Someone is ruining the feel of my setting


Advice

1 to 50 of 229 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

I'm the GM of a very fun city setting: Phoenicia, the City of Psionics. (Doesn't mean I'm running sci-fi).

One of my newest players is slowly mangling my setting around a bit. He wanted to have a Nekojin as his cohort. Initially I said yes, but she had to come from another world via Gate Spell. Which is a way of saying, "No, you can't have cat folk."

He didn't get the hint. Diplomacy time might be over, what's your advice?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Elton wrote:

I'm the GM of a very fun city setting: Phoenicia, the City of Psionics. (Doesn't mean I'm running sci-fi).

One of my newest players is slowly mangling my setting around a bit. He wanted to have a Nekojin as his cohort. Initially I said yes, but she had to come from another world via Gate Spell. Which is a way of saying, "No, you can't have cat folk."

He didn't get the hint. Diplomacy time might be over, what's your advice?

Sadly I wouldn't have got that message from what you said either. It's probably best to be honest and talk to them about it, respectfully and without beating around the bush.

@ mplindustries: It seems a little premature from the information we've been given to asume the player is a furry IMO.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

Your problem was not just saying no in plain language.

Grand Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.

You don't "in a way" say "no Catfolk", you just say it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yep, just say no next time. I would tell him the cat got bored and follow a string back through the portal it came from. If he has an issue with that kill the cat off next game session.


ChaiGuy wrote:
GM Elton wrote:

I'm the GM of a very fun city setting: Phoenicia, the City of Psionics. (Doesn't mean I'm running sci-fi).

One of my newest players is slowly mangling my setting around a bit. He wanted to have a Nekojin as his cohort. Initially I said yes, but she had to come from another world via Gate Spell. Which is a way of saying, "No, you can't have cat folk."

He didn't get the hint. Diplomacy time might be over, what's your advice?

Sadly I wouldn't have got that message from what you said either. It's probably best to be honest and talk to them about it, respectfully and without beating around the bush.

@ mplindustries: It seems a little premature from the information we've been given to asume the player is a furry IMO.

We don't want anyone to go off prematurely.

@OP: Frankly, I think you are being overdramatic. Humans with cat features aren't going to ruin the feel of your campaign setting. The player is probably an anime fan and likes the idea. Consider asking the other players how they feel. They may not care.

If it really bothers you, tell the player he can't do it.

Grand Lodge

Actually, Pathfinder Catfolk are bit fuzzier.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
ChaiGuy wrote:

@ mplindustries: It seems a little premature from the information we've been given to asume the player is a furry IMO.

Having never heard of a "nekojin" before, I googled it and got hundreds of cat girl porn results. I drew my own conclusions.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
mplindustries wrote:
ChaiGuy wrote:

@ mplindustries: It seems a little premature from the information we've been given to asume the player is a furry IMO.

Having never heard of a "nekojin" before, I googled it and got hundreds of cat girl porn results. I drew my own conclusions.

I'm one of those DMs who shudders when someone suggests catfolk or non-established anthropomorphic races.

It is better that a thousand non-fetishey catgirl requests go rejected than one fetishey catgirl request is fulfilled.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Think Thundercats or razorclaw shifters. Do they still feel wrong to you?
I don't like kitchensink Pathfinder. I prefer a simple setting, where no race seems out of place.

Get your chocolate out of my peanutbutter!


That they exist isn't .. bothersome.. just .. where before I could say no on premise that "They don't exist and I only go by the published material".. now I have to say "No. I use published material but disallow certain races." I can't even use relative power as a reason because they are fairly tame."


@Thunderfrog - If one plays in a home game or a homebrew game the catfolks can be non-existant in your universe if you don't like them. 86 the catfolk.

Liberty's Edge

Its your world and setting you can deny anything you don't like, or you could work with players and their ideas making them part of the larger picture and backdrop that is your setting. There are a few things Ive never cared for as a DM but was willing to let slide because players enjoy it, however that doesn't mean one can't put ones own spin on them when introduced into a games.


Ravenovf wrote:
Its your world and setting you can deny anything you don't like, or you could work with players and their ideas making them part of the larger picture and backdrop that is your setting. There are a few things Ive never cared for as a DM but was willing to let slide because players enjoy it, however that doesn't mean one can't put ones own spin on them when introduced into a games.

If I remember correctly from another thread, the game world is sword and sandal style. Catgirls definitely don't fit, except maybe as a distant amazonian type deal.

Lantern Lodge

Never ever beat around the bush as a DM. IF soe1 ask us some thimg tell the a straight answer and be clear about it. The last thing u want is My Little Pony - SIMs - Rainbow Bright game. Id rather go back and play the original Tomb of Horrors then face something like that because u gave the players full range to do what they want with out being clear of restrictions. After all its a Cat girl fetish today. Who is to say it wont be worst tomorrow?

Grand Lodge

Catgirls are not furry, and not everyone who likes them in a sexual manner. Some like them in manner similar to the people like puppies and babies. Also, Catwoman is hot.

Now, the whole "inner animal" red rocket loving furries are creepy.
Those are the ones licking themselves at the table, meowing, rubbing against other players, and just being creepy and obnoxious, and being offended when asked to stop, with the "I thought this was a roleplaying game" rebuttal.

I don't think this is that kind of player.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Catgirls are not furry, and not everyone who likes them in a sexual manner. [...] Also, Catwoman is hot.

...

Lantern Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

@blackbloodtroll
Though if its my GF doing that to me at the table i would not mind because that will lead to a smile on my face. The rest of the table would probably be pissed though for many a reason lol. But stuff like that should be kept in the bedroom, bathroom, living room sofa, and kitchen counters and maybe inside or ontop of the car XD

Grand Lodge

Whale_Cancer wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Catgirls are not furry, and not everyone who likes them in a sexual manner. [...] Also, Catwoman is hot.
...

That is noting that a beautiful woman with cat-like adornments is not the result of some bestial cross-species lust.

Also, Batman is not furry.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually, they should have never included Catfolk or Ratfolk in the ARG, but that's just my opinion. I'm going to tell him "no."

If he leaves the group, he leaves the group. My groups tend to have a revolving spot on the lineup anyhow.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Some things just don't sit well with some players.

I won't play in any game with Kender, or bearded Dwarven women.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No justification is necessary to say no. It is the GM's world, or in the case of published material it is the GM's interpretation of a world. Players can decide for themselves whether they think they can have fun within whatever the GM-set limits may be. If they can't, then either the limits are too restrictive or the players should be running a game themselves that allows them to create the kind of world and stories they envision.

In my game, I don't allow PCs from any races but human (including two variant fantasy human subraces, one arctic and one subterranean), dwarf, gnome, and half-elf. Other races do exist, but aren't suitable for gameplay, being more antagonist than protagonist characters. So yes, there are elves. They aren't friendly and in the current campaign are opposed to the interests of every other race. There are orcs too, but they are firmly antagonist, and only came into contact with humans within the last few years, so half-orcs will be a future campaign option but are not a present one. There are no halflings. I've never seen the need.

Nor do I stop there. I don't allow gunslingers. There are certain published equipment types that simply do not exist. I mean, I put all sorts of restrictions on the players' choices. Somehow, the six of them manage to have fun anyway.

It certainly is possible to be too restrictive. But if the game is going to rise above beer and pretzels level (and those are fun too), some limits are necessary and the GM is the person who gets to (has to) make the call as to what they are.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
the David wrote:

Think Thundercats or razorclaw shifters. Do they still feel wrong to you?

I don't like kitchensink Pathfinder. I prefer a simple setting, where no race seems out of place.

Get your chocolate out of my peanutbutter!

Thundercats are awesome.

Shifters--a large portion of their fans ick me (not everyone, though).

But he described the situation as the guy wanting a catgirl cohort. He's not looking for Panthro to be his butt kicking bro, he's looking for Cheetara in a maid outfit to be his servant.

The point is not that he has a fetish--fetishes are fine. It's bringing it to the table that bothers me. You can totally have a foot fetish, for example--no problem. But when I'm describing an NPC, don't ask me what size her feet are or I'm going to be unsettled, and don't ask for, I don't know, an anthropomorphic foot as a cohort.

Unless you get a boner from crushing your enemies, seeing them driven before you, and hearing the lamentations of their women (who doesn't?), there should be no boners at my gaming table.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Like just about everyone else here, I think the best answer is to simply tell the player that cat-people don't exist in the setting you are using, and are not allowed.

On a personal note:

I sometimes get the "Don't get your chocolate in my peanut butter" feeling. Although, to take the witty analogy a bit farther, I don't mind additions that expand coherently upon existing material. (More types of beasts or dragons? Giants with different abilities? Lots of wacky fey beings? Great, bring them on!) I start getting protective when, as the OP said, the feel of the game is threatened. The two biggest examples in fantasy settings (including Pathfinder and various versions of D&D) are guns and the Far East.

I don't want guns with my Vikings! I understand that fireball+viking never existed in the real world, but it exists in the fantasy setting in my head, and guns+Vikings doesn't. Currently I'm running a Skull & Shackles campaign in which (after consulting with the players) I want a very pirate, swashbuckler, 1600-1750 AD feel, so I told the players that cannon would exist on a fair portion of sailing vessels and that black powder would be available. It's worked well, but I still wouldn't allow a gunslinger in my Kingmaker game.

The Far East is a stickier case. I'm not an anime fan, but there are certainly a few I like. (Akira, Ninja Scroll, Cowboy Bebop, and others) I've even played a handful of Eastern RPGs like Legend of the Five Rings (two versions), Oriental Adventures (two versions), and Kindred of the East. But, that doesn't mean I want ninjas, samurai, cat-people, katanas, and wu-shu in my eurocentric fantasy!

I'm sure that some people don't mind a blending of those separate fantasy worlds. But, in my experience, the eastern fantasy fans are annoyed if someone brings strongly western themes into their eastern settings. What I usually see is that someone prefers eastern but only has a western game available to them, so the try to wedge their fantasy into the available game. It's hard to blame someone for that, but it's still frustrating.

Ideally, there would simply be more games to play.


GM Elton wrote:

Actually, they should have never included Catfolk or Ratfolk in the ARG, but that's just my opinion. I'm going to tell him "no."

If he leaves the group, he leaves the group. My groups tend to have a revolving spot on the lineup anyhow.

I would be rather disappointed had they not included those races...just because you don't like them doesn't mean others don't

As far as not letting the catfolk in, I would just diplomatically tell him that there isn't really a place to put the race in, and that you would prefer not including them. Maybe offer a future campaign where he can include that as an option. I would leave off the furry comments/instant killing the character as that would be more likely to result in ticking the player off.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

GM Elton wrote:

I'm the GM of a very fun city setting: Phoenicia, the City of Psionics. (Doesn't mean I'm running sci-fi).

One of my newest players is slowly mangling my setting around a bit. He wanted to have a Nekojin as his cohort. Initially I said yes, but she had to come from another world via Gate Spell. Which is a way of saying, "No, you can't have cat folk."

He didn't get the hint. Diplomacy time might be over, what's your advice?

People have already told you this, but I'm gonna repeat it because this is the internet. Don't think that saying "yes" when you mean "no" is an effective way to communicate.

"yes, but she had to come from another world via Gate Spell" sounds like you have found a way to accommodate his request.

On a sidenote: My imagery for catfolk draws inspiration from the leonin of MTG. A player in my game played a catfolk magus, and used the forward cat as his token.
http://magiccards.info/ddh/en/9.html


I like how we assume he's a sexual deviant because he wants a Catfolk cohort. Gotta love nerds being judgemental of other nerds. I guess with all the elf pornography out there, I'd be some kind of lecher for my elven rogue in leather ;)

And no offense GM Elton, but you sent him a mixed signal. You said yes with the intention of saying no. That's confusing, kinda dishonest, and a little disingenuous. Of course he's going to keep wanting that cohort because you said yes and that there's a way to do it. Next time just tell him no and trust that he'll handle it as an adult. It's better to be completely frank with your players.

Assistant Software Developer

I cleaned up some posts.


Wow, catgirls spawn that much emotion? I don't have catfolk in my world, but then nobody has ever asked to play one or have one as a cohort (or consort, for that matter).

If someone asked if they could have one, I'd just say "nope."

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

That devolved quickly.

To the OP, sometimes players want things outside the original scope of your ideas. There are multiple ways to deal with it:

1) Politely refuse the request. If catfolk don't fit as the benevolent tyrant of world design you're well within your rights to say no. Explain to your player you don't think it's a good thematic fit in this campaign and that you'll bear the request in mind next campaign.

2) Collaborate: maybe there are no other cat folk in the world perhaps the player has a unique opportunity to create the only one (via wish or gate or a quest). You needn't change the lore of the world since you're accommodating a single character under unique circumstances.

3) Expand: Maybe catfolk hail from a far off and exotic land, with an alien culture that either you come up with or the player does.

While the first option is perfectly acceptable (and one I exercise regularly), the latter choices give your player a sense of authorship in the setting. That sense of ownership is priceless your player will care more about the world and respect you as a GM because you'll listen to ideas.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Wow, catgirls spawn that much emotion? I don't have catfolk in my world, but then nobody has ever asked to play one or have one as a cohort (or consort, for that matter).

If someone asked if they could have one, I'd just say "nope."

It's because even in TTRPGs, there are cliques just like in any social community. It is so easy to demonize and shame a group of people that play in a way you don't like in hope that you never have to see their playstyle supported by a company.

People want to play a standard game of DnD? Oh, you unimaginative/occidental/railroading swine! So booooring! RAILROADING! CHOOO CHOOO!

People want samurai? They must be a basement weeabo with anime girl body pillows that only want OP SUPERIOR JAPANESE STEEL!!!11!1!

People want firearms? They are just stupid twinks that want to sully our game with AK 47s!!!

People want psionics? Those are just minmaxing munchkins that want Jedi's and Xmen in our game! F@&@ them!

People want rules for vampires and other monster? THIS ISN'T WORLD OF DARKNESS M&$$$~ F$%$+*! Get your Twilight s*~@ out of my fantasy!

People play animal-folk? Call them sexual deviants that prostrate themselves in the middle of a petstore, twisting their nipples while yelling "ATTICA!! ATTICA!!"

It's the sad truth unfortunately.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Odradude... that was pretty amazing. I suppose we need a "Rule 34" thing for Pathfinder. Maybe we'll call it "Rule 3.5: If there is porn of it, someone will want to play a character based on it."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Odradude... that was pretty amazing. I suppose we need a "Rule 34" thing for Pathfinder. Maybe we'll call it "Rule 3.5: If there is porn of it, someone will want to play a character based on it."

Tentacled alchemist, here I come!

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Are the Lashunta the MILFs of Pathfinder?


"Odraude, why does your elf carry whips and manacles?"

"Because f*&# you, that's why!"

Also, I am reminded of this.

Silver Crusade

Odraude wrote:


People want psionics? Those are just minmaxing munchkins that want Jedi's and Xmen in our game! F*@! them!

I've had personal experience, since I run around with the psi people.

Silver Crusade

Ross Byers wrote:
I cleaned up some posts.

Thank you.


This is the last place i expected to see a furry debate : / Oh well, i guess it's the internet for you.

As ofr the OP, I can just re-iterate what was already said. I had a ratfolk eldritch archer I wanted to play in a second darkness campaign. He said no. So now I'm a human Zen Archer and we already have a host of other problems I won't go into detail about here.

Am I upset I can't play my original character? maybe a little (disregarding the fact i have several characters to choose from in my "Character Builds Folder") but I'm not going to ruin everyone else's fun by arguing about what I originaly planned, even IF it fits perfectly for the game.

What I'm getting at is this: there's a rule above Rule of Cool and DM is always Right at the table. It's called the Rule of Mutual Respect. If you respect everyone at the table and work together you won't have any problems. This works for optimization, this works for GM fiat. Bottom line, this is how you Pathfinder.

Just tell him up front. If he respects you, he'll either leave or change his character. Simple as that.

Silver Crusade

Odraude wrote:

I like how we assume he's a sexual deviant because he wants a Catfolk cohort. Gotta love nerds being judgemental of other nerds. I guess with all the elf pornography out there, I'd be some kind of lecher for my elven rogue in leather ;)

And no offense GM Elton, but you sent him a mixed signal. You said yes with the intention of saying no. That's confusing, kinda dishonest, and a little disingenuous. Of course he's going to keep wanting that cohort because you said yes and that there's a way to do it. Next time just tell him no and trust that he'll handle it as an adult. It's better to be completely frank with your players.

The whole reason why I asked for advice is because on of my regular players is concerned about said player's actions. She was the one who said that her experience of the campaign was being reduced because the player did things outside of the setting.

I wanted to find a happy medium between the two, so I came here for advice. The player is being Anachronistic towards the setting (set during the Iron Age). Besides telling him he can't have the nekojin (cat folk!) as a cohort, I'm going to ask him to be more mindful.

The setting is set during the Hellenistic Period, after Alexander the Great conquered the Persian Empire. Therefore, humans in my setting have not gotten over their ethno-racism (as an example. I'm tired of the "humans are nice to everyone," crap.)


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I too hate it when players do things I give them permission to do. The communication problem is obviously on their end.


Can I have this? No. Why? Because.


Odraude wrote:

"Because f$&* you, that's why!"

Also, I am reminded of this.

Really?

I was more reminded of this

GM Elton wrote:
The whole reason why I asked for advice is because on of my regular players is concerned about said player's actions. She was the one who said that her experience of the campaign was being reduced because the player did things outside of the setting.

Oh. Ohhhhhh. I was just lurking this thread earlier and I agreed with the "Just say no." crowd before this here. I understand "it doesn't fit in my campaign", that's within your right to shut out.

But if you personally have no issue with it, and it's just another player going "Why does he get a toy? I don't like it!" I have no sympathy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Odraude wrote:
Stuff I agree with.

I find it quite ridiculous how players wanting to play anthropomorphic animal races will frequently get their sexual preferences questioned.

Heck and even if the player were a furry who gets a kick out of it? As long as he's not going to disrupt the game with it, who cares?
I don't see why Average Joe's human fighter can go around hitting on barmaids, but Bob the furry can't even play a catfolk rogue who is just about sneaking around, disabling traps and backstabbing as any rogue.

GM Elton wrote:
Actually, they should have never included Catfolk or Ratfolk in the ARG, but that's just my opinion.

Why would you not want additional options to be in an optional book designed to give players and GMs additional options?

If you don't like them, it's fine, don't use them, don't let players in your game use them, but how would it be better for anyone if these races weren't in the book?

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ross Byers wrote:
I cleaned up some posts.

Keep scrubbing....then pass the brain bleach over here....


Guys I like having awesome sword dudes in my campaigns but that doesn't mean that I want to get bananas with a life size poster of young val kilmer or watch viggo mortensen in eastern promises like 13 times in a row but just the bathhouse scene.

Okay it was more like 14 times BUT THAT IS NOT MY POINT.

So uh, leave catgirl guy alone.

...catguy?


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).

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Other people have it right: If, as GM, you don't want X in your game, then X is not in your game. But it's far more important to say, flat out, "X is not in my game," instead of "X requires YZ to happen," because then, guess what, you've introduced the Quest For YZ.


I defiantly understand a GM saying no, but like most have said you goto be blunt, if you told me yes but my next question would have ben to gather info about what my character needed to do in order to obtain the desired mental theme whatever it might be.

I personally like Cat and rat folk and I use them often in my games. I get two images from cat folk the first is the lion type huge big burly buff guys and the second is the dex type. Sorry nothing screams rouge like catfolk to me perhaps it's just the saying cat burglar going to literal. In non of the cases do I think oo sexy skimpy little cat in a maids outfit, hell more likely to think that about a elf.

Remember that a lot of players like out of the norm, I know my players fight tooth and nail to play something as different then the normal mental image as possible and I am very liberal in catering to there desires. I find in the end it makes for some interesting games and the players enjoy it more when granted a bit of freedom within proper power guidelines of course.

Also a ton of character concepts are inspired by pictures and movies and games often times this inspiration is barely even known by the player simply because such things put a specific mental image in our head so next time we think of said race or class that's the image we get. Great example of this is the duel scimitar wielding fighter, halfling rouges, or elven archers.

1 to 50 of 229 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Someone is ruining the feel of my setting All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.