The Gaming Den

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!!

Okay, I might be venting some anger here as well, but I would like to see how you guys here at the Den feel about this. Do you agree with me? Have you had the same injustices done on you by some narrow-minded MC? Or have you actually done that to someone and now need to explain yourself?

Only time I say no to classes/races is if they don't fit my setting or seem unbalanced.Most of the time when a player asks me for something and I say n"no" to it, it usually falls under these two categories. Hell I've said no to published stuff that I didn't like. For example, I usually (except once) say no to players who ask to play kender or to players who ask to play a Gungan (or a similarly personally insulting/annoying race). Class wise I've not been asked for much especially home brew wise. Most player's will ask me can they cross class into X, get X skill instead of Y skill, or if they can do some funky multiclassing majigger. To these I've hardly ever had a problem (at least I can't remember any).

The "not fit my setting" I can understand...at least until I notice the DM DELIBERATELY making settings where my homebrew races have no place to fit in...which actually did happen once, which is relatively frustrating considering that low fantasy settings just don't work well with the D&D system. And besides, the two homebrew races I want to try out right now fit into any setting where Minotaurs, Driders/Drow and Humans exist (and spiders, because what kind of world would it be if there was not even one fucking spider in existence), WHICH IS QUITE MANY SETTINGS. And damn it, the first homebrew race could even work as a replacement for Minotaurs!!

Edits to make a statement. Also realized that I'm throwing a hissy fit here.

A DM doesn't have to put your homebrew races if he doesn't want to, if only because "no" is an acceptable answer.

I am well-aware of that, but I think we should move back to the first point. Why do DMs have a phobic fear of homebrews anyway? I mean, even after you've pointed out that it's not a threat to his/her setting or the game's balance? (Even though I still think a proper DM would give more justification and a good replacement for the thing not allowed instead of risking ruining the atmosphere in the group)

Because most homebrew stuff tends to be shit, so they play it safe.

Duh.

Read the whole post, for fuck's sake. "I mean, even after you've pointed out that it's not a threat to his/her setting or the game's balance?"

I have been a DM myself, and so has that DM who I had a fight with.

Maybe they just think your stuff is lame and shit?

...you are going off-topic again, which makes me once doubt that actual wisdom of the Den.

Edit: Since it seems this isn't going nowhere, I might as well wait for this thread to get locked. Also, I find it funny how I'm one of the rare few homebrew-friendly DMs, even though I too am careful with what I let the people play as, but mostly for balance reasons.

First, there's no collective hive mind here that determines some Unified RPG policy of the Den.

Now... You can act like a little hurt pussy princess all you want, but the fact remains that GM is also one of the players playing the game, and is also a member of a group of people that sits down to play an RPG. Just as you have no obligation to play in a game you don't like, the GM has no obligation to accept stuff you want him to, but he thinks is lame.

And heck, choosing stuff that will be a part of a setting, and, through that, of a game, is that thing that is decided on a group level. If you break down some hypothetical doors and barge in, saying "I have a replacement minotaur" and everyone shrugs and says "play a god damn core minotaur" you really have no right to complain. If, on the other hand, everyone says "wow, sounds, and looks cool" and a GM says "No, no, you can't put that in my precious setting", then the GM is a prick who should take a break from GMing.

For all I care, I made my regular D&D setting with large input of all the people I play with. However, that was done years ago, and when we play that setting, we come with a set of expectations as to how the game is going to look like, what we're going to play etc. If someone new came in, and for example, insisted on playing a Warforged, we'd feel under no obligation to introduce it. And that's life.

As a GM I prefer reflavored existing things to homebrew since it is less work for me. Less work to check for balance, less new things to learn, and so on. And with a full time job I loathe working more than needed in my free time.

One thing to consider as well is that the homebrew class might very well fit your concept far better, but the concept itself might not fit the campaign that well.

And when it comes to the setting, some homebrew races and/or classes demand far-reaching changes, which may not be to my taste (and result in more work as well).

Kobajagrande wrote: If, on the other hand, everyone says "wow, sounds, and looks cool" and a GM says "No, no, you can't put that in my precious setting", then the GM is a prick who should take a break from GMing.

First of all, I found it funny that you thought I was still butthurt about a thing me and that DM had already settled peacefully earlier. But wanna know the funny thing? This example that I quoted is more or less how it went. The other players liked my idea, the GM didn't. And let's not even go to one case where he PROMISED I get to play one character he and I had actually went out to design, only for him to suddenly change his mind and ban that character with no warning or even asking from the other players.

Also, the "less work" argument seems silly to me. As a DM, I love to tinker and fool around with stuff I am not too familiar with. And really, adding one damned homebrew race isn't THAT much work. Homebrew classes, on the other hand...

icyshadowlord wrote: First of all, I found it funny that you thought I was still butthurt about a thing me and that DM had already settled peacefully earlier.

Honestly, I think you are butthurt since you came here, didn't get an immediate response you wanted, and immediately went like "you're all stupid" and "lock this thread". Boo hoo hoo.

As for the situation you explained, I kinda sympathize with you, and I already said that I think those sort of people should take a break from GMing. But you came here with broad generalizations, and I don't really care for those.

icyshadowlord wrote:Also, the "less work" argument seems silly to me. As a DM, I love to tinker and fool around with stuff I am not too familiar with. And really, adding one damned homebrew race isn't THAT much work. Homebrew classes, on the other hand...

You do, others don't. And that's life.

From my point of view, introducting a new race into a setting is MUCH stranger than introducting a class.

icyshadowlord wrote: Also, the "less work" argument seems silly to me. As a DM, I love to tinker and fool around with stuff I am not too familiar with. And really, adding one damned homebrew race isn't THAT much work. Homebrew classes, on the other hand...

The "less work to just go with what I know, including but not limited to allowing my homebrew but not yours" is a big reason I don't allow a lot of homebrew when I DM/GM/MC.

Hasn't been a problem in many years...since I've gamed with the same 5-8 people for more than a decade now, and we all know what to expect from each other when we DM/GM/MC.

Game On,
fbmf

icyshadowlord wrote:Also, the "less work" argument seems silly to me. As a DM, I love to tinker and fool around with stuff I am not too familiar with. And really, adding one damned homebrew race isn't THAT much work. Homebrew classes, on the other hand...

If you have time to waste, go ahead. But do not presume that everyone has your own tastes - or your free time.

Fuchs wrote:

icyshadowlord wrote:Also, the "less work" argument seems silly to me. As a DM, I love to tinker and fool around with stuff I am not too familiar with. And really, adding one damned homebrew race isn't THAT much work. Homebrew classes, on the other hand...

If you have time to waste, go ahead. But do not presume that everyone has your own tastes - or your free time.

I concur with my colleague.

Game On,
fbmf

I am surprised by how you're still talking in that manner, but really...how much time is a DM expected to have? That's actually a good question in my opinion since some plan sessions for hours, and others plan them for days.

For the DM, the assumption that something that was printed and official is balanced, or at least "balanced enough" is very tempting. For the player, the assumption that printed material actually represents what it says it represents is equally tempting.

Thus it is that for the DM, it is always more attractive to have the player come in with refluffed versions of mechanical constructs that they have already allowed than it is for the player. Similarly, it is always more attractive for the player to bring in a new class (or whatever) that is exactly what they want rather than sticking already available materials together and refluffing.

That's just the inherent prejudices of being on either side of the screen, based on peoples' natural desire to do less work. Refluffing is more work for the player and less work for the DM. Bringing in new material is less work for the player and more work for the DM.

-Username17

icyshadowlord wrote:I am surprised by how you're still talking in that manner, but really...how much time is a DM expected to have? That's actually a good question in my opinion since some plan sessions for hours, and others plan them for days.

Between a lot and not at all.

icyshadowlord wrote:The "not fit my setting" I can understand...at least until I notice the DM DELIBERATELY making settings where my homebrew races have no place to fit in...which actually did happen once, which is relatively frustrating considering that low fantasy settings just don't work well with the D&D system. And besides, the two homebrew races I want to try out right now fit into any setting where Minotaurs, Driders/Drow and Humans exist (and spiders, because what kind of world would it be if there was not even one fucking spider in existence), WHICH IS QUITE MANY SETTINGS. And damn it, the first homebrew race could even work as a replacement for Minotaurs!!

Edits to make a statement. Also realized that I'm throwing a hissy fit here.

Races and classes are different for me, as a DM. A race is an obvious, tangible thing. It either exists or it doesn't. A class is a nebulous concept that grants you abilities; the sum of which define what your character can do. I'm a lot more open to people adding in their own classes than races.

That's not to say I'd never say yes to a race, but I will be slower to accept a race. Do note I've let players create their own tribes and similar backstory elements which would "physically exist" in my world, so I do give players some creative control in campaign creation.

Yeah, classes can be far more easily integrated in a setting than races. And not everyone finds the "stepped through a portal, is now the unique snowflake in your setting" character that much fun to GM for.

I have a player that has "special snowflake step through a portal" as every character he does. I tend to veto things he suggests just because I'm tired of it.

Because rules are what define games.

If you are constantly modifying the rules, you are not playing a game, you are playing magical tea party.

It's exactly like showing up to play chess, and saying "this time, rooks move normally, but capture like pawns!" Most people aren't going to be interested, and many of the ones that are interested are still going to be ticked off if you try to make that change halfway through the game.

fectin wrote:Because rules are what define games.

If you are constantly modifying the rules, you are not playing a game, you are playing magical tea party.

It's exactly like showing up to play chess, and saying "this time, rooks move normally, but capture like pawns!" Most people aren't going to be interested, and many of the ones that are interested are still going to be ticked off if you try to make that change halfway through the game.

It's not magic tea party if you change the rules before the game starts. If people decide to play $500 on free parking Monopoly, that's fine, if they decide before they actually play. If the guy who lands on free parking suddenly wants to incorporate that, then it's stupid.

Seeing as how chargen happens before the game starts, it's not magic tea party.

Fuchs wrote:Yeah, classes can be far more easily integrated in a setting than races. And not everyone finds the "stepped through a portal, is now the unique snowflake in your setting" character that much fun to GM for.

Although it is an effective way of introducing new races; much better than "I want to play this race, so you'll need to integrate it into the campaign world as though it was always there". Then, when someone wants to play a lizardman, the MC can say "there are no lizardmen in this campaign world, but you can come through a portal from a universe where there are". Now, that character is an oddity, and will be the object of confusion and curiosity among NPCs.