that caresses a baby's cheek to the unfathomable depths of the ocean to the myriad races and species that populate the world to the unending cosmos and planes above. Even that is not a fully inclusive list.
When I say I consider it an insult to be considered "just" another player at the table, I mean it. My role and responsibility are so much greater that the comparison to a player is laughable. I rankle at the assertion that my work is comparable to the role-playing of the player that insists his Scottish accented Dwarf #9 gets drunk and starts hitting on barmaids.
In my decades of playing TTRPGs, I have lost track of the amount of times a player has lost their character sheet. They only had *one* job! Or, forgotten how a particular part of their character kit works, like simple stuff about how a spell or superpower works, or heck forgotten to bring their dice! Not to mention the times they were late or simply skipped the game because of...stuff. I mean, I am an adult, I know stuff happens, but we are talking about having lame or no excuses and showing up late or ghosting the whole shebang.
But, you know what?
None of that really bothers me. I'll run the game without that player's presence. I'll "derezz" that PC, and wait for the player to show up...or not. They are only handicapping their own experience.
Now, if I the DM pulled any of that, the game cannot go on. I am not only the opposing team, I am the coach, the celebrity announcers, the cheerleaders, the stadium full of fans and the millions watching at home, I am the city that hosts the game, and league that organizes it. I master the lonely starship that cradles that game as it hurtles through the void. Without me...there is no game.
I repeat, there is no game.
Sure, I need players to do their part, but if I am delayed or fail to show up the show cannot go on. They, the players, will drift off and play Titan or something. I am the lynchpin and keystone of the game.
I have read a few statements that some very good players can game without a DM. I challenge this assertion. In these situations, those players as stepping beyond their role as mere players and into the greater role of the DM or game master. They are cooperatively shouldering the responsibility of providing a good game for all. Again, these are not simply players but something greater. On the flip side, I do concur that without the players my role is unfulfilled. As Matt Colville said "If they had fun, I had fun.