This is not the first article to be written on this subject, nor will it be the last.
In my experience, there are two kinds of DM’s.
One is concerned with “balance,” the other with “fun.”
For the record, this is not me complaining that I was never allowed to try my crazy idea for a half-orc fighter/barbarian with a spiked chain, and massively exploit the attack of opportunity rules. (Author’s note: I never actually saw the appeal in anything that full of cheese, though I gather it was popular with a certain brand of player. I was, however, sorely tempted to try a half-orc wizard, just to go against the grain.)
This is, however, the result of being long exhausted with being told ‘no’ by several DMs for no better reason than, “it isn’t in the book,” or, “Company X didn’t update that one, so it’s not allowed at my table.”
Let me illustrate my point with a story.
I’ve been invited to play in a game of Pathfinder or two. The system isn’t my favorite, but I have some small nostalgia for 3.5 edition as it was what started me off in D&D, so I went for a couple of one-shots and tried to like it. I wrestled with the character creation process for far too long, developing two concepts that I felt I could live with.
The problem was, by this point, I’d been exposed to a lengthy conversation in which one of the other players tried to explain to me why he prefers Pathfinder to 4th Edition in a failed attempt to “convert” me, and vice-versa. The more he said what he liked about the one over the other, the less likable it seemed. Building the character wasn’t fun. The concept was full of cheese. I wasn’t looking forward to the game anymore.
Finally, I threw up my hands. In an effort to salvage my chance to have fun for the evening, I went to the DM for the session and explained my position very politely; that there was really only one class that I wanted to play, and it was from a 3.5 book. I was perfectly happy to convert it using Paizo’s official 3.5 to Pathfinder conversion guide, and the work required would be minimal (it basically came down to raising the hit-die by one to match precedent with the core classes).
Were I the DM for the game, I hope I would have answered with what I believe is the correct response to something like this. “I’ll let you try it, and if it creates a problem for anyone at the table we’ll talk about it afterward and see what we can change to make it work.”
Instead, I was given a sneer, a half laugh, and told that there was “a reason” that Paizo hadn’t updated that particular class. A flat no.
The fact that they didn’t OWN it occurred to me immediately; that was why there were conversion rules, after all. It didn’t matter.
It was at this point that I gave up, and decided that I’d rather not play at his table. Maybe that was the wrong answer; I don’t know. But I wasn’t having fun anymore. I came to play a game; to have fun. Nothing about this experience was enjoyable. I was momentarily tempted to give up D&D entirely, to say nothing of Pathfinder. What is a game if it isn’t fun?
I’ll answer for you, gentle readers; it’s work. And unpaid work, on top of that.
For the record, I’ve recovered my love of the game now, though it will take a lot of placating and outright bribery to convince me to sit down at a Pathfinder table again – and never with that DM!
Now, let me tell a second story, just to make it clear what I’m not trying to say.
I was DMing a game of 3.5 edition D&D a few years ago, and one of the players showed up and informed me that his character was a 3rd Level Blood Elf Fighter who Dual Wielded Katanas.
At this point in my life, I had no idea what a “Blood Elf” was, but considering how much material for the game I’d fairly devoured, I was reasonably sure it wasn’t D&D. I also knew enough to know that dual wielding katanas was a really, REALLY bad idea in terms of game mechanics. I tried, gently, to dissuade him.
He insisted; I relented (against my better judgement). He got himself into a fight – a very angry one – with our 1st level dwarven wizard, who, after winning initiative, ended things with one spell. Knocked him out, tied him up, and sat on his head.
The game fell apart after that, and I suspect that it might have lasted longer if I’d been smart enough to put my foot down and say no in the first place.
As a DM, there is a time for yes, and a time for no. Knowing which is which can be all important. Everyone has guidelines. These are mine.
1. If a player asks to play a character of a class that I’m not familiar with – and it’s because he thought the concept sounded cool, not a mechanical reason – and there’s no philosophical reason why it can’t be made to work in a diverse and accepting group of adventurers …
I’ll say, “let’s try it out. If it turns out to be too powerful and it’s spoiling the fun for the rest of the group, we’ll talk about it afterward and see if we can fix it. But whatever I say during that discussion is the final word.”
This also applies if a player asks to convert something from a mechanically similar game system.
2. If a player asks me if he can play a half-orc spiked chain wielder or a greatsword guy with sneak attack or a Barbarian/Rogue or any number of other cheesy ideas and cites purely mechanical reasons for wanting to do so, I will say, “no. Come up with something that has a backstory and a little more character, and stop reading the Character Optimization threads online.”
3. If a player likes the fluff of one class and the mechanics of another and can’t choose, I’ll offer to let her combine them, adjusting key abilities as necessary. And I’ll probably go so far as to tell her how cool that is for thinking outside the book.
4. If I EVER hear the phrase, “dual katana’s” again, I will say, “NO. At least have the decency to get a wakizashi, and learn about samurai before you mention the word “katana” in my presence again.”
One final word: you needn’t give your players everything they ask for. But try to know when they’re already struggling to have fun, and work with them. Please. They’ll thank you for it.
Jonathan Baldwin
Jonathan is a firm believer that the best way to make friends is to game with them, and that nearly any problem can be surmounted with a well rolled d20 and a sense of humor. Regrettably, his professors do not agree with him, which leaves him with the challenge of balancing his gaming habits with his studies. Profile Page / Article Portfolio
‘If I EVER hear the phrase, “dual katana’s” again, I will say, “NO. At least have the decency to get a wakizashi, and learn about samurai before you mention the word “katana” in my presence again.” ‘
Hahahaha. True words. You do have to strike a balance. (Though my very first character had dual katanas…. >.> <.< )
Excellent article Jonathan.
Over the past couple of years I’ve been putting a lot of work into saying “yes” to the players in my group and so far we’ve had a lot of success with it, and a lot of fun. One bit of advice I’d give players out there; if you enjoy a GM who says “yes”, try and meet him half-way and keep your requests “reasonable”. The only thing I hate worse than saying “no” to a player is saying “yes” and having a campaign come undone because I didn’t go with my gut.
Once again, great article. Can’t wait to read more!
Thanks, guys. Glad you’re enjoying – more to come. 🙂
The funny thing about this particular group is that they don’t want to allow outside books (because they might “break” something, ostensibly), but their entire play style seems to center around finding the most broken way possible to play with the classes they already have. Which would be fine, I guess, except that I’m not interested in multi-classing like mad, gaming for bonuses, or otherwise playing the system – I just want one class that looks like it would be fun from level 1 to level 20, and a simple concept that doesn’t make me want to bang my head against the wall.
Evidently, this makes me their worst nightmare.
The other amusing thing about it is that they embrace the kind of stuff that I would be more likely to say ‘no’ to at an otherwise far more open table (rogues with greatswords sneak attacking on a charge? Um, okay then? Surprisingly legal by RAW. At least it isn’t dual katanas.) and then tell me that 4th Edition is a “glorified miniatures game” . . . which is how their game of Pathfinder feels to me. I think it’s a DMing problem, not a game problem.
. . . But, to each their own, I suppose. 😉
@Andy: don’t worry about it too much, I used to think dual katanas would be awesome, too. Of course, if I were to try something like that, I’d actually invest in two-weapon fighting feats! This guy . . . didn’t. He was netting like a -10 on every attack, which compensated neatly for the cheese in the concept.
@John, it sounds like I would enjoy gaming at your table. You’re dead on about the player’s responsibility in the equation; don’t take advantage of a generous DM! If he’s willing to meet you halfway, be willing to meet him halfway.
That reminds me, I’ve been wanting to play a full daisho wielding ronin type. I’m thinking in Pathfinder a Tian Ranger might do the trick.
I think any game runs on the strength of the DM and players and what they can come up with. I hear so much about the 4E ‘miniatures’ game that I really want to run it just so I can run a story based game with it.
@DarkTouch:
Ranger would probably be a good approach in either system, actually – worst case scenario, burn a feat on the Katana/Bastard Sword proficiency and put a refluffed shortsword in your off-hand. If you can get it through a background trait, so much the better.
I came to the conclusion awhile ago that D&D – any system – is as story driven as you make it. And the people around here who make the argument that 4th Edition is miniatures focused and combat focused seem to play Pathfinder as a grind between combats with miniatures centric tactics and never notice the logical disconnect in their argument. . .
And you’re absolutely right – the DM and players make the game. Without them, D&D doesn’t exist. D&D isn’t the books, it isn’t the system, it isn’t the miniatures or the dice – it’s an elusive kind of magic that happens when a good DM sits down with the books and dice and pencils with a good group of players, and everyone has fun. It’s not the system; it’s the game.
@Jonathan:
You are absolutely correct; any game is a story-driven game if that’s what you and your players want to get out of it. Some games are structured in such a way that they aren’t required to be story-driven but that shouldn’t be a hinderance for any group that decides to put story first.
As a side note. I’ve come to the conclusion that playing in a great game is less about the rules, system, and genre and a whole lot more about playing with people who are looking for the same kind of experience that you are. If you are a story-focused player find a story-focused GM and group. Whatever the experience you seek, if you look around you’ll find a compatable group.
@John Lewis
Compatible group is a big factor; the system itself isn’t as important as knowing how to keep it out of the way. A few of the games I’ve tried, I spent most of the game actively fighting the system in order to forcibly extract fun from the experience. Granted, most of them were run by this particular group, so it’s more likely to be that than the system itself. . . but I get a similar feeling when reading most 3.X sourcebooks. I feel like the crunch bleeds too far into the fluff and somewhere in the resulting mess the fluff tends to die a slow and painful death. It’s a gut reaction I get now when I read any new 3.X material that presents class features or spells.
Don’t get me wrong, I like crunch – but I want the crunch of the system to support the fluff, not negate it. If I play a magic user, I want him to feel . . . well, magical! In 4e, it’s a lot easier for me to just play the fluff if that’s what I want, and let the descriptions and concepts create the character I’m looking for.
In Mutants and Masterminds, the process is initially more intense mechanically (a point based creation system will do that), but the flexibility of the result runs like a dream. I’m a huge fan of Hero Points/Power Stunts and the innovation they foster. Hmm, I smell another possible article . . . 🙂
Jonathan, have you seen first-hand any of the games using the FATE system? (Spirit of the Century, Dresden Files, Legends of Anglerre, Strands of Fate) Good emphasis on storytelling and a soft-mechanic that has enough structure to support your game without overly intruding. Sounds like it would be right up your alley…
@Colin Dowling:
I will admit, FATE is on my to-try list. I had a few minutes awhile back to glance through the Dresden Files sourcebook, and as soon as I saw “Free System” next to a URL, I was intrigued. 🙂 I also keep wanting to try RISUS for similar reasons. I’ve spent a lot of time looking through the RISUS PDFs toying with ideas. I just keep getting pulled back in by the games I’m already using.
That said, I actually really like the crunch of d20 as a whole, particularly where character creation is concerned – I just don’t like the way it takes center stage for some players who seem to enjoy constant bookkeeping (3.x vancian spellcasters, shopping for precise game breaking combinations of magic items, siding with mechanical benefit over flavor…) and pretending that their dislike of splatbooks and the fun classes they offer makes them better than me somehow. I want to have fun, and the core classes in 3.x make being a spellcaster more like a job. Even my buddy (a part time Pathfinder apologist) has recently told me that playing the party wizard is too much work, and watching him painstakingly select spells makes it clear why – it looks like homework. I can’t imagine doing that without a spreadsheet or something, and I’d call that a bad sign.
A few non-martial classes in 3.x did that okay for my needs, all from splatbooks (Warlock, Shadowcaster, Swordsage…). 4e mostly does that for me (especially post Essentials) and M&M is great at it. But there is something really appealing about RISUS and the notion that your idea for a character… IS the character. On the one hand, I actually enjoy making characters for M&M/D&D 4e. On the other, building a character in RISUS takes about 10 seconds. 🙂
The other system on my list is d20 modern, if I can ever think of a compelling reason to use it over, say, M&M – or a refluffed 4th Edition.
But thanks for the reminder! I may have to move up my attempts to try FATE. And RISUS, too. 🙂