Snowtiger |
it depends on your story. id see them more likely in a midevil or earlier setting as like a tribal type of people and you can work out how the races get along. id be fine with playing one if i wanted to play a class there good at but so far ive only played as humans and elfs/half. its up to you as the dm i know one dm who wont allow dwarfs in one of his campaings. i tend to like being a pc in a game where there are alot of races and racial conflict. always fun seeing a drunk half orc wreck a bar because that guy over there said he looks funny.
but i can see where in a more modern setting or future setting some races wouldent be there. in the end your the dm and might only need to say hey i dont want that in this game and they may just say ok then shes a X instead
Icyshadow |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Humans. They can only play Humans (ok, that is my personal wish for my campaigns, but I have to give a little here and there).
I'd walk off from such a table in an instant, because to me that's boredom incarnate.
Pathfinder / D&D is a fantasy game to me, not a recreation of the medieval ages with "magic" slapped to it.
Odraude |
DungeonmasterCal wrote:Humans. They can only play Humans (ok, that is my personal wish for my campaigns, but I have to give a little here and there).I'd walk off from such a table in an instant, because to me that's boredom incarnate.
Pathfinder / D&D is a fantasy game to me, not a recreation of the medieval ages with "magic" slapped to it.
I actually disagree with that somewhat. pathfinder is a fantasy game and can be whatever someone wants it to be. If that means remaking medieval times with magic, that fine. Or making a world brimming with different races, that's fine too. A GM has to accommodate for the Player's wants, but at the same time, the players have to also accommodate for the GM's wants. It's a bit of a give and take compromise but in the end, everyone can have fun.
Icyshadow |
The DM who'd do that to a player in my group would get the table flipped on him and the players all walking away with little to no regrets. More often than not, the party I stick with manages to unite when the DM is being a jerk, which saves everyone the trouble of playing in a game where the atmosphere would slowly rot away and drama would eventually ensue.
Snowtiger |
well my opinion is if the race exists and you dont have to have some crazy reason as to how and why its there i like seeing alot of races and dont really care who plays what aslong as we can get along in the group. but it dose give the dm an excuse to pick on the group when the group has something exotic that people may want or want to kill ect.
Atarlost |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, catfolk/ratfolk haters, if someone wants to play a grippli do you assume they have a folder full of art that would ruin your nostalgia for Wind in the Willows forever, or do you assume they want to play a small character with +wis instead of +cha.
What about wizards? Do you accuse people who want to play wizards of reading the kind of harry potter fanfiction that named half the horrible fanfiction tropes before tvtropes started trying to generalize trope names? Do people who play barbarians watch Conan the Barbarian in less clothing than they would answer the door in? Do you accuse halfing players of being pedophiles? Of course you don't. That would be ridiculous and insulting and if you were that closed minded you wouldn't play any variety of fantasy RPG and wouldn't be on these forums. Why are catfolk and ratfolk different?
Sure, banning catfolk won't ruin the game and if you want to limit sapient races in a setting they're not in the top five*, but fear of fetishes isn't a good reason. Rule 43 is what it is for a reason. If you won't play with anything that has an associated fetish you won't have a game.
* I would say humans are obviously number one for the versatility and because the similarly versatile half-elves and half-orcs come with baggage (namely humans and elves or orcs respectively). 2-4 are probably gnomes, ratfolk, and grippli for being the small races with the most stat variety between them without having a +4 or -4. Number 5 is probably dwarves for being medium with reduced movement. One could argue goblins should be in there for their wild stat mods, but I'm not a fan of anything that allows a starting stat of 22.
johnlocke90 |
I think the GM should learn to compromise, and he wouldn't be the only one. However, if this GM has something like a deadly phobia or a passionate grudge against cats, then I might understand the ban. But just because I understand it doesn't mean I approve of it.
I agree. I am surprised how many people instantly assume the DM should say no and end the discussion.The goal is to create a fun game for everyone. The two should try to work out a compromise.
For instance, what he is describing is very similar to a Kitsune, which is in the rulebook. Would you be fine with that?
Threeshades |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Icyshadow wrote:I think the GM should learn to compromise, and he wouldn't be the only one. However, if this GM has something like a deadly phobia or a passionate grudge against cats, then I might understand the ban. But just because I understand it doesn't mean I approve of it.I agree. I am surprised how many people instantly assume the DM should say no and end the discussion.The goal is to create a fun game for everyone. The two should try to work out a compromise.
For instance, what he is describing is very similar to a Kitsune, which is in the rulebook. Would you be fine with that?
I disagree. It's his setting and if his setting doesn't have catfolk then that's how it is.
Imagine you're a GM wanting to run a setting that is like Conan the Barbarian. A player wanting to be an Elf would just not fit into the campaign.
When you're running a Star Wars game you also won't say "I guess I'll have to compromise" if a player wants to be a Klingon Borg drone.
Believe it or not, in my experience most, if not all players can take the blow of you saying "Sorry, those just don't fit into my setting." and still have fun with their character.
johnlocke90 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
johnlocke90 wrote:Icyshadow wrote:I think the GM should learn to compromise, and he wouldn't be the only one. However, if this GM has something like a deadly phobia or a passionate grudge against cats, then I might understand the ban. But just because I understand it doesn't mean I approve of it.I agree. I am surprised how many people instantly assume the DM should say no and end the discussion.The goal is to create a fun game for everyone. The two should try to work out a compromise.
For instance, what he is describing is very similar to a Kitsune, which is in the rulebook. Would you be fine with that?
I disagree. It's his setting and if his setting doesn't have catfolk then that's how it is.
Imagine you're a GM wanting to run a setting that is like Conan the Barbarian. A player wanting to be an Elf would just not fit into the campaign.
When you're running a Star Wars game you also won't say "I guess I'll have to compromise" if a player wants to be a Klingon Borg drone.Believe it or not, in my experience most, if not all players can take the blow of you saying "Sorry, those just don't fit into my setting." and still have fun with their character.
If a player wanted to be an elf in a Conan like setting, I would ask other players how they feel about it. If they were fine with it, I would probably adjust the setting to allow for elves.
As for the star wars game, thats a perfect example of where compromise is possible. While the term "Klingon" is copyrighted, Star Wars has fierce warrior races and cyborgs. The compromise would be to have him find a star wars equivalent of Klingon and be a cyborg version of that.
Edit: I will admit, my experience is colored by playing with a pretty tightly knit group. I don't consider the world I create to be "my setting". Its one created by the group for the group.
Roberta Yang |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
in the end its dms word and if they dont like it they can dm their own game or join a diff group if they dont wanna follow his rules
The player asked the GM's permission for something and the GM gave it. The player hasn't refused to follow any rules, except in the mind of GM Elton where "yes" secretly means "no" and being a passive-aggressive jerk toward anyone who doesn't read your mind is perfectly acceptable.
blackbloodtroll |
Both Aasimar and Tieflings can have animal-like features, due to their varied heritage(like the Hound Archon, or Rakshasa), so such features could exist.
Perhaps you could offer them to play one of those races, and allow them the features they desire.
They get what they want, and all of your world's flavor is retained.
Everyone happy.
GM Elton |
how advanced is the tec in that setting?
Hellenistic technology.
You've got your bronze gears, you've got your Antikythera mechanism, you've got a proto-industrial steam engine, you've got precise medical instruments. You even have the proto-swiss army knife. There is also a proto-robot, proto-sliding doors . . . anything pretty much thought up by Hero of Alexandria or used by Galen is possible.
Weapons: swords are made of Iron, and the first hints of the rediscovery of Steel and double bladed weapons are coming out of the Uttermost East.
Armor: Made out of Bronze, or comparable to Macedonian armor.
Technology from the Uttermost East: The people in the city had managed to get both silk worms and the mulberry bush out of the Uttermost East and are practicing Sericulture. They cannot grow lacquer trees. Someone stole the plans for the production of the wheel barrow and sold it to Hellenistic engineers.
Weapons of Mars: Siege engines, catapults, gastraphetes, polybolos (a kind of repeating crossbow), the oxybeles, possibly Greek Fire but don't count on it. Molotov Cocktail.
Weapons of Venus: Atomizer nozzles, the Kama Sutra, makeup, industrial rose petal processing, perfumes.
Medical Tech: Basic plastic surgery, proto-disolving sutures (by way of a very angry ant's head), precise medical instruments (again, I mentioned them); basic neurosurgery, wisdom tooth extraction, amputations, ancient pain killers, and bone setting. Pharmaceuticals include: poultices, infusions, syrups, and many other medicines that I can't list because I can't look in my copy of GURPS Low Tech.
Food Tech: Oleiculture (growing olives and processing olive oil) is practiced on an industrial scale. The iron plow exists, along with the stone mill.
I think that's it.
blackbloodtroll |
Two things you need to ask is:
Do you want them to play their characters, or your characters?
Do you want them to play their style, or your style?
These are important questions you need to ask yourself.
Now, it is your game, but it is their game too.
Sometimes you will need to be firm, but also willing to compromise.
GM Elton |
Two things you need to ask is:
Do you want them to play their characters, or your characters?
Do you want them to play their style, or your style?
These are important questions you need to ask yourself.
Now, it is your game, but it is their game too.
Sometimes you will need to be firm, but also willing to compromise.
I did compromise.
Kalridian |
@ Icyshadow:
I always have trouble imagining how you actually manage to play a satisfying, peaceful game of Pathfinder that your gm also enjoys and that is not "we do everything icyshadow wants, because otherwise he'll start ranting about how I'm an incompetent gm for investing the huge amount of prep time in a way that also incorporates MY view of how things should be"...
TimD |
Weapons of Venus: Atomizer nozzles, the Kama Sutra
This made me about snarf my coke at work (bold added).
To address, the OP. Don’t be afraid of the word “no” and don’t fall into the trap of “my players should get anything they want”. While the story you and your players are (or at least should be) a cooperative one, you are the one that is doing the work to set the scenes and the background for their characters to interact with.
If you think that catfolk are out of place, that’s your call and the players should respect both you and the amount of work you put into your game enough to hold off on the character until a game where it is more appropriate.
I think there’s a J.J. (not to be confused with J.J.J. of Spiderman fame) quote on these forums somewhere
about how a setting is as defined by what is not in it as what is in it.
Not all characters are appropriate to all settings. Saying “not this game, maybe the next” is not being a jerk. Unfortunately, you’ve already said “yes” – your best bet is probably to take the player aside and explain to them that their minion is not working out for your setting and see if you can come up with another concept they would also enjoy. Learn from the lessons of those who have gone before you – I remember spending years dealing with a “joke” flavored character in what was otherwise a serious game and wishing that I had said “not this time”.
-TimD
GM Elton |
GM Elton wrote:Weapons of Venus: Atomizer nozzles, the Kama Sutra
This made me about snarf my coke at work (bold added).
Ancient Inventions, love and sex with Terry Jones. Don't watch it at work.
Adamantine Dragon |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM who has a highly developed campaign world populated with well over a dozen races, with each of those races worked into the overall geopolitical, economic and even climatic design of the world, the seemingly simple question "can I have a hot cat chick cohort?" is not simple at all.
To say "well you should compromise if a player really wants one" starts to tread on that growing expectation that I see in this hobby that the purpose of a GM is to do everything a player asks and that if a GM objects, that's a badwrongfun GM who is anti-player.
Sorry. I spend literally ten times as much time and effort on the campaign compared to any player. That effort comes at a cost. That cost is that it's MY FRIGGIN' WORLD. If a player wants something that I don't think fits, and that's a showstopper for them for playing in my game. That's fine. Find another game. No skin off my nose.
In_digo |
As a GM who has a highly developed campaign world populated with well over a dozen races, with each of those races worked into the overall geopolitical, economic and even climatic design of the world, the seemingly simple question "can I have a hot cat chick cohort?" is not simple at all.
To say "well you should compromise if a player really wants one" starts to tread on that growing expectation that I see in this hobby that the purpose of a GM is to do everything a player asks and that if a GM objects, that's a badwrongfun GM who is anti-player.
Sorry. I spend literally ten times as much time and effort on the campaign compared to any player. That effort comes at a cost. That cost is that it's MY FRIGGIN' WORLD. If a player wants something that I don't think fits, and that's a showstopper for them for playing in my game. That's fine. Find another game. No skin off my nose.
Agreed. I once had a player throw a fit because he couldn't play a rich kid Azlanti in the Golarion setting. As long as you've got lots of options that fit well and cover a wide variety, there's no reason for players to be demanding exceptions.
ciretose |
Really though, I doubt the introduction of one Catfolk will ruin a whole campaign.
Flavor it right, and it should be fine.
Perhaps the result of a coupling with a Rakshasa?
If you dropped a catfolk into New York, would it throw off the setting.
Yes.
The GM says what the setting is. The players can choose to participate in that setting or not.
blackbloodtroll |
blackbloodtroll wrote:Really though, I doubt the introduction of one Catfolk will ruin a whole campaign.
Flavor it right, and it should be fine.
Perhaps the result of a coupling with a Rakshasa?
If you dropped a catfolk into New York, would it throw off the setting.
Yes.
The GM says what the setting is. The players can choose to participate in that setting or not.
Not the same.
It is like asking to play a black guy in an Edo period Japan Campaign.
Improbable, but not impossible.
DrDeth |
I disagree. It's his setting and if his setting doesn't have catfolk then that's how it is.
Imagine you're a GM wanting to run a setting that is like Conan the Barbarian. A player wanting to be an Elf would just not fit into the campaign.
When you're running a Star Wars game you also won't say "I guess I'll have to compromise" if a player wants to be a Klingon Borg drone.Believe it or not, in my experience most, if not all players can take the blow of you saying "Sorry, those just don't fit into my setting." and still have fun with their character.
But here’s the point. The DM said “OK, but you have to jump thru a hoop to find them” but then when the PC did exactly that , the DM reneged because another player complained. So, it’s not like the DM said “NO, those just don't fit into my setting”.
You guys need to answer the OP more than go off into the usual “tin-pot dictator DM’s vs Entitled players” debate that we have endlessly around here.
This is the DM giving a provisional OK, then going back on that solely due to another player whinging about it.
ciretose |
ciretose wrote:blackbloodtroll wrote:Really though, I doubt the introduction of one Catfolk will ruin a whole campaign.
Flavor it right, and it should be fine.
Perhaps the result of a coupling with a Rakshasa?
If you dropped a catfolk into New York, would it throw off the setting.
Yes.
The GM says what the setting is. The players can choose to participate in that setting or not.
Not the same.
It is like asking to play a black guy in an Edo period Japan Campaign.
Improbable, but not impossible.
Very much the same. This is a custom setting. This isn't Golarion.
He made clear the only way it was possible was to gate someone in from another world. Meaning catfolk don't exist in this world. Then the player still pushed it. He should have said no from the beginning, but he was trying to be nice and accommodating and was rewarded with the player trying to dictate the terms of the world.
Even if it were Golarion, the GM has a right to say what is and is not available, and then the player has a right to decide if they want to play at the table or not.
ciretose |
Threeshades wrote:I disagree. It's his setting and if his setting doesn't have catfolk then that's how it is.
Imagine you're a GM wanting to run a setting that is like Conan the Barbarian. A player wanting to be an Elf would just not fit into the campaign.
When you're running a Star Wars game you also won't say "I guess I'll have to compromise" if a player wants to be a Klingon Borg drone.Believe it or not, in my experience most, if not all players can take the blow of you saying "Sorry, those just don't fit into my setting." and still have fun with their character.
But here’s the point. The DM said “OK, but you have to jump thru a hoop to find them” but then when the PC did exactly that , the DM reneged because another player complained. So, it’s not like the DM said “NO, those just don't fit into my setting”.
You guys need to answer the OP more than go off into the usual “tin-pot dictator DM’s vs Entitled players” debate that we have endlessly around here.
This is the DM giving a provisional OK, then going back on that solely due to another player whinging about it.
As if the same people wouldn't complain if the GM said no...
Adamantine Dragon |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Way back when I first started as a GM (ah, those were the days, Spring was in the air, and a spring was in my step. Youthful vigor sometimes outstripped experience and wisdom, but those were the days...) I had this grand vision for this epic, apocalyptic campaign.
It started with the extinction of the dwarves. Why? I dunno, I just wanted a feel to the campaign of great evil and terrible consequences.
As such, dwarves were not available as a character race.
However, the whole goal of the epic campaign was to defeat the demonic powers that had taken over the world and which had eradicated the dwarves, and then to restore the dwarven race.
One of the players had always played dwarves. I didn't know that when I set up the world, the player was a late invite to the campaign. So he paid little attention to the pre-campaign material (like, the VERY FIRST SENTENCE which started with "The Dwarvenwyrd, destruction of the dwarven race...").
So he sent me a character sheet of a dwarven fighter. I was sort of nonplussed. I was naive enough in those days to think that players would actually read about the campaign before applying to become a player in one.
So I told him "no dwarves."
He was nearly apoplectic. He ALWAYS played dwarves! Dwarves were a CORE RACE! It was AGAINST THE RULES to disallow dwarves.
"Fine" I said. "Sorry this won't work out." And he stormed off.
A few days later he sent me a new character sheet with an Elven wizard concept. I liked it, and welcomed him back.
After a few months in the campaign, as the plot started to develop, it became clear that the plot was going to include locating an ancient dwarven tomb, and that there would be an opportunity to raise some dwarves even before the total defeat of the evil empire.
So we talked about it, and he reworked his original dwarf fighter and we worked it out that the very first dwarf raised was that fighter. For a while he played both characters until we worked out a way for his wizard to be "retired", and from then on he played the dwarf. Eventually that dwarf became so legendary and heroic that the gods raised him to demigod status, and that character now is immortalized in my campaign as a minor dwarven god with his own followers, temples and shrines.
Adamantine Dragon |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ciretose, you are literally blaming a player for doing a thing that the player got the DM's explicit permission to do.
It's not the player's fault that the DM is passive-aggressive and doesn't actually mean yes when he says yes.
That has been stipulated multiple times and the recommendation has been for the OP to go back and say "I made a mistake by giving you the impression that you could do that. Sorry." Not "Oh, I made a mistake that suggested you can do it, so I'll now reconfigure my entire concept of my world to accomodate you because I made that mistake."
The Shogun of Harlem |
Period point blank, it is your world and if you don't want catfolk, they don't exist. All this other garbage is moot. You just need to be upfront. That can be hard sometimes, I understand that, but when you do it works sooo much better. One of my buddies wanted to be a half-ogre something or other when we started RotRL, I waffled for a second,found my bearings, and said how about we stick to core races. He stuck to the core races. Now taking something back after you granted it, even in error on your part, is much more difficult. If the catchick is in combat I would kill it, mind you not blatantly, but it is subject to the same hazards on the field of battle as others are. I assume it is weaker as a cohort and not as able, so its survivability is suspect. Or you can tell him she got a letter from her catnip dealer and needed to go and pick up a bag, problem solved.
DrDeth |
blackbloodtroll wrote:I did compromise.Two things you need to ask is:
Do you want them to play their characters, or your characters?
Do you want them to play their style, or your style?
These are important questions you need to ask yourself.
Now, it is your game, but it is their game too.
Sometimes you will need to be firm, but also willing to compromise.
What was the compromise?
blackbloodtroll |
GM Elton wrote:What was the compromise?blackbloodtroll wrote:I did compromise.Two things you need to ask is:
Do you want them to play their characters, or your characters?
Do you want them to play their style, or your style?
These are important questions you need to ask yourself.
Now, it is your game, but it is their game too.
Sometimes you will need to be firm, but also willing to compromise.
Listening to him.
Roberta Yang |
That has been stipulated multiple times and the recommendation has been for the OP to go back and say "I made a mistake by giving you the impression that you could do that. Sorry." Not "Oh, I made a mistake that suggested you can do it, so I'll now reconfigure my entire concept of my world to accomodate you because I made that mistake."
Which doesn't explain the demonization the player is receiving.
Literally all that has happened from the player's perspective is that he asked the GM for permission to do something, the GM granted him permission, and then he did the thing he got permission to do.
Everyone here is acting like the GM said no and the player punched the GM in the face and demanded to do his thing anyhow.
GM Elton |
GM Elton wrote:What was the compromise?blackbloodtroll wrote:I did compromise.Two things you need to ask is:
Do you want them to play their characters, or your characters?
Do you want them to play their style, or your style?
These are important questions you need to ask yourself.
Now, it is your game, but it is their game too.
Sometimes you will need to be firm, but also willing to compromise.
A quest. He has to find a Stargate, dial Golarion's Gate to open a stable wormhole, and then travel to Golarion to get his nekojin and travel back. Simplicity itself.