Question to MCs / DMs

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 2:49 pm

I've really have not DMed in a long time, but I would say it all depends on the game, the edition, the player and my other friend (because I would like another pair of eyes with good game experience to look it over as well). I mean some editions I would generally encourage that sort of stuff. In others I would not be as eager. I've also done and allowed a lot of "kit bashing" (basically a published class with custom changes because of the circumstances involved).

The real questions are, are you trying to pwn the DM, are you trying to pwn the system, are you accidentally going to pwn yourself?

icyshadowlord · Post by **icyshadowlord** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 2:55 pm

My motive was to ask for opinions. One on part in the already-distant past, I tried to pwn the DM, but then I realized that was a stupid idea. And I am not really sure what to even say anymore, since in my own opinion we've already been shown enough views on this topic. And like someone already said, everyone has their own style of DMing.

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 2:56 pm

Another vote for "I don't have the time or inclination to go working some else's unfamiliar stuff into my familiar game world".

I have no problem with minor variations on existing classes/races/etc., though. E.g. if someone wanted to play a "swamp gnome" or a "wild magic wizard", I'm sure we could whip up something suitable and roughly balanced with a standard gnome or wizard in about 5 minutes.

...You Lost Me · Post by **...You Lost Me** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 5:47 pm

I would agree that among MCs, looking up and reading about homebrew is a bit of a hassle. But not all MCs have that sort of concept in mind--several MCs I've played with just don't like homebrew. It's a gut reflex. It probably originated from balancing difficulties, but it seems almost like an instinctual reaction.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 7:25 pm

If a group isn't used to introducing homebrew, going out of the way to introduce homebrew for one PC is giving them very awkward "special snowflake" treatment. On the flipside, allowing everyone to introduce their own homebrew choices has a pretty good chance of leading to a party of special snowflakes whose mere existence smacks probability and believability in the face.

And then there's balancing issues, to boot. Most people are terrible at balancing D&D. Most homebrew is terribly balanced. Most of the people who understand which homebrew is and isn't balanced also have good system mastery, so the homebrew character will probably be powerful and people may very well blame the homebrew for that even though the player could have achieved the same optimization level with a standard human. Letting everyone bring in homebrew means people are going to argue and nitpick over what is and isn't balanced.

Homebrew is a nightmare for most groups, even good homebrew (and most of it isn't). And expecting them to open the door to all those problems just for you is kind of rude.

icyshadowlord · Post by **icyshadowlord** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 7:38 pm

Ironically, I myself would hate to see a campaign ruined by "Special Snowflake" situations...yet I allowed someone to play a Chaotic Neutral Drow Oracle of the Heavens with a group consisting mainly of Humans and Dwarves...

Stubbazubba · Post by **Stubbazubba** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 8:02 pm

DSMatticus wrote:If a group isn't used to introducing homebrew, going out of the way to introduce homebrew for one PC is giving them very awkward "special snowflake" treatment. On the flipside, allowing everyone to introduce their own homebrew choices has a pretty good chance of leading to a party of special snowflakes whose mere existence smacks probability and believability in the face.

And then there's balancing issues, to boot. Most people are terrible at balancing D&D. Most homebrew is terribly balanced. Most of the people who understand which homebrew is and isn't balanced also have good system mastery, so the homebrew character will probably be powerful and people may very well blame the homebrew for that even though the player could have achieved the same optimization level with a standard human. Letting everyone bring in homebrew means people are going to argue and nitpick over what is and isn't balanced.

Homebrew is a nightmare for most groups, even good homebrew (and most of it isn't). And expecting them to open the door to all those problems just for you is kind of rude.

This.

TheFlatline · Post by **TheFlatline** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 8:17 pm

icyshadowlord wrote:My motive was to ask for opinions. One on part in the already-distant past, I tried to pwn the DM, but then I realized that was a stupid idea. And I am not really sure what to even say anymore, since in my own opinion we've already been shown enough views on this topic. And like someone already said, everyone has their own style of DMing.

Someone telling me "dude this is totally balanced LET ME PLAY MY HOMEBREW" isn't a compelling argument that the homebrew is balanced and thought out.

Before I would let *you* play the homebrew that you bring in, I'd be more inclined to let someone else test it for a while to see how it breaks, because I promise you, it *will* break if one person is the only input into the project.

And really, all the fricking work I do anyway as the MC makes the game hard enough to run. The cost/benefit ratio of letting you bring homebrew in on a "dude trust me" argument is shit for me as the MC. I get lots of headaches and in all likelihood a broken, unbalanced mess that will be revised and changed several times during play.

The problems that arise from untested homebrew classes also mean that I'll probably be focusing on dealing with your broken-ass class concept rather than running the game.

All in all, I don't *owe* you a gaming experience as the MC. I do it because I enjoy it. The less I enjoy it, the less I'm going to want to MC.

Swordslinger · Post by **Swordslinger** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 8:23 pm

icyshadowlord wrote:Why?! Why the fuck do you always prefer slightly reflavored core classes over far better-fitting homebrew classes? Why do you force us to sticking to only partially fitting core races instead of letting us play the homebrew races we fluffed and statted with sweat, blood and tears? What is so fucking scary in online stuff or in stuff written by your own players?!

The fact that it's probably crazy unbalanced. Also once you allow it for one PC, everyone is going to want it. Then at that point, you might as well not even bother having classes at all, because it just turns into "pick what I want".

As for races, that's a super no, because I don't want some race that has no basis in the story or campaign world, just because a player wants to min/max.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 8:27 pm

DSMatticus wrote:On the flipside, allowing everyone to introduce their own homebrew choices has a pretty good chance of leading to a party of special snowflakes whose mere existence smacks probability and believability in the face.

Um... WTF?

Why does the mere existence of a Firemage/StormLord/Snowscaper/Force Potentate party smack probability and believability in the face, where a party of Wizard who casts Fire spells/Wizard who casts Lightning and Wind and Fog spells/Wizard that casts Cold and Ice spells/Wizard who casts Force spells does not?

Ikeren · Post by **Ikeren** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 8:35 pm

I do allow some Homebrew, but I want it e-mailed to me weeks in advance and full permission to post it on a dozen forums for feedback on balance and implications.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 8:49 pm

This has been answered in general pretty well, so I'm gonna answer rather personally:

Why?! Why the fuck do you always prefer slightly reflavored core classes over far better-fitting homebrew classes? Why do you force us to sticking to only partially fitting core races instead of letting us play the homebrew races we fluffed and statted with sweat, blood and tears? What is so fucking scary in online stuff or in stuff written by your own players?! That question is made even more serious when that player has also been an MC and you know that he/she knows how the game's balance works!!

Cheap-shot answer: Because making Happy frustrated is half the fun of running a game.

Longer answer: Because when I decide to run a game, I want to build a world with constraints on it. These constraints are often arbitrary, but their very existence helps for fantastic worlds to be more coherent and provides all players with the basic fairness of the opportunity to choose options from the same superset of material.

For an example of world coherence: If I run a world where part of the metaplot is the slow ebbing of magic and adventurers are expected to grub in ruins for magic items that were passed over in times where magic was more common and then somebody wants to play a "Psionics are Different" Psion I suddenly have to invent reasons why the rest of the world isn't just converting from magic to Psionics, and such explanations are gonna be either flimsy or really really convoluted if in game events have already established that the world's major powers have decided to back dungeon-delving over researching alternatives to magic.

For an example of fairness, say that I started out a "core only" game for whatever reason. Brian decided to play a core Fighter for the first 4 levels. But then at level 4, Mike joins the game, and wants to bring in a Tome Fighter and argues ferociously for it. Mike's right in that Core fighters are weak, and the Tome material is good. But as MC, it's not merely my role, but it's my patriotic duty to tell Mike to stuff it, this is a core only-game, because letting him bring in a Tome Fighter means that Brian is either going to be stuck with a character who is overshadowed in his own niche which will really upset the dude who needs to kill some orcs to vent the frustrations in his life, or Brian have to rebuild his character according to a new rulesset - and asking Brian to do that while he has two jobs, three kids and Guard duty is downright cruel. Even with Brian aside, back at level 1, Mole might have decided to play something other than CoDzilla powergame differently if there had been better non-caster options available at the game start, but the Tome options weren't available back then, so he built a character with the options that were available and changing those options midstream is unfair to him.

Furthermore, keeping the number of options limited to a countable number lets players keep track of what their character, other player characters and enemy NPCs can do - allowing an unlimited number of options causes confusion, option paralysis and buyer's remorse among players.

icyshadowlord · Post by **icyshadowlord** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 8:58 pm

I don't really mess with homebrew classes, only with homebrew races. Needed to clarify that since some people thought I was trying to shove a homebrew class in that one DM's face back in the day...like I said earlier, I have no problems admitting that the proper balancing of a class is a horrible hassle and can't be done alone (needs playtesting and such, like someone here had said).

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 8:59 pm

That's great Josh, now go back and read my actual question, and answer that instead.

I didn't ask why you wouldn't allow homebrew. I didn't ask why you think X would destroy your setting. I didn't ask why it's unfair for one person to have the Fighter, and another the Tome Fighter. I didn't ask any of those things.

I asked why having a party of four homebrew classes somehow defies probability that such a party would exist, when four Wizards who do the exact things teaming up together doesn't.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:02 pm

Edit for Kaelik: I was replying to the original question in the thread before I got to you. Hence why I quoted it. I know it's a shock, but I do frequently address people other than you

Kaelik wrote:
DSMatticus wrote:On the flipside, allowing everyone to introduce their own homebrew choices has a pretty good chance of leading to a party of special snowflakes whose mere existence smacks probability and believability in the face.
Um... WTF?

Why does the mere existence of a Firemage/StormLord/Snowscaper/Force Potentate party smack probability and believability in the face, where a party of Wizard who casts Fire spells/Wizard who casts Lightning and Wind and Fog spells/Wizard that casts Cold and Ice spells/Wizard who casts Force spells does not?

WTF yourself?

Have you ever looked at homebrews from elsewhere on the web?

The Firemage, Snowscaper etc are some of the more balanced playable and easy to comprehend netbook classes out there. You are not going to hit that caliber of design with the typical homebrew - instead you're going to get stuck with stuff like players tracking their (alternate) Marshall's Battle Order Points according to a different subsytem than the other's guy's Sniper's Aim Points to both be slightly less effective than a guy playing a core ranger with a cure wand and 2 levels in core fighter levels would be.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:07 pm

Kaelik wrote:Why does the mere existence of a Firemage/StormLord/Snowscaper/Force Potentate party smack probability and believability in the face, where a party of Wizard who casts Fire spells/Wizard who casts Lightning and Wind and Fog spells/Wizard that casts Cold and Ice spells/Wizard who casts Force spells does not?

DSM wrote:introduce their own homebrew choices has a pretty good chance of leading to a party of special snowflakes whose mere existence smacks probability and believability in the face.

Firstly, I'll concede that applies much more to races than classes, but icy's been talking more about races anyway. Classes are totally easier to justify, though they still have the problem of getting awkward "special snowflake" treatment when you allow a homebrew class for one player because the status quo assumption up until then was no homebrew, and the balancing issues all still apply.

Secondly, pointing out that most of the tome homebrew or other homebrew around here is 'really good homebrew' does absolutely nothing to change the fact that it is not at all representative of the homebrew people come up with on their own or dig off of the internet. If someone makes the assertion, "homebrew in general is pretty god damn shitty, especially the stuff players come up with on their own," and you reply with a handful of examples of good homebrew, you have accomplished exactly nothing.

So what the fuck was your point exactly? You haven't refuted anything anyone's said. You provided a counter-example to a non-universal claim. Woopty-fucking-doo.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:11 pm

Josh_Kablack wrote:WTF yourself?

Have you ever looked at homebrews from elsewhere on the web?

The Firemage, Snowscaper etc are some of the more balanced playable and easy to comprehend netbook classes out there. You are not going to hit that caliber of design with the typical homebrew - instead you're going to get stuck with stuff like players tracking their Marshall's Battle Order Points according to a different subsytem than the other's guy's Sniper's Aim Points to both be slightly less effective than a guy playing a core ranger with a cure wand and 2 levels in core fighter levels would be.

Okay great, so other homebrews suck.

Now again, why the fuck does a party of Stabbinator/Sniper/Ninja Warrior/FistMaster defy probability but Fighter who stabs people with a spear/Fighter who shoots a bow/Fighter who runs on walls to stab people and does pull ups/Fighter who punches people not?

What is so unbelievable about four homebrew classes teaming up that it's unbelievably actually punches probability in the face with a hammer, but four people who do the exact same thing slightly differently doesn't, because they are all in the same book?

Why is a Homebrew Duskblade/Homebrew Hexblade/Homebrew Totemist/Homebrew Sorcerer party shit in the face of probability with their immense massive unbelievableness of them all being in the same party, but a Duskblade/Hexblade/Totemist/Sorcerer doesn't?

What the fuck does it mean that four special snowflake classes will by "mere existence smack probability and believability in the face."

DSMatticus wrote:Secondly, pointing out that most of the tome homebrew or other homebrew around here is 'really good homebrew' does absolutely nothing to change the fact that it is not at all representative of the homebrew people come up with on their own or dig off of the internet. If someone makes the assertion, "homebrew in general is pretty god damn shitty, especially the stuff players come up with on their own," and you reply with a handful of examples of good homebrew, you have accomplished exactly nothing.

You are an idiot, I didn't fucking say a single thing about balance. I know most homebrew is shitty. What I want to know is how does some party of homebrew classes slap reality in the face by existing because it's so fucking weird that 4 people would get together in a party?

DSMatticus wrote:So what the fuck was your point exactly? You haven't refuted anything anyone's said. You provided a counter-example to a non-universal claim. Woopty-fucking-doo.

I didn't need to refute anything you said, because what you actually said was completely meaningless nonsense. What I asked was for you to clarify your nonsense into something that actually means anything, and isn't stupid.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:15 pm

Kaelik wrote:Stabbinator/Sniper/Ninja Warrior/FistMaster

How about half-beholder, hivemind locust swarm, sentient ooze, and ghost of a construct?

icyshadowlord · Post by **icyshadowlord** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:16 pm

...I only now realized that I pretty much opened a very nice can of worms here by starting this thread. However, at least we're seeing some opinions on things here. And yeah, you guys can say that races are a lot harder to incorporate to an existing campaign, but I forgot to say that I myself actually work the game worlds with my DM and talk with him about the campaign worlds themselves, and actually give him suggestions on how to incorporate my races INTO the world. He doesn't straight-up say no nowadays, and the only thing that's stopped him so far is the lowering of the amount of races in existence in most campaigns, which is fine so far.

Well, until he decides to go for a more high fantasy campaign, my chances of playing a Holstaur (I don't care what class, I'm just fine playing a cowgirl for the friggin lolz) or an Akavish (like a Drider, except replace Drow with Human) will remain non-existent unless I play with another group. But hey, that's life.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:20 pm

DSMatticus wrote:
Kaelik wrote:Stabbinator/Sniper/Ninja Warrior/FistMaster
How about half-beholder, hivemind locust swarm, sentient ooze, and ghost of a construct?

Okay, and how the fuck is that more super special weird that they would end up together than four Wizards? If you accept that constructs make ghosts and Beholder procreate with non Beholders, then ghost constructs and half beholders exist, and they might team up with any combination of other people, and it wouldn't be any weirder than the Rainbow Mage Squad.

Why would a ghost construct teaming up with a half beholder be slapping reality in the face while a half beholder teaming up with Wizards is normal, but if he teams up with a ghost construct, then it's suddenly reality destroying?

You can also have a warforged ghost/Beholder/Hivemind/sentient ooze party without any homebrew, so the statement:

Something that already could happen in the wotc game pisses me off, and even though it's less likely in homebrew, is still possible, so no homebrew.

Is pretty fucking stupid.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:24 pm

Oh, you're not merely being an ass to be an ass, you're talking about in-character probability and being an ass about it instead of being clear.

I'm talking about the probability that random homebrews will actually be mechanically playable without glaring balance and or complexity issues.

I have no damned idea which DSM was talking about and even less why you're swearing at me for not explaining his viewpoint.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:29 pm

EDIT: My stupidity preserved for posterity, but skip to the end for final answer.

Josh_Kablack wrote:Oh, you're not merely being an ass to be an ass, you're talking about in-character probability and being an ass about it instead of being clear.

I was as clear as possible, I have no idea why you had to slam your head against the wall and be extra stupid, and refuse to believe that I said what I meant instead of meaning something completely unrelated because you thought you'd enjoy arguing against it more.

Josh_Kablack wrote:I'm talking about the probability that random homebrews will actually be mechanically playable without glaring balance and or complexity issues.

Which no one else is talking about, and I specifically told you I wasn't talking about in my second post, but you kept trying to pretend I was.

Josh_Kablack wrote:I have no damned idea which DSM was talking about and even less why you're swearing at me for not explaining his viewpoint.

Probably because you quoted my question to DSM, pretended you were answering it, and then when I told you you hadn't answered it, said "Yes I did! WAAAAAAHHAAAHhHAHA"

EDIT:

Josh_Kablack wrote:Edit for Kaelik: I was replying to the original question in the thread before I got to you. Hence why I quoted it. I know it's a shock, but I do frequently address people other than you

As you can see from my above post. I became retarded towards the beginning and thought you where quoting me in your first post, hence, everything else.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 11:29 pm

Kaelik wrote:Okay, and how the fuck is that more super special weird that they would end up together than four Wizards? If you accept that constructs make ghosts and Beholder procreate with non Beholders, then ghost constructs and half beholders exist, and they might team up with any combination of other people, and it wouldn't be any weirder than the Rainbow Mage Squad.

Wait, you think it's no more difficult to justify completely freakish, rare, unusual creatures getting together than a bunch of wizards? Wizards who all probably run in vaguely similar magical social circles? Compared to the collection of aberrant things I mentioned who have literally nothing in common with eachother, not even a common society?

To be fair, most people don't care about the "how they met" part. That gets handwaved and ignored all the time. So while the existence of a party of different freaks is a smack to the face of probability and believability, nobody cares, not even me. Point conceded.

Kaelik wrote:You can also have a warforged ghost/Beholder/Hivemind/sentient ooze party

Yes. And most DM's would not allow any of those things, so the fact that core freaks lead to the same problems and get banned is totally consistent with what I said.

Kaelik wrote:and even though it's less likely in homebrew

And I don't buy this. There's nothing to base this off of but anecdote, but most of the homebrew races I've seen brought to DM's are "weird and different." Look at ice's human-drider thing. That's not something that just 'fits right in,' that's definitely in the 'freak' category. Of course, the cowgirl is an opposite example, because that fits right in, so... yeah, the flaw of anecdotes. If you genuinely think the homebrew races people take to their DM's are 'usually' sane and normal-ish, then we're just going to disagree on this point.

But all of that aside, I probably should have been more clear and thrown in the word 'functioning' or 'typical' in there somewhere. A party of freaks cannot do the same things a D&D party can and not shit all over suspension of disbelief (the captain of the guard does not hire sentient oozes to help him with the smuggling ring). And yes, that problem is totally solvable (change the campaign setting to make the freaks not-freaks, change the adventures into ones freaks can participate in), but that's putting a burden on the DM, so solving it just leads to another problem.

The actual complaint a DM might have concerning this problem would go something like this: "Allowing homebrew means some player is/may eventually going to bring some ridiculous concept to me, and I'm going to have to either do extra work to make that fit in my campaign or deal with telling him no and the potential debate. On the other hand, I can just say standard core races (as in, the things listed in the races section of the PHB and variants of those), and have nearly no problems at all and have to do no extra work." And that's a semi-reasonable complaint to have, even if it is layered in a ton of conditionals that may not end up applying in certain specific circumstances.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 11:37 pm

DSMatticus wrote:
Kaelik wrote:and even though it's less likely in homebrew
And I don't buy this. There's nothing to base this off of but anecdote, but most of the homebrew races I've seen brought to DM's are "weird and different." Look at ice's human-drider thing. That's not something that just 'fits right in,' that's definitely in the 'freak' category. Of course, the cowgirl is an opposite example, because that fits right in, so... yeah, the flaw of anecdotes. If you genuinely think the homebrew races people take to their DM's are 'usually' sane and normal-ish, then we're just going to disagree on this point.

If you allow homebrew all the people who want to be special snowflake Illithids can be special snowflake Stormlords instead, and then you have fewer people clamoring for bullshit races, because they have more options to feel different without being a stupid race.

But yes it's just as likely that a half beholder will party up with a ghost construct as a Wizard, so the party of half beholder and ghost construct is not any more unbelievable than a party of Wizard/Half Beholder/Wizard/Wizard.

And if your argument is seriously:

Well, if someone presents a Beholder, I'll say no, but if they present a Wizard, I'll say yes, but if they present a homebrew, I won't be able to say no! Then you should murder yourself right now.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 12:04 am

Kaelik wrote:Well, if someone presents a Beholder, I'll say no, but if they present a Wizard, I'll say yes, but if they present a homebrew, I won't be able to say no! Then you should murder yourself right now.

That's not the argument at all. The argument is that allowing homebrew means dealing with the problem of deciding which homebrew to accept and reject, and then justifying that to the player or whatever or dealing with the problems of accepting it.

There's a clear, clear difference between beholder and wizard, or more appropriately between beholder and human. Wizard and human are in the PHB. Beholder is not. Pointing to the PHB for rules and material on player creation is a fantastic way to make sure everyone is on the exact same page and create an accept/reject process that basically takes no work from the DM. Everything is already familiar and it has a place in the campaign setting.

This isn't to say the PHB, core rules, or campaign setting lead to better results than homebrew. The Tomes exist, and kick core's ass in terms of balance and coherency. But core is easier to do than homebrew.

Kaelik wrote:But yes it's just as likely that a half beholder will party up with a ghost construct as a Wizard

Wait, you think that would be true in-setting? If that were true in-setting, it would imply there are exactly as many ghost constructs as there are wizards trying to do whatever it is these hypothetical D&D characters are trying to do. What if there's a hundred human wizards for every ghost construct? I.e. are the odds that a D&D party contains one rare creature the same as the odds that a D&D party contains all rare creatures? Obviously not.

But again, most people ignore this because they don't care, me included. The PC's are special, and defy probability routinely. It's what makes them PC's. But a party of special snowflakes still has trouble believably interacting with the campaign world, and that's a more important concern.

The Gaming Den

Question to MCs / DMs

Re: Question to MCs / DMs