Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

There was a recent conversation about a new campaign to give the DM a chance to take a break from dm'ing and play and the person who was going to run it chose a 5E update of an old module (The Keep on the Borderlands) and set some character creation rules. Wanting to keep it simple the guidelines were PHB classes and races, though you could use sub-classes from any official source. One of the players was unhappy and felt he should be able to make whatever he wanted from any source he wanted and was upset at the limitations given.

Is the DM being to harsh or player being, I'm not sure this is the best word but I'll go with it at the moment, overly entitled? Have you ever set or played in a game where there were limitations on character creation? Where would you draw the line?

In my view, the player is absolutely entitled. The DM can always set the boundaries on what is able to be played in their campaign. I think the vast majority of games I've ever played have had some restriction on what can be chosen.

Especially because the huge variety of classes and races in 5e imply a very whacky kitchen sink fantasy world without much coherence. That's fine, some people like that style. But if you're trying to go for something a bit more coherent and with more of a theme, then it's much easier to do so if you've got a more limited selection of classes and races.

Personally, I'm at the point where I don't even want to play a game with "character build" as part of the paradigm. Absolutely burned out on it.

Player is entirely entitled. GMing can be a lot of work. Especially in a combat focused game like DnD the GM needs to understand player abilities to craft encounters. Placing very reasonable limitations on character creation gives them the parameters to work with.

That player only needs to know his character. The GM needs to study everything, including whatever homebrew bs the player digs up. Player has 2 reasonable options. Be happy to play the game the guy is willing to run or graciously say they are not interested in playing and step away without making a scene. Don't be a baby.

I agree with the others here and will add that it's particularly poor form to try to push around a substitute DM. If the regular DM burns out, it's in everyone's interest for some rest so that the regular campaign can resume. My making the volunteer relief DM miserable, the entire campaign is jeopardized

I look back on my RPG career and have reluctantly had to admit that the teenage peer clubs/ad hoc games were better run and the players better behaved than the ones I participated in as an adult. Part of that was at no point did we have a standard DM (we took turns) and if someone was really annoying, the DM would just quit. So if you want to play at all, you had to calm down about wanting to play a half-drow anti-paladin psionicist assassin.

It's the DM's world, their creation, their effort, and their time. If the player doesn't want to participate, there's the door. But there is another side, that player has put, conceivably, time and effort into building that character. If it's just a downloaded meta build, then yeah, entitled. But if it's thoughtful and not game breaking, who cares? The problem comes when the GM starts upscaling the difficulty to match the metaknight, and one shots the regular old Abduation Wizard.

From the description in the OP, I assume that this is meant to be a short term series of games rather from the bit about the forever-DM needing a break. If that's the case then that player is roleplaying a pretty, pretty princess in real life and needs to grow up. As long as the restrictions were made clear from the beginning, I see no issue. While I'd agree that it's a severe restriction in a permanent long-term campaign where you're stuck with the character potentially for years, there is definitely enough variety in the core book (even without the additional subclasses) for a short series of linked games in my opinion. The game is a chance for a change of pace/flavor and should be utilized that for purpose to try out new things that you've always had the urge to try but not necessarily to commit to.

It's always nice to have an initial conversation and have pitches for stuff...

...but at the end of the day, if the GM is hosting a game and wants to allow or not allow stuff, it's their prerogative. If the player doesn't like it, they can just not play, or pitch and host a game themselves.

Looks like whining guy is volunteering to be GM next time so he can make the rules of the campaign.

So YMMV, but it's been my experience, that power gamers, and min maxers, make TERRIBLE DMs. Like the WORST. They suffer from Main character syndrome, and break rule 1 at every turn. Make the game unfun for the players. It's not about the DM having fun, it's about the players having fun. Min-Maxers throw deadly fights at low level players a lot, and are stingy on the xp/loot. A deadly encounter is fine, even a good idea once in a while to provide context, but but if three of your 5 person party are unconcious or re-rolling characters at the end of every combat encounter, you're doing it wrong.

This is why I think the DM was right in the original scenario. If everyone is on the same baseline, it's much less work to calculate how many goblins to make it fun/re-roll the character time.

The way I DM, I don't even really care about the character power level that much. I don't particularly try to balance things and if they make mincemeat of something, fine, they can move on to the next thing.

But I still dislike "I must have all the options" because stuff like Artificer, Warforged, or even just some of the more out there subclasses like Echo Knight just don't fit in my preferred fantasy world.

If a player has some whacky build I'm fine with it, as long as they never talk to me about it and I don't ever have to engage with them about the rules behind it. Go nuts, just don't bother me with it.

 Da Boss wrote:
The way I DM, I don't even really care about the character power level that much. I don't particularly try to balance things and if they make mincemeat of something, fine, they can move on to the next thing.

But I still dislike "I must have all the options" because stuff like Artificer, Warforged, or even just some of the more out there subclasses like Echo Knight just don't fit in my preferred fantasy world.

If a player has some whacky build I'm fine with it, as long as they never talk to me about it and I don't ever have to engage with them about the rules behind it. Go nuts, just don't bother me with it.

Well Said. I hate. HATE. The Echo Knight. Free Misty step at will as a free action? No thank you. Matt Mercer you can take this boot and shove it right in your bum. Your class is dumb, and you should feel bad for making me deal with it.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So YMMV, but it's been my experience, that power gamers, and min maxers, make TERRIBLE DMs. Like the WORST. They suffer from Main character syndrome, and break rule 1 at every turn. Make the game unfun for the players. It's not about the DM having fun, it's about the players having fun. Min-Maxers throw deadly fights at low level players a lot, and are stingy on the xp/loot. A deadly encounter is fine, even a good idea once in a while to provide context, but but if three of your 5 person party are unconcious or re-rolling characters at the end of every combat encounter, you're doing it wrong.

This is why I think the DM was right in the original scenario. If everyone is on the same baseline, it's much less work to calculate how many goblins to make it fun/re-roll the character time.

Agree with power gamers making terrible GMs (they are terrible players too).

Disagree with it not beingabout the GMs fun too. It's about everyone having fun. Why tf would anyone get together on a schedule to play a game and not have fun. GM and PC alike.

 Lance845 wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So YMMV, but it's been my experience, that power gamers, and min maxers, make TERRIBLE DMs. Like the WORST. They suffer from Main character syndrome, and break rule 1 at every turn. Make the game unfun for the players. It's not about the DM having fun, it's about the players having fun. Min-Maxers throw deadly fights at low level players a lot, and are stingy on the xp/loot. A deadly encounter is fine, even a good idea once in a while to provide context, but but if three of your 5 person party are unconcious or re-rolling characters at the end of every combat encounter, you're doing it wrong.

This is why I think the DM was right in the original scenario. If everyone is on the same baseline, it's much less work to calculate how many goblins to make it fun/re-roll the character time.

Agree with power gamers making terrible GMs (they are terrible players too).

Disagree with it not beingabout the GMs fun too. It's about everyone having fun. Why tf would anyone get together on a schedule to play a game and not have fun. GM and PC alike.

It's like agreeing to make food for a holiday family meal. You are not making yourself a sandwich and then sitting down. If you are full and satisfied at the end of the meal, and everyone else is hungry, you missed the point of volunteering to do the hard bit. That's what I meant. DMing is more than just running the monsters and rolling the traps. You setup the voices, the stat blocks, the back stories, the towns, the maps, the dungeons, the spell lists, etc. All of it. All on you. If you do a good job, you're players have a good time, and you get told, usually, what a good time they all had. You should also be given free food and drinks. Always. But that is what you get. The satisfaction of knowing you made a bunch of people really happy and have a good time, and some free food and time with friends. Isn't that enough? You also get to share in the laughes when the wizard trips over a pebble on turn 1 and kills himself critfailing to attack.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So YMMV, but it's been my experience, that power gamers, and min maxers, make TERRIBLE DMs. Like the WORST. They suffer from Main character syndrome, and break rule 1 at every turn. Make the game unfun for the players. It's not about the DM having fun, it's about the players having fun. Min-Maxers throw deadly fights at low level players a lot, and are stingy on the xp/loot. A deadly encounter is fine, even a good idea once in a while to provide context, but but if three of your 5 person party are unconcious or re-rolling characters at the end of every combat encounter, you're doing it wrong.

This is why I think the DM was right in the original scenario. If everyone is on the same baseline, it's much less work to calculate how many goblins to make it fun/re-roll the character time.

Agree with power gamers making terrible GMs (they are terrible players too).

Disagree with it not beingabout the GMs fun too. It's about everyone having fun. Why tf would anyone get together on a schedule to play a game and not have fun. GM and PC alike.

It's like agreeing to make food for a holiday family meal. You are not making yourself a sandwich and then sitting down. If you are full and satisfied at the end of the meal, and everyone else is hungry, you missed the point of volunteering to do the hard bit. That's what I meant. DMing is more than just running the monsters and rolling the traps. You setup the voices, the stat blocks, the back stories, the towns, the maps, the dungeons, the spell lists, etc. All of it. All on you. If you do a good job, you're players have a good time, and you get told, usually, what a good time they all had. You should also be given free food and drinks. Always. But that is what you get. The satisfaction of knowing you made a bunch of people really happy and have a good time, and some free food and time with friends. Isn't that enough? You also get to share in the laughes when the wizard trips over a pebble on turn 1 and kills himself critfailing to attack.

I think you two are kind of agreeing but talking past each other at the same time.

I don't think anyone is saying that DM's don't do a lot more "work" than the average player in setting up the game; some will use a lot of pre-made tools to make this easier and some will go all out custom creating everything. The point is that for the DM that creation process and preparation is part of their enjoyment and engagement; along with the game night itself where they should also be having fun whilst running the game.


When you volunteer to cook the food every week you hopefully enjoy the cooking process; and then enjoy sharing the meal with everyone at the table. Yes you also have to make sure everyone's drink is charged; that no one is left without and make sure that you tell the person with an allergy/diet which foods they can/can't eat etc.... But you still derive enjoyment/satisfaction/fulfilment/whatever from that whole experience


The only time a DM wouldn't is if they are doing it as a job and being paid; at which point they might well put up with less enjoyment because they are being compensated for their time with money.

For the majority of DM's its a hobby for them; they HAVE to get something from it

I think it's important to stand up for the DM's fun though. I think the culture of play has shifted in recent years to prioritise player fun over everything else, and DMs are often encouraged to swallow things they don't like for the fun of the players.

I'm not interested in such a one sided game. I'll run you a really fun game and I don't expect much out of you as a player, but if I put down a boundary I expect it to be respected.

I agree that GM satisfaction is/should be a priority, however lets be honest. Who buys the books most of the time? Who buys the Minis? Who sets up the calendars and deals with call outs? Who gets left holding the bag when 3 out of 5 players have "Real world issues" and miss the session? I cannot WAIT till people start getting a taste of the AI DM they are pushing in 6th, and try and run screaming back to real tables.

I just keep thinking that if I wanted an "AI DM" I'd go play a computer game RPG

I agree that I do most of the work for my games, but that's also why I feel totally comfortable setting ground rules that make the game more fun for me.

I'll go as far as running 5e, a game I am tired of, because my friends all bought the books and I think it's fair they want to use them. But in that case, I'm going to run the style of world I want, and I don't feel any guilt about that.

I go out of my way to have frank and honest session zeros, where we lay out clear and fair understandings. Codes of conduct lets say. Everyone is here to have a good time. There is no RP in any way, that should allow you to break that rule for anyone else. Same to same, if you feel your enjoyment is being disrupted or broken by another player, say something. We'll take a Real world break and hash it out. Don't make in game decisions based of real world knowledge. You might think Jeff is a dork who smells like week old socks, but your character doesn't dislike his tabaxi paladin, and lets keep it that way.

When all else fails, Rule 1: Be open and honest. If you need help, or have a problem, say something. I can't fix Jeff, it's a disease with his feet, but if you sit near the fan it's easier.

There is an implied social contract between gamers and the GM. The GM runs the game, with all the admin and expense that entails - and the player agree to play in the world, follow the adventure, and abide by the terms of that world, including any restrictions. If a DM wants to run a game with just the 'good old fashioned classic classes and races' a player who, after hearing those terms demands to play a aracrocra/teifling battle artificer can expect to get some push back.

The players must expect that they are playing in the DM's interpretation of the game world, and their own head canon might not apply.

If you let one player do it, then all the rest will suddenly decide they want special treatment too and you end up with a completely incoherent party that doesn't fit the story you want to actually run. DM's word is law.

I have yet to see a player use an Artificer and not try to somehow build guns into a world. So yeah, without beating this to death, I'll just say I think MarkNorfolk is 100% correct. You agreed to play the game you agreed to play. You didn't agree to play CyberPunks and Dungeons, or argue with me regarding how much the DMG says the item should cost. If you don't like it, or don't want to play it, there is the door.

GM's requirement is law, however strict. If the adventure is written for a group of dwarven miners stuck in a cave, player's duty is to create their own dwarven miner character. If they don't want to play a dwarven miner they are free not to play.

See, I *Could* see some leniancy there. Svirfneblin" or Deep Gnomes for one. But yeah, if it's themed like that, I would just bow to the GM's decision and follow their request. Sounds like a fun adventure. Is it a published one or homebrew?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
See, I *Could* see some leniancy there. Svirfneblin" or Deep Gnomes for one. But yeah, if it's themed like that, I would just bow to the GM's decision and follow their request. Sounds like a fun adventure. Is it a published one or homebrew?

No, it's just the first thing that came to my mind when I wanted to give a hypothetical example of a themed adventure. I've never played D&D so these other subterranean races didn't even cross my mind, but actually an example from my own games is about races too.

I've been mostly a WFRP GM through my entire RPG career and I normally ask players not to create an Elf character. My WFRP (and in general Polish style of WFRP seems to be like that) is pretty low fantasy, down to earth and I think an Elf character would detract from that. A bit like they are in the Lord of the Rings, encounters with elves are to provide the feeling of awe and wonder, the actual fantasy and alien mystique most of the time hidden behind all that mud, empty stomachs and pneumonia

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So YMMV, but it's been my experience, that power gamers, and min maxers, make TERRIBLE DMs. Like the WORST. They suffer from Main character syndrome, and break rule 1 at every turn. Make the game unfun for the players. It's not about the DM having fun, it's about the players having fun. Min-Maxers throw deadly fights at low level players a lot, and are stingy on the xp/loot. A deadly encounter is fine, even a good idea once in a while to provide context, but but if three of your 5 person party are unconcious or re-rolling characters at the end of every combat encounter, you're doing it wrong.

This is why I think the DM was right in the original scenario. If everyone is on the same baseline, it's much less work to calculate how many goblins to make it fun/re-roll the character time.

Yep been there - seen that.

I have run alot of games and usually there is at least one player who is well known for their Power gaming - although they are often very vocal about how they are not and just playing a character....

Some of them do seem to have actual difficulty enjoying a non optimised character - and don't get what the issue is.

I am now more and more strict on what I allow in char gen or provide pre-gens - especially since I am quite relaxed about alot of stuff in game.

I've moved more toward games where you roll your characters first and then pick race and class, and there isn't really a "build" section of the game for power gamers to hang on to (as in, once class and race have been picked, there aren't any more options at level up, only things you might find in world like magic items or spells).

DCC does a good version of this where you get 4 randomly generated plebs for your first adventure, called a funnel, and then whoever survives is promoted to a full character at the end of that high lethality Level 0 session. It makes you play out the backstory and makes you really invested in the survivors.

 Mr Morden wrote:


I have run alot of games and usually there is at least one player who is well known for their Power gaming - although they are often very vocal about how they are not and just playing a character....

Some of them do seem to have actual difficulty enjoying a non optimised character - and don't get what the issue is.

Thing is when you're playing a highly skilled character in whatever role they are; in a game that is built on numbers; it makes sense to many that getting the core numbers for that character class to be as high as possible is beneficial to their character being that highly skilled character which they are playing. Furthermore they "want" to succeed in dice rolls. The intention of rolling to attack isn't to miss, glance, fail to do anything - the full intention is to hit and kill. Because if you don't you die and your character failed.

So its a very logical thing that they want to power-game and make the numbers work. In fact a vast majority of players do this; however many only take it so far. They don't hunt for every micro-gain; nor come up with twisted long arguments to justify min-maxing with vague relations and chains of "and then X affects Y so that I get a boosted Z for this roll you see" rather like a MTG game where you hunt down the most elusive power combo.


In theory RPG games shouldn't be as bad as card games because it filters through the DM and a good DM will balance out the game for the kind of experience the players and DM want. Ergo they can make encounters weaker/stronger; adapt the story and so forth. However some can't turn off that part of their brain that wants to min max the character on the numbers.



Basically they are just playing the game, according to the rules, from a numerical point of view - really well. Asking them to not do that is tricky because from their point of view you're saying "I want you to play this game, but play it badly; but don't actually play badly just don't play as goodly." And that gets really hard to actually put into practice.


I think that kind of person can be better in games like DaBoss has identified where the building of the character from the stats point of view is less open and more constrained and streamlined into the game itself. So there isn't scope for the min-max to take effect because its not really there to pour over and min-max out. Plus where it IS Present is more constrained and controlled so they can't "power game" their way out of it by finding a super combo and such.The game itself is basically levelling the mechanical playing skill by lowering its importance within the game itself.

Thing is, you are breaking the intent of the game, if you are the ultimate Badd butt dude that eats thunder and craps lightning super ultra ninja god, at level 1.

Sorry to break it to you, but you're essentially a slightly better than average teenager/young adult. You're basically the best player on your high school sports team. Writing a 6 page back story doesn't matter. I don't care about the gods cursing you back to level 1, and your name is Vash the Smatpeed, you are a level 1 ranger, and you get the exact same rolls as everyone else. No, you can't have the thunder god sword your dad gave you in page 3.

It's not "Playing the game at a high level" it's being a dink about having main character syndrome, and being unable to play as part of a team. I always come prepared with pre-made level 1 characters to games with new players, where if they have a back story over half a page, they get Bobbo, the Dwarf Fighter, level 1. No Back story.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Thing is, you are breaking the intent of the game, if you are the ultimate Badd butt dude that eats thunder and craps lightning super ultra ninja god, at level 1.

But if the game lets you be "Badd Butt Dude of the Lightning Bowels" at level 1 then - - are you playing the game wrong?

This is the thing, from the point of view of the min-maxer they aren't breaking the intent of the game, they are simply playing the game from the viewpoint of mathematical highest potential or whatever.
Meanwhile someone else on the party is roleplaying a bit of a twit character and they've got low stats everywhere and aren't optimised at all



And neither one is wrong.

They are just heavily miss-matched in their approach and viewpoint and its up to the DM to start sorting out and putting some structure on things to build the game. To say "no" in a polite fashion and provide some groundwork.

Because its the DM who defines if they are "a slightly better than average teenager/young adult".

A good DM will set a scene and expectations early so that they help their players craft characters (within the scope of the game rules) which fit the theme; they can also use that to help modify player characters if they are way out of line with the rest of the party or with the overall tone of the game. For some players this is just part of the game; for some its not something they want and that's fine too; though in practice it can be more challenging because many areas might only have one active group and might have only one active DM in that group.