How strict is too strict?

[Knaight]

I dunno, one of the most enjoyable, and certainly longest-lasting games I've ever played was random *everything*. Race, class, stats, personality, fears, background, the whole kit and kaboodle.

I'm totally fine with random everything, but it's the sort of thing that's good to know going in, especially if you have good reason to believe that it won't be the case - such as the game's default rules being nonrandom.

[Coidzor]

I dunno, one of the most enjoyable, and certainly longest-lasting games I've ever played was random *everything*. Race, class, stats, personality, fears, background, the whole kit and kaboodle.

Oh, it can be, as long as it's communicated at the right time and in the right way. "Let's do random game for ****s and giggles," contains the premise and much of the explanation for it right there.

It's not a matter of what's "right" or "wrong". It's ways of playing a game.

Ehh... Violating the "don't be a ****" axiom is fairly wrong as far as things go. Other than that though, yeah, people is people and preferences vary.

Also, random backgrounds. Great for people who want them, not something that should ever be forced on people, even in the sense of "highly encouraged". Kind of insulting, actually - you're telling people "Even if you had a back-story in mind, your ideas are worse than random output, so I'd prefer not to hear them."

That's mostly a matter of presentation, I think. "I got a new X and it came with this set of random background tables, and I thought it'd be neat if we all tried them out" is worlds away from "Random backgrounds (because I don't want to talk to you about them at all but also don't want to say that backstory is completely irrelevant)"

[kyoryu]

Oh, it can be, as long as it's communicated at the right time and in the right way. "Let's do random game for ****s and giggles," contains the premise and much of the explanation for it right there.

*shrug*. The game I referred to was actually a pretty serious one.

Random *can* be done well, even in the context of a serious game. It's not the only way to run games, of course, but I don't really see anything inherently evil about it.

[Aedilred]

...You are aware of how the game works, right? It's not escalation to use casters against casters. It's more keeping parity.

It's escalation to try to balance a half-caster party by making it all-caster, which was being discussed at the time I first raised it.

Also, what non-caster players? We were specifically talking about the all-caster party at that point.

There aren't any, which is the point. The theory seemed to be "it's unfair to make people play non-casters since that makes the party internally unbalanced" with the apparent solution being that people who would otherwise have played non-casters play casters instead. The non-caster players have been exterminated with extreme prejudice.

But, hey, let's go back to how to deal with the 2 non-casters who are feeling overshadowed by the 2 casters in the party. You'll note that there are a number of proposed measures floating around that address this and that limiting the party to 2 casters is already in effect and not effective.

We have no idea whether this was effective in this game or not. Do we even know what the other two casters were?

You'll recall that saying only Derek and Jasmine are able to play casters isn't exactly a solution, per se. It's, at best, a kludge or at worst a gentleman's agreement that only extends to those two members of the group. If you're openly but indirectly telling the rest of the group that you don't trust them, things have gotten to a place of decidedly undesirable GM-Player dynamic.

While I think it could have been handled better (albeit we don't know the full context of when sign-ups happened and blah blah) I don't think a restriction on the number of casters in the party is inherently unfair, unreasonable or a failure at solving the problem. It just needs a better way of determining who those players are.

Level of optimization hasn't even been brought up until now in this thread as far as I have seen. If you're talking about the proposal to limit casters for reasons not viewed as legitimate, well, I don't think you're quite grasping why the reasoning is viewed as illegitimate if this is your response.

No, I was thinking of the general anti-stats-rolling thing there.

Are you trying to pull a Bugs Bunny & Daffy Duck Duck Season vs. Rabbit Season thing over here? Because you're the one on the side arguing in favor of the position that's arguing that caster = game-breaking munchkin and in favor of limiting the number of casters allowed to the players lest they be irresponsible children and break the game/campaign.

Everything I've said on this point has been in response to the position (which I was not originally involved in advancing) that casters are inherently unbalancing to the party dynamic and that therefore restricting the numbers was unfair - which I presume, although I admit to using OOC knowledge on this one from the million billion previous threads on the subject and am not drawing my conclusions solely from this thread - is because they're easy to abuse in the hands of a player inclined to abuse them, and the default attitude in the Playground is that casters rule, all other classes drool as a consequence.

[Pex]

When we got together I found out that we could only roll for stats (and no rerolls)

Ok DM.

presumably to prevent minmaxing,

Bad DM. There's nothing wrong with min/maxing. A character should be competent at what he does.

that I couldn't play the class I wanted (Oracle) because there was a 2 caster limit on the party and those slots were filled (caster defined here as anything that gets above 4th level spells),

Neutral, lean bad DM. It's the player's character, not the DM's. The player has his own responsibility. If the campaign is about the holy order of goody two-shoes, then bad on the player for wanting to play a pirate ninja assassin and getting in a huff when told he can't. However, it should not be up to the DM what the make up of the party is. Players should play what they want while being reasonable.

and that rolling your backgrounds using the random background tables was "heavily encouraged" to prevent "special snowflake" characters.

Bad DM. It's not up to the DM to determine how a character should be roleplayed. Using the term "special snowflake" rings of control-freak.

I might not have quit right then, but I would have warning signs. I would play a session or two to see how the game plays out. I would be miffed I couldn't play the character I first wanted but would make do with another. If the DM keeps telling me "Thou Shalt Not" in character creation and play, I would respond "Thou Aren't My DM".

[BWR]

I think you still don't get what a "special snowflake" is.

Consider Lord of the Rings, okay? The main characters are pretty special, no doubt about that. Frodo is certainly special compared to the usual sort of hobbit. Aragorn is extremely special compared to... pretty much all other human beings in the world. Gandalf is special compared to pretty much every single living thing in Middle Earth (except a small handful).

They're special, but - and this is the important point - they still feel like a natural part of the setting. They all feel like a part of Middle Earth. Now imagine that suddenly James Bond turns up on the pages of the story with his rocket-launching laser wristwatch, amphibious Aston Martni and his shaken, not stirred Martini. In Lord of the Rings. Kicking orc ass along with Legolas and Gimli.

Would he feel like a special character? You bet your ass he would. Would he feel - similarly to Aragorn, Frodo and Gandalf - like he belongs in the Middle Earth setting? ****, NO!!! He'd feel like a completely unsuitable character transplanted from a completely different work of fiction created in a completely different genre (which is exctly what he would be, as it were). THAT is a "special snowflake".

Players are not derived as "special snowflakes" because they want to play a heroic character who's head and shoulder above the usual peasants. They're derided when they join a low-magic campaign based on a fantasy version of Dark Ages Europe, full of Viking raiders, Saxon housecarls, Frankish mercenaries and Byzantine priests - and insist they be allowed to play the character they've already come up with, a golden skinned half-angel half-demon winged horned last survivor of a dimension-travelling nation of sorcerer-kings who can manifest 24-foot long swords of elemental fire out of thin air and who has a personal vendetta going on against Great Cthulhu (so of course the DM is also obligated to introduce Great Cthulhu into the campaign so as to enable the vendetta). That **** doesn't belong in a low magic Dark Ages Europe campaign. That **** is a "special snowflake".

It's not even this. The 'special snowflake', as I understand it, has little or nothing to do with what sort of stuff you try to bring to the game or the optimization level or any such thing; it's those players who feel their character is the star of the show and other PCs are side-kicks. They are the Mary Sues of PCs. The star should have the most screen time, the best options, secondary characters are there to soak the bad stuff coming the star's way, etc. A long and involved backstory with the PC being a runaway princess or something is a warning sign of a special snowflake. "I want to play this character or nothing" is a sign of a special snowflake.

The point of the term 'special snowflake' is just this: all snowflakes are unique. Some just feel the need to be even more unique and special.

[Delwugor]

A DM is perfectly within his rights to setup and restrictions or rules as he seems fit. A player is perfectly free to say no thank you and not play.
How that exchange is handled determines if someone over-reacted.

My only deal breaker would have been the randomly rolled backgrounds. Except for one shots with pregen characters, I decide my characters background and personality. I would walk away from any GM that forced it upon me.

[Velaryon]

Bleh, feeling a little crummy about a stupid argument, was wondering if other people might share their thoughts on this.

A friend of a friend wanted to run a pathfinder campaign. I had never played pathfinder before and since my friend was also playing I figured it'd be fun to pick up something new. Before the character creation session I did a little rummaging on the srd because I had a character concept ready to go, worked out the approximate stats I'd need to make it work, figured I could use the character building session to ask the gm questions and refine what I had into an actual character sheet.

When we got together I found out that we could only roll for stats (and no rerolls) presumably to prevent minmaxing, that I couldn't play the class I wanted (Oracle) because there was a 2 caster limit on the party and those slots were filled (caster defined here as anything that gets above 4th level spells), and that rolling your backgrounds using the random background tables was "heavily encouraged" to prevent "special snowflake" characters. I was slightly miffed because the whole thing came off sort of like him saying "I don't trust my players not to **** the bed if I let them have any kind of choice about things." And I told him as much. Predictably I got the 'if you don't like it you don't have to play' response which was fair enough so I walked.

Only now my friend feels guilty about playing without me despite constant reassurances that no I'm ok with it really, if they're having fun that's great! But now I'm just wondering if I overreacted. How strict is a deal breaker for you guys generally?

I think walking away under these circumstance was perfectly reasonable. Certainly it wasn't a "there's no way I can play with this guy" situation, but in your shoes I would probably have done the same thing.

First, you had a character you wanted to play but weren't allowed. I've walked away from games for that reason alone, and with a less reasonable character (that I really had my heart set on at the time). That you were disallowed because someone else was already playing something kinda like is even worse. I can understand the line of thinking that leads to a "two casters only" ruling but the circumstances were unfair to you because you didn't know about the restriction and others had already called dibs before you knew there were dibs to call.

Second, being "heavily encouraged" to randomize aspects of your character that you would normally expect to have control over is something that not everyone likes and that's perfectly valid. I'm one of those people who wants control over every single aspect of character creation unless I choose to randomize it. I've played in games where stat allocation was taken out of my hands, or class or abilities were determined randomly, and for me they just were not enjoyable. With my ability to create the character I wanted taken away from me, I was left with something I had no investment in playing.

I don't think you were being unreasonable at all. I think you could have worked within those restrictions and perhaps still had fun, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with choosing not to play, especially when confronted with "my way or the highway" instead of the DM being willing to work with you on finding something.

[BWR]

I think walking away under these circumstance was perfectly reasonable. Certainly it wasn't a "there's no way I can play with this guy" situation, but in your shoes I would probably have done the same thing.

First, you had a character you wanted to play but weren't allowed. I've walked away from games for that reason alone, and with a less reasonable character (that I really had my heart set on at the time). T

I don't think you were being unreasonable at all. I think you could have worked within those restrictions and perhaps still had fun, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with choosing not to play, especially when confronted with "my way or the highway" instead of the DM being willing to work with you on finding something.

So you admit to indulging in 'my way or the highway' regarding your own characters, but criticize the DM for doing the same?

[Velaryon]

So you admit to indulging in 'my way or the highway' regarding your own characters, but criticize the DM for doing the same?

In response to a DM that allows other, more powerful and potentially game-breaking characters without blinking an eye but disallows mine the instant I bring it up and won't even consider it, despite having no reason to think I'm a problem player? Yes. And that's exactly the situation in which I walked away from that I referred to. But since you tried to use that example to paint me as a hypocrite, I guess further explanation was warranted.

Or were you referring to the time I mentioned when everything was randomized even over my protestations because I wanted to have some control over what character I played? Because I actually did stay for that one and it was a terrible game from a DM who is normally pretty good, but the arbitrary and stupid rules he instituted that time resulted in almost no one playing characters they had any interest or investment in, so the game collapsed quickly.

To paraphrase a common sentiment I see expressed on these boards, better to have no game at all than one you don't enjoy playing in.

[Knaight]

So you admit to indulging in 'my way or the highway' regarding your own characters, but criticize the DM for doing the same?

The player has exactly one major thing in the game - their character. The DM has basically everything. As such, I'd expect a lot more flexibility from the DM regarding making at least minor changes and trying to make things work*. Obviously there's a limit to this; a player trying to bring a Samus knockoff into D&D needs to switch characters pronto, but the situation is meaningfully different regarding how flexible things should be.

*I generally GM, and while there are generally setting elements that are very core to the setting or campaign and can't be changed, there are also generally peripheral things where I just don't care. For instance, I had a recent campaign (not D&D) where a player wanted to play a dragon. I didn't plan on having any dragons in the setting, but it's not like it conflicted with anything important, so I stuck some dragons in and called it a day.

[Jay R]

Bad DM.
...
Neutral, lean bad DM.
...
Bad DM.

I think it's more accurate to say that the DM is playing a different sort of game than the game you prefer. That's not "bad", unless you mean to imply that there's only one "good" way to play. It's just a different taste.

[Premier]

I can't say I "blame" the OP, or that he/she was "in the wrong", but it looks like there are quite a few people who here whose opinion is "You were 100% in the right to expect to play your character concept and to walk when you couldn't", and I'd like to ask you all a question:

Imagine you're going to a restaurant one evening. You don't know what sort fo restaurant it is, because a friend recommended it and you didn't want to waste time looking up its homepage or its menu. As it were, you suddenly get quite a hankering for bacon while you're on the way. You haven't had bacon in a while, and the mood suddenly struck you. "Hmmm, I'm gonna have some real nice bacon when we get there!" - you keep saying to yourself. Now, are you "in the right" to expect to be served steak when you get there?

And if you answered "Yes", then also answer this: what if it's a Kosher Jewish or Halal restaurant where they can't cook or eat pork for religious reasons? What if it's a vegetarian place? What if it's a restaurant famed for only having seafood? Are you still "fully in the right" expecting them to make serve you bacon nevertheless?

Because the way I see it, what happened here is 100% analogous that this scenario.

[AMFV]

I can't say I "blame" the OP, or that he/she was "in the wrong", but it looks like there are quite a few people who here whose opinion is "You were 100% in the right to expect to play your character concept and to walk when you couldn't", and I'd like to ask you all a question:

Imagine you're going to a restaurant one evening. You don't know what sort fo restaurant it is, because a friend recommended it and you didn't want to waste time looking up its homepage or its menu. As it were, you suddenly get quite a hankering for bacon while you're on the way. You haven't had bacon in a while, and the mood suddenly struck you. "Hmmm, I'm gonna have some real nice bacon when we get there!" - you keep saying to yourself. Now, are you "in the right" to expect to be served steak when you get there?

And if you answered "Yes", then also answer this: what if it's a Kosher Jewish or Halal restaurant where they can't cook or eat pork for religious reasons? What if it's a vegetarian place? What if it's a restaurant famed for only having seafood? Are you still "fully in the right" expecting them to make serve you bacon nevertheless?

Because the way I see it, what happened here is 100% analogous that this scenario.

That is analogous, but your analogy has one glaring, and I mean glaring error. The OP didn't expect them to serve her (him?) Bacon, they left. For example if I go to a restaurant with my friend and it turns out to be a hot dog place, and I only eat Kosher, it isn't wrong for me to leave.

The issue the OP was having is that their friend felt bad about going back to the game and having fun, which is more difficult to fix, outside of reassuring your friend that you don't mind that they have different tastes there's not much you can do. But it's completely fine to not want to play in a game that doesn't suit your tastes.

[Knaight]

And if you answered "Yes", then also answer this: what if it's a Kosher Jewish or Halal restaurant where they can't cook or eat pork for religious reasons? What if it's a vegetarian place? What if it's a restaurant famed for only having seafood? Are you still "fully in the right" expecting them to make serve you bacon nevertheless?

The game was explicitly Pathfinder. It's more like the person having a craving for meat going to a place that calls itself a steakhouse, only to find out that there are only seafood steaks.

[Angelalex242]

I support the decision to walk. I'm actually fairly strict with what games I'll play in. If the point buy is too lean, or the dicerolling not to my tastes, I'll just get up and walk.

[CombatOwl]

When we got together I found out that we could only roll for stats (and no rerolls) presumably to prevent minmaxing, that I couldn't play the class I wanted (Oracle) because there was a 2 caster limit on the party and those slots were filled (caster defined here as anything that gets above 4th level spells), and that rolling your backgrounds using the random background tables was "heavily encouraged" to prevent "special snowflake" characters. I was slightly miffed because the whole thing came off sort of like him saying "I don't trust my players not to **** the bed if I let them have any kind of choice about things." And I told him as much. Predictably I got the 'if you don't like it you don't have to play' response which was fair enough so I walked.

Only now my friend feels guilty about playing without me despite constant reassurances that no I'm ok with it really, if they're having fun that's great! But now I'm just wondering if I overreacted. How strict is a deal breaker for you guys generally?

I've seen worse. Way, way worse.

Hell, I've run worse! I've never actually imposed a limit on the number of casters though. If the party wants to roll up nothing but wizards, that's fine by me. They know in advance that I'm not giving them a fifteen minute adventuring day...

[VoxRationis]

The player has exactly one major thing in the game - their character. The DM has basically everything. As such, I'd expect a lot more flexibility from the DM regarding making at least minor changes and trying to make things work*. Obviously there's a limit to this; a player trying to bring a Samus knockoff into D&D needs to switch characters pronto, but the situation is meaningfully different regarding how flexible things should be.

*I generally GM, and while there are generally setting elements that are very core to the setting or campaign and can't be changed, there are also generally peripheral things where I just don't care. For instance, I had a recent campaign (not D&D) where a player wanted to play a dragon. I didn't plan on having any dragons in the setting, but it's not like it conflicted with anything important, so I stuck some dragons in and called it a day.

That's about the opposite of the way I see it. The player only has one character. One set of numbers, a couple of hours' work or less. The DM has a huge amount of effort and backstory into their campaign setting, and to boot likely have a particular feel in mind for the tone of their adventure and setting. Bringing in something that doesn't fit the setting can throw that entirely off.

[Jeff the Green]

Rolling stats: Ick, but not a deal-breaker.

No more than two casters: No. I don't get this. It sounds like something the DM could be talked down from, particularly if you point out the fact that he's guaranteeing two powerful characters and two mediocre ones.

Random backgrounds to prevent 'special snowflakes': Oh hell no! Why would anyone think this is a good idea for a game where players are supposed to identify with their characters and care about them.

That's about the opposite of the way I see it. The player only has one character. One set of numbers, a couple of hours' work or less. The DM has a huge amount of effort and backstory into their campaign setting, and to boot likely have a particular feel in mind for the tone of their adventure and setting. Bringing in something that doesn't fit the setting can throw that entirely off.

There are degrees of incompatibility, though. Like Knaight, my homebrew setting has no dragons, but unlike his that fact pretty central to one of the main religions. On the other hand, as written it has no Drow, but I'd be fine writing in a small group of subterranean elves. As a player, I find it reasonable for the DM to be inflexible on the first point, but not at all on the second.

[Knaight]

That's about the opposite of the way I see it. The player only has one character. One set of numbers, a couple of hours' work or less. The DM has a huge amount of effort and backstory into their campaign setting, and to boot likely have a particular feel in mind for the tone of their adventure and setting. Bringing in something that doesn't fit the setting can throw that entirely off.

Sure, but what fits the setting is often fairly flexible - it depends on what the focus is. I've also found that where it's more restricted it also generally makes way more sense to have things upfront. I've run a game where the PCs were all a particular model of robot fresh off the assembly line - that was pretty much how the game was pitched, so there was no issue. If that sort of specificity is going to happen, it tends to be really obvious.

I'd also say that the whole concept of "their adventure" is a major red flag for me. A game where the GM makes an adventure and the players just have to follow it holds zero interest.

[CombatOwl]

Rolling stats: Ick, but not a deal-breaker.

No more than two casters: No. I don't get this. It sounds like something the DM could be talked down from, particularly if you point out the fact that he's guaranteeing two powerful characters and two mediocre ones.

Random backgrounds to prevent 'special snowflakes': Oh hell no! Why would anyone think this is a good idea for a game where players are supposed to identify with their characters and care about them.



There are degrees of incompatibility, though. Like Knaight, my homebrew setting has no dragons, but unlike his that fact pretty central to one of the main religions. On the other hand, as written it has no Drow, but I'd be fine writing in a small group of subterranean elves. As a player, I find it reasonable for the DM to be inflexible on the first point, but not at all on the second.

My group often does random backgrounds because they enjoy the improv aspect.

[kyoryu]

My group often does random backgrounds because they enjoy the improv aspect.

As I've said, the longest running game I've been a part of (which definitely encouraged being attached to your characters) had random *everything*.

It can work.

[Slipperychicken]

I can hardly blame him for not wanting special snowflakes. I personally get tired after hearing the same "runaway noble kid" backstory rehashed in every campaign I've played. My best guess is that he'll probably be cool with your backstory as long as it isn't cheesy or overdone, your character isn't a complete Mary Sue, and you don't try to milk it for mechanical benefits (i.e. "I beg my royal parents for 100 grand", "I shouldn't have to roll Bluff checks because I spent my whole life lying to people", "Being a royal means that I should have a small army of bodyguards at all times", and so on).

[Cikomyr]

I can hardly blame him for not wanting special snowflakes. I personally get tired after hearing the same "runaway noble kid" backstory rehashed in every campaign I've played. My best guess is that he'll probably be cool with your backstory as long as it isn't cheesy or overdone, your character isn't a complete Mary Sue, and you don't try to milk it for mechanical benefits (i.e. "I beg my royal parents for 100 grand", "I shouldn't have to roll Bluff checks because I spent my whole life lying to people", "Being a royal means that I should have a small army of bodyguards at all times", and so on).

Rolling for background, or even for classes, is something I love and I encourage my players to always do it. Why? because it helps them get out of their zone of comfort.

Rule number 1: We can make it work, mkay? Come on, player. I know you wanted to play a Magician and you rolled a Squire. How about you are an apprentice in the Templar Order of Verena (goddess of Knowledge), and we will describe how you have been sent to retrieve a certain grimoire.. and you may have gotten more out of that quest than you expected.

I prefer the story being about how you reach what you want to become, instead of automatically being handed the path of your choice in life.

- I beg my parents for 100 grands --> Oh.. All right. You put on hold your adventure and go to the family's home? do you bring your fine friends with you? Are you ready to put yourself vulnerable to the control of your parents?

- You spent your whole life lying? Where are your bluff skill points then? Maybe your parenst/family patronized you into thinking you are a good liar

- Sure, a small army of bodyguard. No problem. Obviously, THEY get all the experience, they will never allow you to go into harm's way as you are of royal blood. What, you think you can order them away? They obey the King, not you..


I am the sort of GM that likes to "roll with it" when players have a great concept they managed to pull, but I then try to find strings to make them hesitate to abuse their good ideas. Kind of how, at character creation, you can somehow minmax your character with a flaw that gives you bonus; then imagine a special background circumstance might give you certain bonuses, but it also mean there are now strings attached. You will never get anything for free.

[BWR]

The game was explicitly Pathfinder. It's more like the person having a craving for meat going to a place that calls itself a steakhouse, only to find out that there are only seafood steaks.

Oh come on! Every time a DM alters some rules or deviates from RAW it doesn't become an entirely different game.
In this case it's more like "sorry, the exact type of meat done the exact way you wanted isn't available right now, please try again later" or "just the stuff on the menu, please"

Frankly, I'm shocked at how petty so many people seem to be. Is playing exactly what you want in exactly the way you want so damn important that the DM should never try anything that might conflict with your vision? That they can't try to do something new without pissy players whining and saying 'screw you, I'm going home'? That playing one narrow, specific form of the game is more important that hanging out with friends? Is being told to change anything on the character tantamount to blasphemy?

[huttj509]

Oh come on! Every time a DM alters some rules or deviates from RAW it doesn't become an entirely different game.
In this case it's more like "sorry, the exact type of meat done the exact way you wanted isn't available right now, please try again later" or "just the stuff on the menu, please"

Frankly, I'm shocked at how petty so many people seem to be. Is playing exactly what you want in exactly the way you want so damn important that the DM should never try anything that might conflict with your vision? That they can't try to do something new without pissy players whining and saying 'screw you, I'm going home'? That playing one narrow, specific form of the game is more important that hanging out with friends? Is being told to change anything on the character tantamount to blasphemy?

It's not what was changed, it's when and why. And for whom.

Oh, all that preparation you did? It's null and void because I'm changing stuff. And didn't tell you. But I told them. So they have dibs.

I haven't been in a campaign that had a "character creation session" since college, when getting together to make characters wasn't much more than "walk down to the living room, because we were living together." Scheduling's gotten difficult enough over the last 10 years that going into the first session completely unprepared would be thumbing my nose at my friends, unless it had been explicitly set up as such.

Different people, in different situations, have different expectations of what's meant to be communicated/done when. Communication nowadays is easier than ever. Put the players/gm on an e-mail list, type what you're expecting people to have at the first session (be it everything, nothing, or anywhere in between), maybe include a bit about the intended playstyle, and hit send. So much better than trying to call people to keep everyone in the loop.

I don't think the OP's GM is a horrible terribad person. I think most folks in this thread don't think that (though some do). I think he made a gaffe. I think the OP was understandably disappointed, and made a fair choice to step away instead of staying and sulking (I think we've all had moments of "in an hour it'll be fine, but right now I'm rather miffed").

OP was expecting X. It was actually Y. The unexpected change was a bit jarring.

[Terraoblivion]

Ummm, one question...Why do so many people a priori assume that playing a noble is a bad thing, to the point where they don't even need to explain why? I mean, even sticking to D&D, it draws pretty heavily on source material where most or even all of the major characters are nobility and stories about dispossessed nobles or even royalty wanting to reclaim their lands and titles seems entirely in genre. And that's not even going into all the nobility that isn't and never was particularly rich. For that matter, what about the kin of successful merchants? They're wealthy and have a lot of clout too.

I'm not saying nobility would work in every game ever, I've been in games where everybody were peasants from the same village for example, but I fail to see why it's automatically or even usually a problem.

[CombatOwl]

As I've said, the longest running game I've been a part of (which definitely encouraged being attached to your characters) had random *everything*.

It can work.

Heh. I remember doing a 2e Planescape game with 3d6 in-order stats. And in 2e that basically means random limits on what classes you can pick. That game was both hilarious and memorable. Good times. "But... but I got a 4 intelligence!" "Hey, play a fighter! It'll be fun!"

I can hardly blame him for not wanting special snowflakes. I personally get tired after hearing the same "runaway noble kid" backstory rehashed in every campaign I've played.

The last noble character I played was an obnoxious ass to pretty much everyone and threw money around on pointless frivolities like a small army of retainers and a troupe of bards to provide a personal theme song. Towards the end of the game he even had a dozen armed hirelings who did nothing but haul his mithral water clock around with the party--a reward for years of loyal and competent service. I paid for it all, in spades, because this was back in the days when prices were listed for every ****ing thing in the dungeon, and I would have my hirelings strip the place and sell everything once the party cleared it.

[Aedilred]

Ummm, one question...Why do so many people a priori assume that playing a noble is a bad thing, to the point where they don't even need to explain why? I mean, even sticking to D&D, it draws pretty heavily on source material where most or even all of the major characters are nobility and stories about dispossessed nobles or even royalty wanting to reclaim their lands and titles seems entirely in genre. And that's not even going into all the nobility that isn't and never was particularly rich. For that matter, what about the kin of successful merchants? They're wealthy and have a lot of clout too.

I'm not saying nobility would work in every game ever, I've been in games where everybody were peasants from the same village for example, but I fail to see why it's automatically or even usually a problem.

I don't think people automatically assume it's a problem. I think the problems are: first, it happens so often that some GMs are tired of it; second, it's often done in quite a lazy and unimaginative manner without thought being put into what it would actually entail; third, players can try to leverage that background for shortcuts.

You can deal with some of this by building in restrictions of your own, of course, like Cikomyr suggests. I seem to remember somewhere in one of the WFRP games there was a requirement for noble characters to spend a minimum amount of money pretty much constantly in order to maintain their status and lifestyle.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with it in principle and it can be done very well. But it's also one of the more common and trite background choices, and it's often not done well, which I think was Slipperychicken's issue.

[Cikomyr]

And now i have this idea for a in-universe business: a company that is ready sponsor adventurers for some help, but in exchange the adventurers have to point out the now-cleared manors, castles, etc that could be targeted for Furniture and Decoration Reclamation.