Have we resolved anything yet?
No, but then again, I don't think anyone's in this conversation with the goal of resolving anything.
Aaaaaand the thread keeps chugging on, unfazed, toward new horizons. Or, realistically, pretty much the same ones.
That's all well and good, your players can have the best intentions of keeping the game and campaign running smooth as much as they want, but it isn't going to stop the city of regular humans who only know of other human looking things from going "DID THAT GIANT FROG JUST F*****G TALK!?!?!?!?" Players have to understand that the world has to react to your character's race, and if they have never seen something like you before, and they think you happen to be a monster because you look like an effing monster, then you have to deal with the consequences of that. If it means the village attacks you, then it means the village attacks you. If it means you get imprisoned or hunted down, then you have to cope. Don't go walking around as some random monster looking race that no one in this DM's world has ever seen and expect to be treated like a human all nonchalant like it's totally normal for you to be there, because if it was, you would immediately not want to play that race anymore.
A 1000 times this! If a player buys into the in-world realities of playing a rare/monstrous character, ok, I'm more likely to go with it. However, in over 20 years of gaming, every player who has asked to play the oddball race wanted it strictly for the power/mechanical upside and resented not being treated like Joe Average Commoner when they were walking down the street.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PS: an aside to the player claiming "I can just make gunpowder in game" (or an F-18...because lets face it in a world where you can create an item instantly via magic an F-18 would only take one action to construct) That is metagaming in it's worst aspect. Your character has no idea what ingredients might be used to make gunpowder. And inventing new things is entirely in the GMs hands it wouldn't be wrong for him to say "sorry those ingredients that make gunpowder in the real world are NOT the ones needed to make it in this fantasy world - you fail." I would also strip away his role play XP bonus because metagaming is NOT playing in character and issue him a Verbal Warning for attempting to cheat via metagaming.
I am not sure why having a metagame discussion about metagame features would suggest poor rolelplaying? You do realize I hope the difference between a player and a GM discussing aspects of the game and a character and an NPC discussing things in the game. Roleplaying is about characters, metagame discussions are about GMs and players. Why one would directly effect the other is strange to me and strikes me as a bit immature. A GM that would punish a player's character because the player dared to discuss issues of the setting is juvenile in the extreme.
I think a lot more of it is the difference in attitude between "this is MY setting, and I'm begrudingly allowing you to play in it unless you break something, so look but don't touch!" vs. "this is OUR setting and let's all decide together what we're allowing and what we're not, and we understand it might get a little messy now and then."
No. A GM owns the setting and can share as much of that setting as he wants or doesn't want to his players. This is mostly resolved group by group and has little to do with practical discussions.
In most cases this topic is irrelevant other than to say you see this desire to share world creativity far more in narrativist games than in simulationist ones. Continuity is BIG in simulationist games and the more shared world building in the setting the greater the loss of continuity.
PS: an aside to the player claiming "I can just make gunpowder in game" (or an F-18...because lets face it in a world where you can create an item instantly via magic an F-18 would only take one action to construct) That is metagaming in it's worst aspect. Your character has no idea what ingredients might be used to make gunpowder. And inventing new things is entirely in the GMs hands it wouldn't be wrong for him to say "sorry those ingredients that make gunpowder in the real world are NOT the ones needed to make it in this fantasy world - you fail." I would also strip away his role play XP bonus because metagaming is NOT playing in character and issue him a Verbal Warning for attempting to cheat via metagaming.I am not sure why having a metagame discussion about metagame features would suggest poor rolelplaying? You do realize I hope the difference between a player and a GM discussing aspects of the game and a character and an NPC discussing things in the game. Roleplaying is about characters, metagame discussions are about GMs and players. Why one would directly effect the other is strange to me and strikes me as a bit immature. A GM that would punish a player's character because the player dared to discuss issues of the setting is juvenile in the extreme.
Since you blatantly missed the point I was talking about a player who tried to actually DO THIS IN PLAY. Theoretically saying you could do this to your GM pre-game would not obviously result in anything other than a warning not to try such abuse in game.
OR in other words: (1) gamist (2) players calling simulationist GMs bad/wrong for restricting races, which is really what is happening here.Yeah... no. Wrong on both counts, at least with regard to me. A consistent theme in my posts have been about the importance of keeping the campaign and setting coherent when adding new races/classes/whatever. I've barely mentioned mechanics. That's not exactly a gamist approach. Also, most my comments have been coming from the perspective of a DM, why I take this approach when I run games, and how it has worked out well for me. I've mentioned my experiences as a player only to talk about how it informs how I DM.
Perhaps you would care to link me to your stance then since it differs... It certainly wasn't on page 10 and I don't care to search the other 9 pages trying to find it lost in the heap as it is.
Perhaps you would care to link me to your stance then since it differs... It certainly wasn't on page 10 and I don't care to search the other 9 pages trying to find it lost in the heap as it is.
It's right here, in the middle of page 10.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. A GM owns the setting and can share as much of that setting as he wants or doesn't want to his players.
Disagree. (a) If the DM can't stand to share his/her setting, then he/she should stay home and write stories set in it. He/she can then be Sole Author to his/her heart's content.
(b) If the setting is meant for other people to play in, then it becomes a shared setting. Different groups might have different proportions of responsibility, but with 5 people, it should never be 100%/0%/0%/0%/0%, or you're back to case (a), above.
I would be happy to let a four player group have 10% of the votes each. =) Of course, that's if we are talking about group consensus deciding matters. I am quite ready to let players try to convince me that the setting would in fact be better with tauric gnolls.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The world changes to meet the demands of the story and the desires of the DM. Of course, a lot of retconning can make for an unsatisfying story, which is why I think it's a good idea to not try to nail everything down in advance. You won't know in advance what you will need to improvise or what ideas you will get and want to use halfway through the campaign. If there's no room in your world for a labyrinth filled with gelatinous cubes, then if you get a really cool idea for a labyrinth filled with gelatinous cubes, you won't be able to use it without retconning.
Thanks. I am not sure how I missed that, but when you read two or more pages at a time stuff can get missed.
This IS gamist world building in a nutshell. The less defined the better leaving just enough world for the players to interact with and little else.
So while you may not BE a player you do seem to be gamist at your core. And so arguing at simulationists who like having a largely predefined world out there waiting to be explored that they are wrong/bad because YOU find it easy to just drop anything into your loosely defined world is exactly what you are doing. Isn't it?
The alternative to a setting where every single corner is colored in is not necessarily a "loosely defined world".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the DM can't stand to share his/her setting, then he/she should stay home and write stories set in it. He/she can then be Sole Author to his/her heart's content.
Wrong. I would have to say a sizable portion of the gamers out there also find this wrong. Most games I have played in give most if not all creative arbitration to the GM exclusively. And certainly with regard to setting, while some may find allowing the setting to take a back seat and feature a shared vision it is by no means universal NOR is it wrong/bad to showcase your world to the players as you claim. It is one of the things I find fun in GMing and my players agree. Meaning you would rather shut me away in a room and deprive my players of their fun rather than admit you are wrong when it comes to not only my game but many others like mine.
If it is to be able to accomodate literally ANY new race without a hitch, YES. It has to be so loosely defined that this is possible, meaning large white holes in the map, history that easily adapts to any new races, societies that all make playing freak races possible, and so on. Any sort of definition and detail you provide must be changeable at a moment's notice, and considering that these things are typically interlocking with one another - it is not really feasible.
The alternative to a setting where every single corner is colored in is not necessarily a "loosely defined world".
Care to elaborate?
The world changes to meet the demands of the story and the desires of the DM. Of course, a lot of retconning can make for an unsatisfying story, which is why I think it's a good idea to not try to nail everything down in advance. You won't know in advance what you will need to improvise or what ideas you will get and want to use halfway through the campaign. If there's no room in your world for a labyrinth filled with gelatinous cubes, then if you get a really cool idea for a labyrinth filled with gelatinous cubes, you won't be able to use it without retconning.Thanks. I am not sure how I missed that, but when you read two or more pages at a time stuff can get missed.
This IS gamist world building in a nutshell. The less defined the better leaving just enough world for the players to interact with and little else.
So while you may not BE a player you do seem to be gamist at your core. And so arguing at simulationists who like having a largely predefined world out there waiting to be explored that they are wrong/bad because YOU find it easy to just drop anything into your loosely defined world is exactly what you are doing. Isn't it?
You do know that IRL there are new species discovered with regularity, right?
Just as humanity doesn't know all there is to know about Earth, I'd be surprised if any civilization in a fictional setting knew everything about their world (barring powerful magic or spiritual rapport with the biosphere). So, whether or not the fictional civilization has heard of catfolk, they could be living in a remote mountain, the heart of the jungle, the other side of the ocean, roaming the desert as nomads...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have we resolved anything yet?
We resolved that Catfolk are in Middle Earth. Not a special Snowflake.
Gnomes aren't allowed if playing Middle Earth. Elves killed them all.Anyone playing a Gnome is being a Special snowflake.
So everything people thought they knew about Middle Earth is Wrong. :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And for precisely this adventure, individuals of six different species of oddball cryptid humanoids that have never been in contact with any kind of civilization before, just decided to show up, all on the same day, to struggle against a villain who wants to destroy something precious in the aforementioned civilization.
Give me a break.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it is to be able to accomodate literally ANY new race without a hitch, YES. It has to be so loosely defined that this is possible, meaning large white holes in the map, history that easily adapts to any new races, societies that all make playing freak races possible, and so on. Any sort of definition and detail you provide must be changeable at a moment's notice, and considering that these things are typically interlocking with one another - it is not really feasible.
Who said that if a player wanted to play a "freak race" character required that said "freak race" had to actually exist in the setting? Perhaps the individual is unique, being the result of wild uncontrolled magic, mad wizard experiment, or what have you. It is certainly possible to allow all kinds of "freak" characters without having an effect on wide aspects of the game setting.
And for precisely this adventure, individuals of six different species of oddball cryptid humanoids that have never been in contact with any kind of civilization before, just decided to show up, all on the same day, to struggle against a villain who wants to destroy something precious in the aforementioned civilization.
Give me a break.
Yeah, what do they think, they are unique individuals on the path to be epic heroes lead by destiny and fate? LOL. That is why I require all my players to have characters that are human commoners. What, you want to be an adept, are you insane? What makes you think you are gifted by the gods, go shovel some pig waste!
If it is to be able to accomodate literally ANY new race without a hitch, YES. It has to be so loosely defined that this is possible, meaning large white holes in the map, history that easily adapts to any new races, societies that all make playing freak races possible, and so on. Any sort of definition and detail you provide must be changeable at a moment's notice, and considering that these things are typically interlocking with one another - it is not really feasible.Who said that if a player wanted to play a "freak race" character required that said "freak race" had to actually exist in the setting? Perhaps the individual is unique, being the result of wild uncontrolled magic, mad wizard experiment, or what have you. It is certainly possible to allow all kinds of "freak" characters without having an effect on wide aspects of the game setting.
Okay, now we are no longer at the trope of "hidden dogpandamen in the jungle", but characters that have literally NO connection to anything else in the setting? Whee. Talk about loosely defined. I mean, we have a setting where unique races don't even have to come from somewhere...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And for precisely this adventure, individuals of six different species of oddball cryptid humanoids that have never been in contact with any kind of civilization before, just decided to show up, all on the same day, to struggle against a villain who wants to destroy something precious in the aforementioned civilization.
Give me a break.
That is when players and DM have to work together:
Maybe the naval forces of that civilization had a "Jacques Cousteau" officer dedicated to the pursuit of new knowledge and exploration of the world, and the PCs are people of the races he encountered that wanted to go with him.
Or the seers of their people predicted that if the civilization falls they will be next.
Or a magical explosion on the laboratories of the foremost private academy of the civilization changed the PCs to their current races.
Or a druidic cult reincarnated them and previously unknown races appeared.
Or a powerful witch cursed them with baleful polymorph and a poorly worded limited wish by a hired spellcaster turned them into anthropomorphic animals.
You want more?
It is one of the things I find fun in GMing and my players agree. Meaning you would rather shut me away in a room and deprive my players of their fun rather than admit you are wrong when it comes to not only my game but many others like mine.
(Shrug) It's hard for me to envision 5 people all subscribing to that level of authoritarianism, unless you attract your groups at Neocon political rallies, but I suppose it could happen. I would not be happy with such a group, either as a player or as DM, nor would a lot of the people I game with.
Okay, now we are no longer at the trope of "hidden dogpandamen in the jungle", but characters that have literally NO connection to anything else in the setting? Whee. Talk about loosely defined. I mean, we have a setting where unique races don't even have to come from somewhere...If it is to be able to accomodate literally ANY new race without a hitch, YES. It has to be so loosely defined that this is possible, meaning large white holes in the map, history that easily adapts to any new races, societies that all make playing freak races possible, and so on. Any sort of definition and detail you provide must be changeable at a moment's notice, and considering that these things are typically interlocking with one another - it is not really feasible.Who said that if a player wanted to play a "freak race" character required that said "freak race" had to actually exist in the setting? Perhaps the individual is unique, being the result of wild uncontrolled magic, mad wizard experiment, or what have you. It is certainly possible to allow all kinds of "freak" characters without having an effect on wide aspects of the game setting.
I believe I gave a couple options of exactly where they could come from, "... the result of wild uncontrolled magic, mad wizard experiment, or what have you." I mean you can't imagine a situation where a unique creature could come into existence in your setting? Talk about rigid thinking.
amaranthine witch: And look! Certain of these suggestions come with these people being just polymorphed into the race in question, so you can completely disregard everything about culture, customs, personality too and just get the special abilities and stat bonuses! Yayyyyyyy!!!
Worth noting is that your other two options are pretty special too. Prophecy of doom is about the single most overwrought crap trope around, because it robs people of even the slightest idea of why they are doing what they do. Menagerie of freaks is interesting in that it actually accepts that something is deeply odd about the situation. It completely overlooks the fact that none of the freaks have any reason to feel any sort of loyalty to the society they are going to fight to protect, quite the opposite.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No. A GM owns the setting and can share as much of that setting as he wants or doesn't want to his players.Disagree. (a) If the DM can't stand to share his/her setting, then he/she should stay home and write stories set in it. He/she can then be Sole Author to his/her heart's content.
(b) If the setting is meant for other people to play in, then it becomes a shared setting. Different groups might have different proportions of responsibility, but with 5 people, it should never be 100%/0%/0%/0%/0%, or you're back to case (a), above.
Nice bit of hyperbole.
The DM owns the setting. The players own the characters.
What happens afterwards is the collaborative portion known as a campaign.
The DM owes the players respect, fairness and fun within the constraints of the game rules and setting he has created.
The players owe the DM respect for the effort and extra energy of running the game and creating a setting. They owe each other respect for not interfering with the enjoyment of the other players.
Sometimes the confluence of all these obligations will result in reduction of choices for the sake of the social contract.
Humans are the only Core Race that receive a bonus feat, you know.
Mechanics are, again, not the only reason people choose an exotic race.
Absolutely true. But you can't say with a straight face that it isn't a reason that some chose them, right?
Why is it wrong to choose a race for it's mechanics?
or to put it another way, if it's wrong to choose a Tiefling because you want to play a rogue and it matches well with the rogue, is it wrong to play an elf because you want to play a wizard? Or a Dwarf because you want to play a monk? Or a halfling because you want to play a cavalier (the whole riding medium sized mounts in dungeons thing).
A lot goes into a character design, and mechanics are at least half of that design choice. Race, be it core or expanded, is just one set of numbers in the whole.
Note, this is stated by someone who GMs and wants backgrounds on characters in their games, and who also works up detailed backgrounds for his own characters.
There is a difference between being a min/max rules rapist and creating a competent, well designed, mechanically complementing character.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
stuff
*'Who, in this entire thread, has been arguing for custom races and custom classes?'
Terribly sorry, but this is where these arguments lead in my experience. But even some of the ARG races verge upon the silly and simply do not fit as establishing races.
*'are a little different altogether from each other and most of the discussion.'
Separate argumentative view points, like looking up at El Capitan from the flats and looking down from the crest. Both are awe inspiring, but one also scares the giblets out of me.
*'First, Bwang, you obviously run a very customized game. I can respect that. / your experience...substantially different/ conversation doesn't apply.'
I do, and thanks/Unfortunately, I run a beginning-intro game to familiarize new players with what will be the basics of my game (Spell points, no monks, etc.) and this is where I run into this. I will admit to being pig headed at not allowing flying PC races until a few years ago, but that was primarily due to there not being good rules for such./For my real game, I agree, but it does for my intro games.
*'Check out some of my own...differently in them.'
I shall, and likely lift ideas, as well! And allow me to share my experiences:
EXAMPLE ONE
(not my game) Sprite Sorcerer with at-will invisibility, game lasted 3 more sessions.
EXAMPLE TWO
(Not my game) Half djinn Sorcerer, 2 sessions.
EXAMPLE THREE:
(not my game) The mentioned party with L'l Niki, and the 2 half-dragons had been running for nearly a year, 25+ sessions, when the GM allowed rebuilds using the racial level out of Dragon. Never ran after the next night. (Confession: I was L'l Niki!)
EXAMPLE FOUR:
I could go on, but I think my point is made, just as yours was...
I repeat, when I have a 'gonzo' player whose primary focus is not "breaking of immersion" I'll reconsider.
*'But what that means is that while our experience differs, mine proves your assertion irrelevant,...'
I can truly say the same thing!
*'Icyshadow's statement solid: you can't assign generalized motives to all people who place "gonzo" races'...
If it walks like a duck...
*"gonzo" being a slightly subjective term anyway.'
We are in total agreement there, I trust you feel the same about 'meta-gaming?
*"even the most special snowflake" would agree with your ideas,'
You may have missed the part about 'a reason...' that preceded that, its a conditional phrase.
*'Running a setting...neither invalidates...your own.'
Agreed, but it does point out that I've been doing this for a bit. A player needs a good reason for something to exist in-game, not just 'I wanna X'.
'What if it is a good reason...that defines the whole campaign?
If I don't have any semblance of a framework, games drag while I read up on a random monster, have to roll out every treasure...or at the other end: waste hours I can't afford crafting encounters the players never tap because they switched from a dungeon crawl to a sea voyage. This happened with my last 'frozen tiny supercooled cloud droplet', a Human Wizard (that had wanted a Half-Dragon), so I have had the CORE race/class monkey wrench jammed into my game. The third time he pulled a stunt like this, the party was 2 hours into a 10 hour game and I shut it down so I could refresh my mind on game naval rules (he had been intensely reading them beforehand). We as a group talked it out and I explained the bind it was putting on me and (having 4 GMs at the table), they saw my point. The planned dungeon crawl went on, the Wiz making himself as counterproductive as possible without ticking off the Barbarian. The next week we did the voyage and only the Wiz sulked. After it was over the Barbarians player told me what was up.
*'Good reasons are good... it comes across as arrogant.
Thank goodness, it supposed to. It may be seen as arrogant, but it is the way it must be. I have a responsibility to my other players. If a player wants to be the growling dog in the doorway, the game has to move past him, by another door, through a window or by stepping over the dog. If he snaps, you pop him with a newspaper. If he bites, put him down before he hurts someone. It may sound harsh, but I sit 5-8 at a table, folks who are parting with several hours of their life for this game and I can't waste hours catering to a spoilt lapdog with an attitude.
It has been my exp. that every 'frozen tiny supercooled cloud droplet' has been this way, although (admittedly)not every 'dog' has gone the exotic race path. Indeed the worst $^&*# was a human cleric in three separate games, all of which collapsed shortly. I cannot allow the one to ruin things for the rest. I run a role-playing game with exp for role playing.
Fortunately, we have M:tG games a plenty for non-roleplayers.
To recap:
Some GMs feel that they need not justify limiting the race possibilities available in their campaigns - there is discussion that this is rigid, over rigid or completely ok.
Some players feel that they should be allowed carte blanche race choices in any setting regardless of how rigidly or openly it has been conceived, designed or is run by hypothetical GMs. There is discussion that this smacks of entitlement, evokes feelings that said characters are therefore only some sort of bespoke shaped frozen water from the sky or only capable of destroying the fabric of reality in-game and out.
From what I can gather there is a philosophic divide here based on preferences, not on rationally approaching the social contract. Without discussion and acknowledgment of desires on both sides of the (metaphorical) screen there can be no resolution. Neither side must accommodate the other, but at least considering the other's viewpoint is the least one can do in any discussion. Then by all means discount or disagree - as a GM make your pronouncement, as a Player, choose whether to play or not.
I like gnolls, lizardfolk and vegepygmies as PCs. I like skeletons and wights as PCs. I want to play a shae PC. I wouldn't know if these are under- or over-powered nor how to optimise them for classes, and really am not looking to powergame nor am I interested in "stealing the limelight". I am repectful of other players and the campain setting.
I dislike dwarves, halflings, elves and gnomes.
I'm not going to get bent out of shape if my choices aren't particularly welcomed, allowed, available or in existence in a particular GM's game world. I'll try to insert my character thematically into the setting after I hear what its theme and framework is. Sometimes being a human is the freakiest thing you can be.
I'm pretty much with you. I tend to enjoy playing exotic or even monstrous races as a player a lot more than the standard PC races. Sometimes I admit because some of their abilities I find really cool, other times I find that I just really enjoy playing with it thematically. Example: In a current campaign, I'm actually playing a vampire. At the beginning I was willing to work around the various weaknesses, but my GM decided that the daylight weakness was one that he didn't want to work around, and so gave my character a ring of constant Penumbra, effectively making it so that my vampire is never "in direct sunlight", I thought this was really cool, but it's given my character a bit of a complex. He's managed to hide what he is fairly well, but if his ring is ever taken/stolen while he's out adventuring with the rest of the group, he's pretty much toast.
A lot of this campaign I've spent roleplaying out my character trying to convince the group that a) he's not out to just drain their blood b) yes he is in fact on their side and c) no he is not going to betray them at the first opportunity. The group hasn't fully believed him yet, and so often tries to scapegoat him by throwing him headlong into what most of the group believes is traps. So far, I've had a great time playing the character, and I think I'll continue to do so.
I had a player demand that I let him play a Killoren in a game I ran. Somehow his people ended up creating a small town. When they had to visit the Dwarven kingdom in my game underground (where they all had to use Darkvision which is in black/white) all of the dwarves mistook him for a Drow and attacked him.
I had a player demand that I let him play a Killoren in a game I ran. Somehow his people ended up creating a small town. When they had to visit the Dwarven kingdom in my game underground (where they all had to use Darkvision which is in black/white) all of the dwarves mistook him for a Drow and attacked him.
No idea what a Killoren is, but that's hilarious as hell. Most people forget that Darkvision isn't perfect, and have had several instances in my games where similar instances have occurred with regular elves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had a player demand that I let him play a Killoren in a game I ran. Somehow his people ended up creating a small town. When they had to visit the Dwarven kingdom in my game underground (where they all had to use Darkvision which is in black/white) all of the dwarves mistook him for a Drow and attacked him.
I suppose they'd have also attacked an elf, a bralani, a ghaele, a half-elf or anything that remotely resembles an elf, right? This smacks of punishing the player for being forceful with unrealistic reactions by the NPCs.
Excellent points mdt and democratus.
I agree with you both.
Nice bit of hyperbole. Etc
What are trying to do? Be the voice of reason? Don't you know that this is a bone that must be rechewed at times to hone arguments for and against? I'm also enough of a hypocrite that I'll drive hard for 'frozen tiny supercooled cloud droplet' status if possible; I was L'tl Niki, after all.
Incidentally, I agree with you.
There is a great distance between "freakshow on everyone is a 10HD custom race" and "only humans". I'm pretty sure 99% of people fall on the middle. Of the 0HD races, Human is one of the most powerful, so except for punctual builds, seems unlikely that the election is only for mechanics. And allowing races of more that 0HD is a completely different affair.
I like humans. More than half of my characters are humans. But playing always the same race can be pretty boring. I also like other races, like Drow, Tiefling, Aasimar, Dhampir, Sansaran, Kitsune... Speaking of Golarion, all those races are there, or can be with no much problems. Will the people ban them? I know many people don't play on Golarion (I do in like 50% of time), I ask that for the fact that Golarion is common ground. Another think can be asking for a 90 Race Point monstruosity with 5 HD and wanting to be on par level with the halfling. I think very few people with be ok with that.
For the matter, I would love to make a campaign on Casmaron or Akiton and say "NO HUMAN ALLOWED". That would be really refreshing. In part because using always the same mechanics is boring, and normally human is the best one mechanically.
I had a player demand that I let him play a Killoren in a game I ran. Somehow his people ended up creating a small town. When they had to visit the Dwarven kingdom in my game underground (where they all had to use Darkvision which is in black/white) all of the dwarves mistook him for a Drow and attacked him.I suppose they'd have also attacked an elf, a bralani, a ghaele, a half-elf or anything that remotely resembles an elf, right? This smacks of punishing the player for being forceful with unrealistic reactions by the NPCs.
As someone who has seen this occur in games without "forceful" players, I'd say that it's a bit hard to assume that it's a gm punishing the player. I would say that it would be only fair for those same dwarves to react similarly to elves, half-elves, or bralani. Ghaele not so much since they look much more human, and maybe not even bralani since they look quite a bit more otherworldly than most elves.
But yeah. I've seen it happen to regular elves before. SO unless MM here tells us that he had an elf in the party that got off scot free, I'd say fair game.
Also: depending on how you play half-elves, they may get off the hook if the grow a beard. I know in some games elves are incapable of growing facial hair, whereas the human side of half-elves lets them do so.
At which point your freak-race lovers will ignore your offerings of lashunta and whatever else and insist that you are a bad GM for not letting them play humans. They will even give you suggestions as to how they can have their human characters, be it actions of a conclave of deities, lost wanderers whose ship crashed, magical laboratory explosions, or whatever.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why this discussions always go down to "DM versus players"? On normal tables (on the ones I play at least) normally talking will resolve that kind of problems without that kind DM/player war. And the point remains. What is the opinion on semi-established races of 0 HD?
I know Drow can be a bit over the other races I said. But I have always liked Drow, even before Drizzt.
I like options, and find the basic races except humans pretty bland, specially halfling. And while I like humans, playing always the same can be really boring.
Character's I've played in the last 3 years.
Human Warmage/Scout (3.5 game)
Half-Elf Zen Archer/Empyreal Sorcerer
Aasimar Cleric/Druid/Monk (yes, it made sense, and yes it was a lot of fun to play) Martial Cleric of a death goddess who flurry'd with a scythe, and took the level of Druid for Minheir Savant to get the 'detect everything' at will detect for flavor.
Samsaran Tattoo'd Sorceress
Tiefling Paladin of Ragathiel (Jade Regent AP)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why this discussions always go down to "DM versus players"?
Because it is ALWAYS about the DM and players. How much power does each have and how do you resolve disagreement? Sissyl and others say the DM has all the power, Icyshadow and others say players do, Kirth and I say it's a sharing of the power.
Why this discussions always go down to "DM versus players"?Because it is ALWAYS about the DM and players. How much power does each have and how do you resolve disagreement? Sissyl and others say the DM has all the power, Icyshadow and others say players do, Kirth and I say it's a sharing of the power.
To me, the GM comes up with the world and gives the players all the options they can handle. But he also acts as a 'governor' to keep things from going off the happy train rails.
It's the GM's job to give the players a great place to play in, and to adjudicate the rules. But also to make sure no one person overwhelms everyone else. Ideally, the GM should work with the player to overcome any issues with their concept. But someone, somewhere, has to make a final decision if talking doesn't work. By social contract, that is the GM. Every player has given him that final authority. If he abuses it, they'll leave. If one person doesn't like his final ruling, they'll leave. That's the player's right, and their way of exercising a check on the GM, even as the GM exerts a check on the player's exuberance over their character.
Yes. The GM has the power. And the duty to use it to make a better experience for the players. So far, I have seen exceedingly few instances of freak races improving the play experience. As a GM, you also have to consider the other players, and if freak races are detrimental to the campaign, they have to go.
Many complain about "core only", usually not understanding that it is a response to stupid race demands.
i have some old gum to chew, from last halloween even! ;)
but yes Mr lincoln after 11 pages i'm pretty sure its all been said:) still, way to keep up the argument people, fun stuff.
D20 Rokugan had a very nice view of this. It included things like, IIRC, "don't allow your players to pick clan and class willy-nilly", and discussed WHY this was a bad idea.
Ah... the GM paradox. "The only way to get to play Dark Sun is to GM it yourself... and then you can't play in it".