Which is worse to hear from a player during character creation?

>Now, I know this isn't completely supported by the rules, but...

or

>Technically, I think you'll find that this is all legal under RAW...

>Hey have you seen [Media]? 'Cause my character is basically [Character], but with [Quirk]!

Neither is much of a problem.
>Isn't completely supported
"Okay, let's see what we can do about finding some rules that fit, or refluffing some stuff for you"
>All legal under RAW
If you're playing a well-made game, there shouldn't be anything too egregious which is RAW-legal, in which case it's either fine, or they're wrong (in which case you point out what's illegal). If you're playing something like Pathfinder, then you're either A) In a group that's all cheesemonkeys, because that's one of the main reasons to play, in which case it's fine, or B) This person is cheesier than their peers, in which case-
"Hey, that's really clever, but I'm worried about it being too powerful compared to the other characters. Would you mind either toning your character down a bit, or maybe trying that would be more of a challenge for you?" (Such as picking a historically meh class and making it good)

>My character is an expy
Depends on the tone of the game. If the character fits, that's fine, especially if the player still grounds it in your world (giving them a proper backstory, even if it's just a tweaked version of the original). Especially for newer players, basing their character off of a well known media character can help give them a starting point for roleplay, from which they can develop.
If the character doesn't fit: "I'm not sure that that character would really fit this particular game. Have you considered [alternative which ends up playing similarly but fitting better]?"


Just talk to your players like an adult during session zero and there shouldn't be a problem.

Second one. I'm the DM, I say what fly's, if you don't like it get out. If I rule that x spell or power is too good or even if I just don't like it, it'll come up at character creation and that will be that.

Hell, I encourage the first thing. I'd love to have players that think creatively and actually try different solutions to problems like stealth, diplomacy, or anything besides butchery.

The second one, by far. It shows the player is actively trying to do something they know you're not gonna like. At least with the first one there's a chance you'll find their idea interesting (and it's usually something sub-optimal anyway).

The first doesnt imply we've disagreed yet. The phrase "supported by the rules" implies that they're suggesting something that should be there but isnt, which is a discussion Im always open for.

>I'm the DM, I say what fly's
The player hasn't even explained what it is, yet. You haven't had the opportunity to say no, so they can't be refuting your "no". This is not a player arguing against your authority, it's them making a plea that they'd like to play this character.
I'd say it depends on the system, group and campaign. It sounds like the player has potentially found an interesting and creative use of mechanic options which likely wasn't intended by the designers. Like with puzzle-solving, I tend to prefer rewarding my players for cleverness and out-of-the-box-thinking, not punish it. If I'm running a game with a bajillion options, I fully expect all my players to cheese it, and that's how I'll be balancing encounters. In such a circumstance, a player approaching the GM like this would simply be a debate of whether or not what they've come up with is indeed rules-legal or not.

>>Now, I know this isn't completely supported by the rules, but...
"I have a fun idea but the mechanics don't fully support it", vs;

>Technically, I think you'll find that this is all legal under RAW...
"I'm going to try breaking the game in half and whine 'b-b-but the r-rules say' when I tell you to fuck off".

I'll take the first every time.

It's almost never a cool idea, though. It's always some dumb shit that he wants to be OP in the mechanics. I ended up dealing with this homebrew shit in Pathfinder with the race point rules. Actually that character turned out to be underpowered if anything, but only because the player actively gimped himself with stupid spell choices.

>Now, I know this isn't completely supported by the rules, but...
I give it 60%/30%/10 that they want to refluff something to better fit a specific character concept they have, want to try some kind of ridiculous bullshit, or actually have a cool idea the rules don't quite allow for, respectively. Cautiously optimistic.

>Technically, I think you'll find that this is all legal under RAW...
100% chance they want to try some kind of ridiculous bullshit, 100% chance they won't take no for an answer. All hope abandoned.

This is great if it comes up at character creation but if you're a DM and want to change rules don't wait until the rule comes up to say that its been changed, someone's character may be unjustly nerfed by the change.
>I know he browses Veeky Forums

No. If you snuck something past me thinking you could use it because I didn't call you on it during character creation, your character wasn't unjustly nerfed when I say no. Don't like it? Don't try to sneak things past me.

But it's not sneaking anything past you, it's the rules of the game. The whole purpose of having an RPG book with codified rules is to avoid the incessant mother-may-I that rules light games inevitably devolve into

E.g
I create a fighter character. I use a heavy crossbow for a while, and when I get to lvl 5 I switch to a hand crossbow. At this point the DM brings up a change he made to the rules; All crossbows can only shoot 1 bolt per round because they take a long time to reload.
All of a sudden, my character is gimped beyond belief because the DM didn't inform me of the rule change during character creation.

Changing and interpreting rules is what a DM does, but if you try to change one with a shitty reason and haven't informed me at the start of the campaign I expect a compromise.

You seem to be taking this very personally. Have you ever considered that maybe the players aren't always trying to fuck you over and sometimes characters don't come with their full 1-to-max-lv progression in the character creation? Maybe a magic user doesn't have all his 300 spells on endgame already selected by level 1? Maybe someone finds another class or some variant of his build that he likes later on? You can't predict that either as a player or as a DM.

What you're saying is basically "my players aren't allowed to pick anything without direct approval from me, and have to run through me every single idea or piece of common game material to even begin considering that as an option". You're an ass.

Definitely the second. If the player in the first one has an idea for a character that fits the setting, and system can be tweaked to allow for it without being too powerful or fun-sucking, the character is welcome in my game.

>It's almost never a cool idea, though.
>It's always some dumb shit that he wants to be OP in the mechanics.
You have bad players.

I've had experience with both. The first one usually leads to something zany, and half the times I turn it down, it's sad.

The second option always comes from the rules-lawyer. There's nothing worse than some number-wanker who'd be better off playing a computer game, where that sort of behaviour is encouraged and supported,

Why is that thicc chick wearing nothing but her underwear and a paper bag over her head, while wielding a power cable poll?

A better question is why aren't you?

I can do you one better: two out of the three other people in my group play the same characters over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. Sometimes they'll change one or two superficial things but I hope they don't think they're being clever--it's not hard to piece together that Susan the bard is just Suzanne the bard.

Second one, because if it's all legal then you have no good reason to preemptively weave legalese around it.
>I use a heavy crossbow for a while, and when I get to lvl 5 I switch to a hand crossbow
>At this point the DM brings up a change he made to the rules; All crossbows can only shoot 1 bolt per round because they take a long time to reload.
Does "at this point" mean you've already swapped out the big crossbow for the little one? Because dropping a rule change like that out of nowhere when you've just downgraded your damage is at least insensitive and at most malicious. If it's while you're contemplating swapping out the crossbows, then it's a fair warning for you consider, otherwise it's just bullshit.
>All of a sudden, my character is gimped beyond belief because the DM didn't inform me of the rule change during character creation.
The DM is completely allowed to change rules outside of character creation, even if it's to deliberately nerf a PC, but the rule change should be run by the players beforehand to see if they think it's a game-enhancing ruling before enacting it.
>Changing and interpreting rules is what a DM does, but if you try to change one with a shitty reason and haven't informed me at the start of the campaign I expect a compromise.
If your DM doesn't accept "Can I at least get a crank for my hand crossbow that only lets me fire an extra shot if its being fed a magazine?" as a legitimately working idea for that example without an exceptionally good reason, they're not a good DM, or just hate you. If the reasoning doesn't hold up, contest it. If he starts adding rules out of thin air, especially ones that hurt enjoyment of the game or character efficiency, ask your fellow players to weigh in, or try to get them to see that a Dictator Master isn't what you should have for a game.
This so hard, except one of them doesn't even bother changing the name, it's literally the same character "in this universe".

>Does "at this point" mean you've already swapped out the big crossbow for the little one?
Yeah, I've bought a hand crossbow to utilize the extra shot it gets with the crossbow mastery feat, and when trying to take the extra shot for the first time DM says "just a sec...(clicks a few things on his comp) yeah, I changed that rule a while ago, you can't take more than 1 shot with a crossbow on your turn"
>Dropping a rule change like that out of nowhere when you've just downgraded your damage is at least insensitive and at most malicious.
Its an increase if anything because I've also got sharpshooter for +10dmg/shot
>If it's while you're contemplating swapping out the crossbows, then it's a fair warning for you consider, otherwise it's just bullshit.
It is definitely bullshit
>The DM is completely allowed to change rules outside of character creation, even if it's to deliberately nerf a PC, but the rule change should be run by the players beforehand to see if they think it's a game-enhancing ruling before enacting it.
Agreed. This was the crux of my argument with him.
>If your DM doesn't accept...they're not a good DM, or just hate you.
They do, but its a sporting hate because I always find a way around whatever bullshit rules he's managed to shoe-horn into the session. Its almost a game in and of itself at this point.

Second one. It's always a retarded interpretation of the actual book missing critical context

>The player hasn't even explained what it is, yet.
If the player has to say
>Technically, I think you'll find that this is all legal under RAW...
then they already know it's going to be severely overpowered and possibly a build he got off the internet from some powergamer. You don't need to hear the rest.

I don't know, user. Why aren't you following the EXACT FUCKING ORDERS I JUST gave you TWO SECONDS ago?

Or the player might be aware that it pushes the envelope for what the system was intended to accomodate, and wants to verify that it's still allowed in the game. The most frequent I've heard this is when I've been roped into GMing Pathfinder, in which case the whole group are crazy-optimized, and creative uses of mechanics are kinda the point. "Technically legal under RAW" may as well be the motto of those sorts of games. Whacky builds are the point, and should be encouraged as long as everyone is on the same page.

>Or the player might be aware that it pushes the envelope for what the system was intended to accomodate, and wants to verify that it's still allowed in the game.
Likely because it's an oversight and probably already made illegal in further errata by the creator's FAQs.
Frankly, if you don't know if something is or is not illegal, ask the GM first before even starting to create the character.

Not the user you were talking with, but I'm disappointed you're just salty about a decision your particular DM made with you. I thought you'd made a nice, general argument against it, but nope you're just butthurt.

Also, being the sort of faggot who actually cares about the numbers of the game just means you shouldn't be playing RPGs.

> inb4 bad wrongfun

Yes, you are in fact playing RPGs incorrectly if you care more than is strictly necessary about the math. If you're all about doing the most damage and getting the best items, go play a computer game, you'll have far more fun there, and you won't be ruining other people's times with your faggotry.

>low rise thong
Discarded.
I had a pc once who wanted to start with a faerie dragon.
I refused to give it to them for free, and told them they could take one of the 4 or so mechanics that allowed for a companion, or they had to earn such a thing in game via roleplay like the other players who had such companions (one had a dragon egg, another a wolfhound he rescued, another was in good graces with a merc band).
The player dropped the entire concept because I wouldn't give them a dragon friend for free. I have no regrets, then or now.

>Now, I know this isn't completely supported by the rules, but...
The player probably has something fun in mind, and if it ends up being overpowered it should be easy to fix.

>Technically, I think you'll find that this is all legal under RAW...
The player is looking for an excuse to abuse the rules.

>Hey have you seen [Media]? 'Cause my character is basically [Character], but with [Quirk]!
The player lack creativity. Being inspired by something is cool, but making an exact copy is pretty much only okay for the jokiest of joke games.

Both are probably fine to hear, though the second is worse.

The first implies that they want to work on/propose some homebrew, which I ultimately have the decision on.

The second implies that they're trying to do something cheesy. But the fact that they're bringing it forward to me instead of trying to surprise me with it suggests that they're willing to take 'no' for an answer.

>being the sort of faggot who actually cares about the numbers of the game just means you shouldn't be playing RPGs.
What does a fighter do?
A wizard has all the utility in the world, they can get through an entire campaign without dealing damage once, but they also have a huge variety of damage spells.
A bard can be the party's face, excels in social situations and diplomatic missions and can deal a nice amount of damage in combat. Rangers and Druids excel in woodland environments where they can increase party travel speed, negate hazardous terrain and also deal a bunch large chunks of damage when needed.
All your parties fighter will ever do is deal damage, if I could play any other role with my currently gimped character I would have at least tried.
If a wizard spell book has all the damage spells taken out of it they could still be fairly useful. If they lost their spell focus as a bard they can still be useful in social and combat situations, same with druid and ranger.
But when the only thing that a character can ever do is taken away by a fickle DM what are they supposed to do?

This is more or less spot on and you sound like a good GM user

This is a valid point.

Get upset, ask if you could rebuild the character to using bows since the house rules fuck you over, if he does not, retire the character and roll up a new one. If you get hit with a penalty for a new character consider leaving the game.
Sadly less cathartic than punching the GM in the groin but it is probably not a bad option.

I've already got a solid "I'll stay behind and hold them off" plan to kill the char, its only lvl5 so I won't be too far behind for rolling a lvl4 character.

>yfw the DM brings back your character with a magic crossbow that can fire as many times a round as he wants, from 900 feet

>yfw thats something he would probably do
Well its time to roll a mystic and be prepared to kill my old friend

I specifically tell my players that if they have a character idea that isn't supported by the rules I'll sit down with them to see if we can implement their idea in a balanced way or make some sort of agreeable compromise.

Usually we can reach an agreement that retains the essence of their original concept, my only requirements is that the implementation is balanced and plausible within the setting.

I'd generally be more worried by the "technically this is legal" side of things.

Yes, but sometimes things get missed in playtesting, and some combination winds up way above the baseline characters are intended to be at. Game designers are only human.

>Have you ever considered that maybe the players aren't always trying to fuck you over and sometimes characters don't come with their full 1-to-max-lv progression in the character creation?
Of course. But when that's the case they don't preface it with "so technically this is legal under RAW." If you have to tell me the rules support what you're doing, you already know you're doing something wrong. If you didn't, you'd just say "hey, here's my character."

>You're an ass
And you're a cunt.

I think you mean
>Have you seen [Anime]?

Not since that girl decided she was going to make Hawkeye after watching the Avengers.

Any player that does this can fuck off, I had to endure one uncreative fuck in my old gaming group who'd literally play his shitty self-insert elf complete with premade Excel sheet that tracks his entire planned progress from level 1 to 20 EVERY FUCKING TIME.

And every game, he did NOTHING but the most basic combat thing he knew: Shooting an arrow from his gay ass bow. Doesn't matter what options or freedom he was given, always the same fucking thing.

Gotta love abnegators.

>Binary choice
Go fuck yourself

...

>Now, I know this isn't completely supported by the rules, but...
This is far worse. It indicates that the player wants to break outside the playing field everyone else is on, and likely has no real conception of the rules and balance so whatever they're proposing will either not work like they want or be broken as fuck.

>Technically, I think you'll find that this is all legal under RAW...
This is fine so long as "under RAW" includes my house rules. If I'm running a system I've vetted the rules and closed off the OP and UP options, then informed the players of my changes before character creation.
That said, if they made a character before I gave them the rules, then they may need a firm and decisive "No, RTFHR".

Maxed out dex archer isn't the worst thing and his abilites work depending on the power level of the setting. if she decided on something like hulk, or god forbid iron man, i'd be concerned.

...

>implying I'm not

>mfw this whole fight

>Now, I know this isn't completely supported by the rules, but...
This sounds like they have a character concept that isn't covered in the core options. Usually I could work something out by adapting previously existing options.

>Technically, I think you'll find that this is all legal under RAW...
This can be much worse, and usually means they want to do something game-breaking but supported under the rules. But what they say afterwards matters more.

Ultimately neither of these are inherently bad and what matters most is what comes after.

This is a great image, where'd you get it.

What's a thread like you doing on a page like this?

It's an edit of an image featured in an old Chick Publications gospel tract.

Nice. Of which one?

Both are fine. If you can't deal with those question, you're a worthless DM.

Had a player in a shadowrun game who was literally just an anime video game character. Literally, name and all, sent a picture of his character that was promo art. Didn't even change the backstory, he was trained 'at the academy' apparently.

That being said, our GM was equally bad, aforementioned character died later to a non-damaging flash grenade.

user please, I have one that's worth than both of those put together.

>Hey user! I found this cool class on DnDWiki I wanna play

Being able to play Conan, Elric and Mazirian fighting Nazgul in the Last Redoubt was the whole point of RPGs.

>expy-character.
As someone with close to no experience in the hobby my thought about this is that it's a lazy way of going about character creation that is also highly coloured by the biasis of the participants. What I would have done if I wanted to play x but in setting y is to 'list off' the characteristics of x without actuallu refering to him/her so that I wouldn't give the character the unecessary baggage that comes with involving peoples opinions about media.

There's no way to make a reasonable facsimile of any of those in DnD unless you perhaps roll extremely well for stats. Conan's attributes are massive all across the board for example.

I think you need to look for some treatment for your autism before playing with other people

>roll extremely well for stats.
>Rolling for stats

>being a powergaming point buyer

>going in with a concept makes you a powergamer

It does. Idiot.

Hey, don't knock flashbangs, those hurt.