Want to Play a Samurai, But Your DM Said No? Try Calling it a Knight Instead!

Folks, there is no need to turn this into a personal issue. If you want to continue with this thread, you need to find a less accusatory approach to discussing this.

Wouldn't reflavoring, actually help the DM, with making sure PCs fit the flavor of the game they are running?

Also, I have never seen, any "no reflavoring" rule, for PFS.

Certain things such as weapons and races can not be reflavored. I don't know about other things.

There was actually a topic in the PFS forums recently because someone wanted to reskin an elf or half-elf into a drow. They kept trying to find loopholes, and finally Mike Broke stepped in and said "no" with a few more words attached.

In our games, if you can't sufficiently explain how you got those weapons (Tian Xia being a long way off and hard to get a hold of), then you are out of luck. But the Samurai doesn't need to be reskined. All the player has to do is promise not to use a katana, naginata, and wakizashi. After that I think the class is just fine.

Of coarse at that point you are just playing another Cavalier...

I know that this solution I am about to offer might be unpopular but here goes nothing or everything.

1) Discuss with the said DM the pro's of allowing you to play this class. Be prepared to counter his/her cons to the class without being argumenetive. There's no quicker way to get someone to dig in their heels than being argumenative for the sake of wanting to get what you want. You come off as being whiney and most GM's don't want to knock heads with a player because they feel butt hurt. If you need help creating your case discuss it with other players to help you make your point. This by no means will be a 100% victory for players but if the GM is still unconvinced than accept that this is something that won't happen at this point.

1a) If option 1 is unsuccessful than ask if at sometime in the future, if the GM would be willing to allow it in the future. Perhaps the GM is unprepared to deal with the Samurai at this time. Perhaps they just don't like the mechanics of the class, or they just don't know enough about the mechanics. Either way, it could be disasterous in the long run.

2) If 1 or 1a don't work, find another GM to suit your needs. I know it's difficult to jump ship and find a new group or GM but if a GM is that unwilling to work with you than chances are you're not having fun.

Before katanas became a thing in D&D, people reflavored bastard swords. I don't see why the reverse couldn't be the case.

In our games, if you can't sufficiently explain how you got those weapons (Tian Xia being a long way off and hard to get a hold of), then you are out of luck. But the Samurai doesn't need to be reskined. All the player has to do is promise not to use a katana, naginata, and wakizashi. After that I think the class is just fine.

Of coarse at that point you are just playing another Cavalier...

Some people just dont have good imaginations. Why can't the GM or another player help him come up with an idea as to how he would have certain weapons?

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Wouldn't reflavoring, actually help the DM, with making sure PCs fit the flavor of the game they are running?

Also, I have never seen, any "no reflavoring" rule, for PFS.

Certain things such as weapons and races can not be reflavored. I don't know about other things.

There was actually a topic in the PFS forums recently because someone wanted to reskin an elf or half-elf into a drow. They kept trying to find loopholes, and finally Mike Broke stepped in and said "no" with a few more words attached.

So, what you are saying, is that as long as it is in reason, it is allowed?

There is a FAQ on reflavoring animals and item here.

I don't see why someone couldn't be a LG "Paladin", and have nothing but Rogue levels.

Hell, I cannot think of anything more annoying, than flavorless PCs.

I have had someone describe their PC as "average male human fighter", and got frustrated when I asked "So, what does that look like?"

I don't see why someone couldn't be a LG "Paladin", and have nothing but Rogue levels.

That's not reflavouring, but some sort of roleplay hook. Perhaps the rogue wants to be a paladin, but either didn't receive the sacred call, or hopes that (despite not having a fighter's strength) he might one day "earn" the call through virtuous living. I've done this one personally, with a fighter/thief who lacked the Wisdom to be a ranger (2e,) but still aspired to be like the fellow who saved his life and taught him some survival skills.

Perhaps it's delusion. The rogue is a bit touched in the head and thinks he's a paladin - but luckily isn't the THAT GUY version, so his friends humour him.

Perhaps it's a partial blending of the paladin's technique into the rogue's own (you know, like the idea of taking feats or class features that can emulate aspects of Resolve.) This rogue sincerely believes that she is blessed with some of the paladin's gifts, and is certainly lawful good, but also recognises that she can't "go all in," due perhaps to martial deficiencies, the oaths demanded by her order, or perhaps a negative background interaction with an actual paladin that's led her to what she has come to believe is a better way.

But it's not the same thing as saying that the rogue is a paladin, nor the paladin a rogue.

---

Some people just dont have good imaginations. Why can't the GM or another player help him come up with an idea as to how he would have certain weapons?

Why is it a lack of "good imagination" that the GM is disallowing certain weapons? And I don't mean tech weapons or guns, as they have special considerations.

But take Skyrim, for example. In that world, katana are quite rare, being possessed by:
-An order of priests tasked with sacrificing sight and sanity to interpret the Elder Scrolls;
-A criminalised, virtually extinct Imperial spy network, whose two highest-ranking survivors are weeaboos trying to relive VERY bygone eras in which the network's predecessors had been a clan of serpentfolk dragon-hunters;
-An ancient vampire - and its magical power only works if wielded by a vampire;
-There is also a chaotic evil artifact in the form of a katana, which is empowered by betrayal.

Any given weapon could be extinct (maybe you'll find some in ancient treasures,) rare, restricted, common, or not yet invented (among other things!) --- and each has implications for a would-be wielder. :)

Already got some ideas for Shoanti, Chelaxian, and Osirioni ninjas. :D

Vudrani are a no brainer, and I can see a Varisian 'hit man' :)

In our games, if you can't sufficiently explain how you got those weapons (Tian Xia being a long way off and hard to get a hold of), then you are out of luck. But the Samurai doesn't need to be reskined. All the player has to do is promise not to use a katana, naginata, and wakizashi. After that I think the class is just fine.

Of coarse at that point you are just playing another Cavalier...

You really aren't, we've been saying this. The Resolve mechanic makes the Samurai radically different from the Cavalier, as much as being able to turn invisible makes the Ninja differ from the Rogue. This is why they are alternate classes rather than archetypes.

The name of a class, should never restrict flavor.

You are not the name of you class, and the name of your class features, do not dictate flavor.

Sneak Attack, could just as well be "Smiting" for the LG Rogue.

Also, Pathfinder is not a video game, and not Skyrim.

wraithstrike wrote:

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Wouldn't reflavoring, actually help the DM, with making sure PCs fit the flavor of the game they are running?

Also, I have never seen, any "no reflavoring" rule, for PFS.

Certain things such as weapons and races can not be reflavored. I don't know about other things.

There was actually a topic in the PFS forums recently because someone wanted to reskin an elf or half-elf into a drow. They kept trying to find loopholes, and finally Mike Broke stepped in and said "no" with a few more words attached.

So, what you are saying, is that as long as it is in reason, it is allowed?

There is a FAQ on reflavoring animals and item here.

I don't see why someone couldn't be a LG "Paladin", and have nothing but Rogue levels.

Hell, I cannot think of anything more annoying, than flavorless PCs.

I have had someone describe their PC as "average male human fighter", and got frustrated when I asked "So, what does that look like?"

A flavorless PC to me is one with no background Reflavoring is describing one thing as something that it is not. As an example if I say my kukris are scimitars, that would not be allowed. I could not say an orc is an "undersized ogre".

Also I was not saying a reason allows you to break the rules. I am saying that PFS has certain specific things that can not be reflavored. This is detailed in the guide.

wraithstrike wrote:

Some people just dont have good imaginations. Why can't the GM or another player help him come up with an idea as to how he would have certain weapons?

Why is it a lack of "good imagination" that the GM is disallowing certain weapons? And I don't mean tech weapons or guns, as they have special considerations.

What are you talking about? You need to read the quote I was responding to again.

The name of a class, should never restrict flavor.

You are not the name of you class, and the name of your class features, do not dictate flavor.

Sneak Attack, could just as well be "Smiting" for the LG Rogue.

Also, Pathfinder is not a video game, and not Skyrim.

Totally disagree with this. Hitting vital spot is not smiting, and when sneak attacking you should be cear about what's happening so that the opposition can take countemeasures.

Hama is a witch, and woe be to any who tell me otherwise.

I don't force anyone anything. If I run a campaign, not only do I let everyone know IN ADVANCE what kind of campaign it's going to be, what kind of chaaracters will fit, and I only DM for people I know not to be prima donnas in the first place.

I have neither the interest, nor the time to DM for players that are that inflexible. Within the parameters I set, I can be extremely accomodating. Especially if someone comes up with an option I haven't considered.

So, if you say you're running a high renaissance game, and I say that I want to build a tough as nails, veteran of multiple campaigns hussar based loosely on Jan Zborowski using the samurai mechanics, would I acting like a primadonna and inflexible? Of course, if I wanted to do an officer of the cavalry/hussar styled after Grigory Pechorin, Order of the Cockatrice cavalier would be the perfect class.

That's what a lot of people are talking about when they talk about reskinning a class: Taking a character concept, then using the class with the mechanics that best implement that concept without regard for the class's fluff.

And yes, this is perfectly legal in PFS.

Or would it be going over the line to call the katana a sabre, or maybe allow me to take a scimitar as a preferred weapon for Weapon Expertise and call it a sabre? Or, better yet, now that they actually have an estoc in the game, let me use that for Weapon Expertise?

What bothers me about "this is a western campagin so your character must be western" most is that the exotic stranger from a distant land is a pretty common trope.

What bothers me about "this is a western campagin so your character must be western" most is that the exotic stranger from a distant land is a pretty common trope.

Yeah. Can you imagine if someone wanted to play a dervish dancing scimitar wielding arab in a campaign set around being bow and quarterstaff wielding sherwood forest bandits?

The horror.

Diminuendo wrote:

What bothers me about "this is a western campagin so your character must be western" most is that the exotic stranger from a distant land is a pretty common trope.

Yeah. Can you imagine if someone wanted to play a dervish dancing scimitar wielding arab in a campaign set around being bow and quarterstaff wielding sherwood forest bandits?

The horror.

That's the answer! Whenever a DM tells you that your idea won't fit in their game, you say, "it's cool, my character is Morgan Freeman."

Diminuendo wrote:

What bothers me about "this is a western campagin so your character must be western" most is that the exotic stranger from a distant land is a pretty common trope.

Yeah. Can you imagine if someone wanted to play a dervish dancing scimitar wielding arab in a campaign set around being bow and quarterstaff wielding sherwood forest bandits?

The horror.

I think you can forgive a DM for not having the urge to be Kevin Costner. For one thing, I prefer my Sheriffs of Nottingham to have a proper English accent.

(Wonders how many people think that Kevin Costner invented the tales of Robin Hood)

Imbicatus wrote:

Diminuendo wrote:

What bothers me about "this is a western campagin so your character must be western" most is that the exotic stranger from a distant land is a pretty common trope.

Yeah. Can you imagine if someone wanted to play a dervish dancing scimitar wielding arab in a campaign set around being bow and quarterstaff wielding sherwood forest bandits?

The horror.

I think you can forgive a DM for not having the urge to be Kevin Costner. For one thing, I prefer my Sheriffs of Nottingham to have a proper English accent.

(Wonders how many people think that Kevin Costner invented the tales of Robin Hood)

Actually, I'm pretty sure it was Cary Elwes. Not sure who else would have been responsible. I mean, look at him.

gaze lingers

...

...

What were we talking about?

That Alec Guiness does a mean Ewen McGregor impression!

so wait

what if the players and gm discuss the theme of their collective game

then work together to make both thematic characters and a setting that will embrace creative character concepts

is that ok or should I just pick a side

been burned on both sides of this so I think I will just dance on the head of a pin right here in the middle

so wait

what if the players and gm discuss the theme of their collective game

then work together to make both thematic characters and a setting that will embrace creative character concepts

is that ok or should I just pick a side

been burned on both sides of this so I think I will just dance on the head of a pin right here in the middle

The answer is that drama doesn't have to happen, unless someone insists that it does. A gaming group that's over the mental age of 5 should be able to get past these issues, by acting like the adults they are presumed to be.

Lamontius wrote:

so wait

what if the players and gm discuss the theme of their collective game

then work together to make both thematic characters and a setting that will embrace creative character concepts

is that ok or should I just pick a side

been burned on both sides of this so I think I will just dance on the head of a pin right here in the middle

The answer is that drama doesn't have to happen, unless someone insists that it does. A gaming group that's over the mental age of 5 should be able to get past these issues, by acting like the adults they are presumed to be.

Right, by digging in on your positions, complaining about being the "beast of burden," who bares all the weight and responcibility of a campaign, and calling everyone who even hints as disagreeing "entitled prima donnas." That's the adult way to handle it!

wait what

wait what

And then you have players who absolutely refuse to make a character that fits into a setting, but insist they want to play, and then go off crying to messageboards about their "Inflexible DM".

Feeling entitled much?

Listen up... No matter what BS you spout about "cooperative" gaming. It's still the DM who's doing the donkey work on setting the stage and supporting cast for you to be star actors on. You don't like the production he or she is creating... You're better off finding another DM to cater to your prima donna demands.

should I just pick a side

The real question, ignoring the usual 'whiny / entitled' hyperbole, is how you would feel about a GM who said, "In my campaign setting samurai - members of a far eastern warrior class - are special, so are the only ones capable of taking the Samurai class, and you're not in the far east so you can't be one"?

And, secondarily, how would you feel about a GM who had lots of rules like that but thought they were so obvious that they didn't need to be mentioned?

Diminuendo wrote:

What bothers me about "this is a western campagin so your character must be western" most is that the exotic stranger from a distant land is a pretty common trope.

Yeah. Can you imagine if someone wanted to play a dervish dancing scimitar wielding arab in a campaign set around being bow and quarterstaff wielding sherwood forest bandits?

The horror.

If you ignore that the campaign explicitly includes an Arab setting, and that two of the characters collaborated to share a background that would include the Arab character traipsing around northern England, of course. If the campaign didn't have an Arab setting, then no Saracen sidekick for your Hooded Robin.

The third option is this: if the GM never decided about an Arab setting, there's room to work with her ahead of time. Even if it's not much more than "it exists, don't need it until later, and I'll be taking notes off your character roleplay to help shape some of it," it's something.

but those things do not happen in my games
so is it okay if I pass

I've been on both sides of this discussion, and honestly, I'm surprised to see such polar ideas. IMHO, the flavor text behind classes and abilities are much more important than many of us are giving them credit for. There's a reason smite evil only works against evil creatures and characters, and there's a reason sneak attack only applies against flat-footed or flanked opponents. The classes of Pathfinder are supposed to be distinct and the flavor plays a big part in that.

I firmly believe that simply re-skinning a samurai directly opposes this, and isn't something that should be allowed. If you're playing samurai just because you like the Resolve ability, as a GM I would urge you to rethink your character. As many others have pointed out, there are other ways of doing the same thing mechanically. Ultimately, I'm of the school that your character should be based in flavor before it is based in mechanics.

Ultimately, I'm of the school that your character should be based in flavor before it is based in mechanics.

The other side of the debate mostly agrees with that statement, as far as I can tell. "The flavor of my character is a knight in shining armor who rides around on a horse and who has amazing resolve. How can I do this with the available mechanics? I'll use the Samurai class - that seems easiest."

Their opinion differs from yours in that they think the flavor of the character concept is what matters, and the flavor of the class is optional, except where there are mechanics to support it.

Ultimately, I'm of the school that your character should be based in flavor before it is based in mechanics.

I feel like this statement is contrary to the entire post preceding it.

When I make a character (rare, because I DM almost all the time) then I choose the race and gender of the character, think about what would be an interesting comming of age distinction for that character in their society, the roles they may have in family and community, and then I dangle some hooks for the GM to snag. THEN I decide what their "job" is which informs the type of classes they may be. THEN, I look at mechanics (regardless of printed flavor) for abilities which would let them do their jobs well, and (hopefully) fulfill their community and family obligations well. THEN, I look for mechanics I feel would be useful in combat, and finally, I may nudge and adjust in a few places to shore up some weaknesses or min/max an ability I was particularly drawn to.

This leads to builds where I use dragon disciple to advance wizard casting (totally opposed to the flavor of DD) or where a Bard is a clergy member. In the mechanics, all the spells count as arcane, but in the role play those spells are granted by his God and he uses the inspirational power of faith to cheer his allies forward in battle.

These changes are completely appropriate and if a GM told me that bards couldn't be clergy members in their game; well, I know who *I* would think of as a prima donna.

"The flavor of my character is a knight in shining armor who rides around on a horse and who has amazing resolve. How can I do this with the available mechanics? I'll use the Samurai class - that seems easiest."

I tend to disagree with this statement. Cavalier and Paladin lend themselves much better to this archetype, and they're typically available in every kind of campaign that a given GM would want to run. The fact that Samurai is an alternate class of Cavalier shows that it is in fact a different version of the "knight in shining armor," with both different abilities and different flavor. Again, I would urge the player with this character concept to look more closely at those two classes and decide if their character's flavor absolutely CANNOT fall into them.

These changes are completely appropriate and if a GM told me that bards couldn't be clergy members in their game; well, I know who *I* would think of as a prima donna.

Unfortunately, we're comparing apples and oranges here. The flavor of the Bard class is very flexible. Bards have often been seen as the most flexible of all classes, in and outside of mechanics. I see no problem with saying a bard is a clergy member, because nothing in the Bard's flavor really conflicts with it. Playing devil's advocate, you could say that they're arcane casters and that therefore they shouldn't be divine characters, but there are so many options around that that I don't think there's a problem.

On the other hand, Samurais have a VERY specific flavor. Again, they are an alternate class option in part because of this distinct flavor. Just because a Bard can be re-skinned does not mean that a Samurai can be, or more importantly, SHOULD be.

Matthew Downie wrote:

"The flavor of my character is a knight in shining armor who rides around on a horse and who has amazing resolve. How can I do this with the available mechanics? I'll use the Samurai class - that seems easiest."

I tend to disagree with this statement. Cavalier and Paladin lend themselves much better to this archetype, and they're typically available in every kind of campaign that a given GM would want to run. The fact that Samurai is an alternate class of Cavalier shows that it is in fact a different version of the "knight in shining armor," with both different abilities and different flavor. Again, I would urge the player with this character concept to look more closely at those two classes and decide if their character's flavor absolutely CANNOT fall into them.

BigDTBone wrote:

These changes are completely appropriate and if a GM told me that bards couldn't be clergy members in their game; well, I know who *I* would think of as a prima donna.

Unfortunately, we're comparing apples and oranges here. The flavor of the Bard class is very flexible. Bards have often been seen as the most flexible of all classes, in and outside of mechanics. I see no problem with saying a bard is a clergy member, because nothing in the Bard's flavor really conflicts with it. Playing devil's advocate, you could say that they're arcane casters and that therefore they shouldn't be divine characters, but there are so many options around that that I don't think there's a problem.

On the other hand, Samurais have a VERY specific flavor. Again, they are an alternate class option in part because of this distinct flavor. Just because a Bard can be re-skinned does not mean that a Samurai can be, or more importantly, SHOULD be.

Strong disagree. The rigidity of the published flavor for an option has no bearing on the flexibility of its mechanics.

LazarX wrote:

Lamontius wrote:

so wait

what if the players and gm discuss the theme of their collective game

then work together to make both thematic characters and a setting that will embrace creative character concepts

is that ok or should I just pick a side

been burned on both sides of this so I think I will just dance on the head of a pin right here in the middle

The answer is that drama doesn't have to happen, unless someone insists that it does. A gaming group that's over the mental age of 5 should be able to get past these issues, by acting like the adults they are presumed to be.

Right, by digging in on your positions, complaining about being the "beast of burden," who bares all the weight and responcibility of a campaign, and calling everyone who even hints as disagreeing "entitled prima donnas." That's the adult way to handle it!

Well, there is a bit of heels being dug in on a number of sides. Everyone should be working together to try to have a fun game. That said, if you know the GM said "None of that kung fu stuff" or "no elves" and as a player your immediate response is "Yeah, but what if I ..", I'd imagine that you'd get some issues with the GM.

We've beaten this particular dead horse in a number of threads now. Some GMs don't like things and don't want to GM if they have to include them. Some players really really really want them and aren't happy if they cannot have exactly what they want. And some of it is just stubbornness or an unwillingness to see the other's point of view.

And yeah, some of it is childishness -- if you cannot GM if someone has a dinosaur animal companion or plays a samurai then maybe you should play for a while and remind yourself what it is like or sit out till you can calm down and watch others have fun. Similarly, if your life is over because you cannot play a drow or samurai or catperson or whatever, maybe you should GM for a while to get your ideas in play or sit out until you can calm down and watch others have fun.

Reskinning is a band aid; it helps part of the issue, but not all of it. If people cannot communicate or don't trust the player/GM, then why play with them at all?

Some players really really really want them and aren't happy if they cannot have exactly what they want.

? Reskinning to fit the setting is a compromise designed to cater towards the GM's vision while still allowing the player to play what they want mechanics-wise. I don't really see any rigidity on the player's side in this debate (as someone who spends quite a bit of time on both sides of the screen).

For one thing, I prefer my Sheriffs of Nottingham to have a proper English accent.

Actually - if you want a proper historical British accent - linguists say that the closest modern equivilent is the southern gentry accent. (I always think of it as the "Southern Belle" accent.)

knightnday wrote:

Some players really really really want them and aren't happy if they cannot have exactly what they want.

? Reskinning to fit the setting is a compromise designed to cater towards the GM's vision while still allowing the player to play what they want mechanics-wise. I don't really see any rigidity on the player's side in this debate (as someone who spends quite a bit of time on both sides of the screen).

In many cases, sure. In some cases (and as seen in the other exciting threads on this topic (drow, furry races, etc)) it is a way to get around restrictions. "Well, it isn't a dwarf, really, it's just a human that lives underground and has all the characteristics of a dwarf, but is still a human."

It still comes down as less of a compromise at times and more of an end run. If the player is trying to reskin in good faith, then cool and I'd be all for it. If they are doing it because they were told no and they are going to get their way no matter what, then that is a problem.

solitary_solidarity wrote:

Ultimately, I'm of the school that your character should be based in flavor before it is based in mechanics.

This leads to builds where I use dragon disciple to advance wizard casting (totally opposed to the flavor of DD) or where a Bard is a clergy member. In the mechanics, all the spells count as arcane, but in the role play those spells are granted by his God and he uses the inspirational power of faith to cheer his allies forward in battle.

These changes are completely appropriate and if a GM told me that bards couldn't be clergy members in their game; well, I know who *I* would think of as a prima donna.

They really might not be appropriate in a given GM's setting, though. I've played in several games where the difference between arcane and divine magic is an important or even central plot/flavor/setting detail, and insisting on a change like that would weaken the whole framework.

For me, keeping flavor and mechanics bound together is important, though I won't make a stink over reflavoring something minor like a trait unless it's one of my own design tied to a specific thing. I often get far more restrictive than even the samurai question above - in my homebrew games if you want boots of elvenkind, well, you better find some elves. (With Golarion it's such a kitchen sink thing already I just tend to shrug and say whatever, though.) Restrictions like this make for a stronger setting and a more memorable story, in my experience, as both a player and DM. Having to fit my character into the setting has never felt like a downside to me, it makes it a richer experience.

Even at the most restrictive table, I can always find a character I want to play.

Arachnofiend wrote:

knightnday wrote:

Some players really really really want them and aren't happy if they cannot have exactly what they want.

? Reskinning to fit the setting is a compromise designed to cater towards the GM's vision while still allowing the player to play what they want mechanics-wise. I don't really see any rigidity on the player's side in this debate (as someone who spends quite a bit of time on both sides of the screen).

In many cases, sure. In some cases (and as seen in the other exciting threads on this topic (drow, furry races, etc)) it is a way to get around restrictions. "Well, it isn't a dwarf, really, it's just a human that lives underground and has all the characteristics of a dwarf, but is still a human."

It still comes down as less of a compromise at times and more of an end run. If the player is trying to reskin in good faith, then cool and I'd be all for it. If they are doing it because they were told no and they are going to get their way no matter what, then that is a problem.

Do you feel that is the case in the OP?

What has tempers a bit high in this thread right now is the fact that someone was talking about a good-faith reflavor to play BOTH the mechanics and style they wanted. It would be an acceptable compromise at every table I've ever played at.

Then, someone came into the thread based on only reading the title, didn't read the OP, didn't read any of the other posts, and then called the OP and everyone who agrees with him in the slightest, "entitled cry-baby prima donnas." Then later that person scolded us for behaving like 5 year-old children.

You may also be unaware, but that person was challenged for their statements (not personally) and those posts were removed by moderators while the original insult-laden personal-attack posts remain.

So, that being said, asking people in favor of reskinning to take a time-out and calm down is both (1) hilarious, as those people have shown incredible patience in the face of abusive posts that recurve tacit endorsement from the moderators, and (2) very much preaching to the choir.

knightnday wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

knightnday wrote:

Some players really really really want them and aren't happy if they cannot have exactly what they want.

? Reskinning to fit the setting is a compromise designed to cater towards the GM's vision while still allowing the player to play what they want mechanics-wise. I don't really see any rigidity on the player's side in this debate (as someone who spends quite a bit of time on both sides of the screen).

In many cases, sure. In some cases (and as seen in the other exciting threads on this topic (drow, furry races, etc)) it is a way to get around restrictions. "Well, it isn't a dwarf, really, it's just a human that lives underground and has all the characteristics of a dwarf, but is still a human."

It still comes down as less of a compromise at times and more of an end run. If the player is trying to reskin in good faith, then cool and I'd be all for it. If they are doing it because they were told no and they are going to get their way no matter what, then that is a problem.

Do you feel that is the case in the OP?

What has tempers a bit high in this thread right now is the fact that someone was talking about a good-faith reflavor to play BOTH the mechanics and style they wanted. It would be an acceptable compromise at every table I've ever played at.

Then, someone came into the thread based on only reading the title, didn't read the OP, didn't read any of the other posts, and then called the OP and everyone who agrees with him in the slightest, "entitled cry-baby prima donnas." Then later that person scolded us for behaving like 5 year-old children.

You may also be unaware, but that person was challenged for their statements (not personally) and those posts were removed by moderators while the original insult-laden personal-attack posts remain.

So, that being said, asking people in favor of reskinning to take a time-out and calm down is both (1) hilarious, as those people have shown incredible patience in the face of abusive posts that recurve tacit endorsement from the moderators, and (2) very much preaching to the choir.

The OPs suggestion seems to be in good faith, although the picture of the cranky baby doesn't exactly endear, even in jest, the OP to those that would be opposed to the idea. But that's neither here nor there.

And yes, I've aware of the back and forth battle taking place and although I missed some of the posts that were removed I can gather the remainder of what was said -- it's pretty much the same as the other threads on the topic.

As far as the time out suggestion -- and note it went for both sides -- that was for people that are unable to move past the problem on either side. Sometimes the GM isn't going to work with you and that sucks. Sometimes the player isn't going to let go and that sucks. Is the fight worth the time it is taking away from having fun and playing?

Tho as a second thought people calming down could work for the boards too. We get a lot of (as Chris says) grar in these threads, as if someone else's decision for a game threatens ours in some way. Tempers flare over little nothings. Then again, I had a heart attack a few months ago and I tend to look at things a little more mellowly these days.

I'm happy to preach to the choir; you never know who else might be listening as well.

Curious - what would you guys think of trying to do a reskin such as making the damnation feats not be evil?

knightnday wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

knightnday wrote:

Some players really really really want them and aren't happy if they cannot have exactly what they want.

? Reskinning to fit the setting is a compromise designed to cater towards the GM's vision while still allowing the player to play what they want mechanics-wise. I don't really see any rigidity on the player's side in this debate (as someone who spends quite a bit of time on both sides of the screen).

In many cases, sure. In some cases (and as seen in the other exciting threads on this topic (drow, furry races, etc)) it is a way to get around restrictions. "Well, it isn't a dwarf, really, it's just a human that lives underground and has all the characteristics of a dwarf, but is still a human."

It still comes down as less of a compromise at times and more of an end run. If the player is trying to reskin in good faith, then cool and I'd be all for it. If they are doing it because they were told no and they are going to get their way no matter what, then that is a problem.

Do you feel that is the case in the OP?

What has tempers a bit high in this thread right now is the fact that someone was talking about a good-faith reflavor to play BOTH the mechanics and style they wanted. It would be an acceptable compromise at every table I've ever played at.

Then, someone came into the thread based on only reading the title, didn't read the OP, didn't read any of the other posts, and then called the OP and everyone who agrees with him in the slightest, "entitled cry-baby prima donnas." Then later that person scolded us for behaving like 5 year-old children.

You may also be unaware, but that person was challenged for their statements (not personally) and those posts were removed by moderators while the original insult-laden personal-attack posts remain.

So, that being said, asking people in favor of reskinning to take a time-out and calm down is both (1) hilarious, as those people have shown incredible...

Thank you.

There seems to be a lot of assumptions being made in a lot of the posts. One is that the DM is a parent and players are children, to be ruled and made to do responsible things whereas I would say that the game is about building a story between the players and the DM. If you have happy players, and the players are doing something that fits the themes and goals of the DM, then everyone wins!

The other thing that confuses me is people keep talking about "It doesn't fit the setting," but as far as I can see we're all playing in Golarion. Short of a home brew game using Pathfinder mechanics, we're all in the same world here. So why would making your character more closely tied to a region where the plot is happening be a bad thing? While having a ronin from Tian Xia in Korvosa for Curse of the Crimson Throne is far from impossible, why not re-skin the samurai to make him a candidate for the griffin riders that protect the city? That makes things easier for the DM, and if it's something the player really wants to do then everyone ends up getting what they want.

I'm not denying there are players out there who will attempt to wrangle to get things they want, or drive DMs crazy. I'm sure there are DMs out there who are very definite in what they will and won't allow, and no amount of discussion can sway their opinions. But if we're more flexible in our views we'll overall have happier tables, and better stories since we're less likely to roll our eyes and snipe at each other when we should be focused on fighting dragons and slaying demons.

BigDTBone wrote:

solitary_solidarity wrote:

Ultimately, I'm of the school that your character should be based in flavor before it is based in mechanics.

This leads to builds where I use dragon disciple to advance wizard casting (totally opposed to the flavor of DD) or where a Bard is a clergy member. In the mechanics, all the spells count as arcane, but in the role play those spells are granted by his God and he uses the inspirational power of faith to cheer his allies forward in battle.

These changes are completely appropriate and if a GM told me that bards couldn't be clergy members in their game; well, I know who *I* would think of as a prima donna.

They really might not be appropriate in a given GM's setting, though. I've played in several games where the difference between arcane and divine magic is an important or even central plot/flavor/setting detail, and insisting on a change like that would weaken the whole framework.

Lets examine that, beginning with the part of my post that you edited out of your quote.

When I make a character (rare, because I DM almost all the time) then I choose the race and gender of the character, think about what would be an interesting coming of age distinction for that character in their society, the roles they may have in family and community, and then I dangle some hooks for the GM to snag. THEN I decide what their "job" is which informs the type of classes they may be. THEN, I look at mechanics (regardless of printed flavor) for abilities which would let them do their jobs well, and (hopefully) fulfill their community and family obligations well. THEN, I look for mechanics I feel would be useful in combat, and finally, I may nudge and adjust in a few places to shore up some weaknesses or min/max an ability I was particularly drawn to.

So, in this senario, I have clearly spoken with the GM at length about their game because I am choosing a (1) race that fits into their world, and (2) fostered an understanding of what that race is in their world. I've (3) considered the implications of that race's nature and discussed their history and culture with the GM. I've (4) discussed with the GM how their society/community functions and (5) what roles would be appropriate for a character of my experience to fill. I then (6) created a family history most likely brushing up against many of the previous conversations. I then (7) create several dangling hooks for the GM to tie my character into their world, and use or not use as they see fit throughout the campaign. Then I (8) create the personal back story of my character also tying as many aspects as I can directly into existing lore, and also creating new facets (aka flavor) in the world by uncovering or fleshing out something unique about the character in this setting. Then I (9) choose the mechanics and write stuff down on the front of a character sheet.

At this point I guarantee you that I am in the 3rd, or probably 4th standard deviation above the amount of effort the average player puts into a character. If I come back with a Bard clergyman and arcane/divine is a legitimate snag in their setting; then I would expect them to meet me on the mechanics and just say that my character gets spells by praying to a god and that my spells are divine with all the ramifications of scroll activation, etc, etc.

That is not far to come, it is not asking much, and it is completely reasonable to expect that level of compromise given the effort I have put in to playing a character which fits into their world as closely as it does. ALL of the stuff that matters is completely lined up with their story, ONLY a single fiddly bit of mechanical crunch is causing a snag. That problem literally should not be a problem. The DM should make it happen for the player.

For me, keeping flavor and mechanics bound together is important,

Can you explain why? What is it about +3d6 when flanking that makes it so much different than +2 against a human? or +2 when using a heavy blade? What is it about +2 STR and CON that makes it inherently "RAGE" and not "ZEN?"

though I won't make a stink over reflavoring something minor like a trait unless it's one of my own design tied to a specific thing. I often get far more restrictive than even the samurai question above - in my homebrew games if you want boots of elvenkind, well, you better find some elves.

What if I don't want boots of elevenkind but I just want +5 on my acrobatics checks? I can't find jester's tumbling shoes?

Restrictions like this make for a stronger setting and a more memorable story, in my experience, as both a player and DM.

To me, it makes a setting feel stale. Worlds should be vibrant, alive, and in motion. Parts of the world should interact with each other. I find games where everyone of every race and every community are Zionist homebodies to be really boring.

Having to fit my character into the setting has never felt like a downside to me, it makes it a richer experience.

I agree, I just dont think this statement has anything to do with mechanics.

Even at the most restrictive table, I can always find a character I want to play.

I'm sure I could, but my PC's are few and far between, I have to choose my games carefully. Tyrant GM's are going to get passed over like stale Cheetos.

hmm after reading through this I feel that people may be talking about rather different things when they say "reskinning", and when they say (for instance) "the GM does not want ninjas in his campaign".

There seems to be a long way from the GM not wanting ninjas (the flavour) in his western fantasy (understandable) because he doesn't think they fit in, to GM's not wanting ninjas (the mechanics of the class) in his game because he doesn't like their mechanics/abilities (also understandable). Perhaps he thinks they are too powerfull, or perhaps he feels that certain of their abilities cannot be reskinned to fit his setting. For instance it might be hard to explain that a human has darkvision (ninja trick) in an all human no magic medieval europe setting. A solution for this could be a "per ability" ban. In this case maybe disallowing the supernatural abilities of the ninja. If the player can't live with these restrictions, another class might be a better suit for their character. It seems perfectly alright that a GM can decide which mechanics and which flavour he will have at his table.

Imagine trying to reskin a wizard for a no-magic campaign. This would require a LOT of restrictions on available abilities (at least in my limited miagination), but might still conceivably be possible, provided he takes the right spells.

But i think it is very important to understand that not wanting the flavour ninja and not wanting the mechanic ninja (maybe even for flavour reasons like the darkvision example), are two different things.

It seems there are a few different way that the "ninja" might sit badly with the GM.

1. He dislikes the flavour due to flavour reasons.
2. He dislikes the mechanics due to mechanics reasons (ki is op?)
3. He dislikes the mechanics due to flavour reasons (like the darkvision example)

Reskinning solves the 1st of these. It seems to me that some people on the "reskinning is bad" team seems to think that people are trying to use reskinning as a solution to all of these issues.

1. A good reskin should absolutely be able to solve these issues.
Lets say we have a GM who wants to run a classic western fantasy setting, and doesn't want any freaking eastern flavour in his game. I do not see why a player who doesn't take any of the supernatural ninja-tricks, might not fit JUST as well into this setting than a normal rogue. Difference being he can make a few more attacks or run a bit faster once in a while (ki), and use poison. (certain things at higher levels might be harder to explain like walking on water, but maybe our rogue just wants to dip for the ki?). If the GM wouldn't bat an eye at the abilities unless he knew they came from the "ninja" class, then the reskin is a good one, and should really be allowed (I don't know PFS rules on this subject, so won't try to be clever on that point)

2. No amount of reskinning is going to help this. If your GM does not want you to have the ki mechanic, because it is too powerfull (or whatever reason), then you might want to respect his GMs decision. Or maybe respectfully try to change his mind, if you have good arguments, and he is in a good mood.

3. Certain reskins might actually help here too, but these are rarer, and require som GM leeway. Maybe your bards inspire courage isn't really a supernatural ability in the "non-magical" setting the GM is running. Or maybe his spells are divine magic as the example from a prior poster. But these require (slight) changes in the mechanics of the abilites, and should absolutely not be expected. If your GM calls you a prima donna it might be because you are expecting him to allow this sort of reskinning :-)

If anyone can provide a good argument against type 1. reskinning, I would like to hear it, cause I can't really think of any :-)

Shandren Out

NB: I do not actually think that "ki" is too powerfull, it is merely an example.