To wander back to the topic at hand, special snowflakes, a large sign for me is when the player suggests a number of third party books and grey area cases.
If the conversation starts with "I have this great idea and you'll just need to flip through these three books and this out of print 3.5 book. I've adjusted it for Pathfinder of course so it should be fine.."
It tends to set off all sorts of flags in my head that I'll want some time to dig through the documentation and see what is up. It goes along with some homebrew items people bring in; I've had poor past experience with people with limited concepts of things like game balance, mathematics, scale and so forth.
To wander back to the topic at hand, special snowflakes, a large sign for me is when the player suggests a number of third party books and grey area cases.
If the conversation starts with "I have this great idea and you'll just need to flip through these three books and this out of print 3.5 book. I've adjusted it for Pathfinder of course so it should be fine.."
It tends to set off all sorts of flags in my head that I'll want some time to dig through the documentation and see what is up. It goes along with some homebrew items people bring in; I've had poor past experience with people with limited concepts of things like game balance, mathematics, scale and so forth.
Sometimes 3rd party is pretty awesome, in particular for pathfinder. Home conversions worry me though, and I personally have a rule that you need to give me a copy of anything you want from a 3rd party and let me review it before anything gets to be played. Great way to get new books too...
Sometimes 3rd party is pretty awesome, in particular for pathfinder. Home conversions worry me though, and I personally have a rule that you need to give me a copy of anything you want from a 3rd party and let me review it before anything gets to be played. Great way to get new books too...To wander back to the topic at hand, special snowflakes, a large sign for me is when the player suggests a number of third party books and grey area cases.
If the conversation starts with "I have this great idea and you'll just need to flip through these three books and this out of print 3.5 book. I've adjusted it for Pathfinder of course so it should be fine.."
It tends to set off all sorts of flags in my head that I'll want some time to dig through the documentation and see what is up. It goes along with some homebrew items people bring in; I've had poor past experience with people with limited concepts of things like game balance, mathematics, scale and so forth.
There are a bunch of great books out there and I appreciate the third party folks; that said, there are some really broken things out there too, and some that, when mixed with others, tend to get more out of hand than I'd care for.
But yes, I want to look over anything you want to bring in and have more than ten minutes to do so. And if that results in free books, even better!
|
I'm not demanding everyone else change their characters. I could have lots of fun, even if someone plays a race I don't like.
Do you not understand the difference between wanting to do something and wanting everyone else to not do something?
There are races and classes that don't fit various worlds. Its like playing a kender in Forgotten realms or Red mage in Greyhawk or Dumb orc barbarian in Soveign Stone. They don't fit the settings.
There are races and classes that don't fit various worlds. Its like playing a kender in Forgotten realms or Red mage in Greyhawk or Dumb orc barbarian in Soveign Stone. They don't fit the settings.
So what's wrong with a curious Halfling thief in forgotten realms, a wizard in grayhawk, and an ork barbarian in sovereign stone? At worst they're just unusual.
Now in an Orc Barbarian in a D20 modern zombie apocalypse game might be a bit off.
There are races and classes that don't fit various worlds. Its like playing a kender in Forgotten realms or Red mage in Greyhawk or Dumb orc barbarian in Soveign Stone. They don't fit the settings.So what's wrong with a curious Halfling thief in forgotten realms, a wizard in grayhawk, and an ork barbarian in sovereign stone? At worst they're just unusual.
Now in an Orc Barbarian in a D20 modern zombie apocalypse game might be a bit off.
Kender are a blight on the universe. Or so I hear.
There are races and classes that don't fit various worlds. Its like playing a kender in Forgotten realms or Red mage in Greyhawk or Dumb orc barbarian in Soveign Stone. They don't fit the settings.I'm not demanding everyone else change their characters. I could have lots of fun, even if someone plays a race I don't like.
Do you not understand the difference between wanting to do something and wanting everyone else to not do something?
While I agree that not every race belongs to every world, sometimes it's not that the issue. Sometimes a player wants to play a Gennassi in Faerum, or an Aasimar. Those races *do* exist in those worlds, but some GM don't want anything in their games that do not fit in their Tolkien-clone envisioned world.
Kender are a blight on the universe. Or so I hear.
Its a PC race that says "Steal from everyone! No, really!" so... there might be something to that.
There are races and classes that don't fit various worlds. Its like playing a kender in Forgotten realms or Red mage in Greyhawk or Dumb orc barbarian in Soveign Stone. They don't fit the settings.
The context of that comment was playing a drow character in a setting with drow, where the DM wanted to forbid that character because he didn't like the character.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I agree that not every race belongs to every world, sometimes it's not that the issue. Sometimes a player wants to play a Gennassi in Faerum, or an Aasimar. Those races *do* exist in those worlds, but some GM don't want anything in their games that do not fit in their Tolkien-clone envisioned world.There are races and classes that don't fit various worlds. Its like playing a kender in Forgotten realms or Red mage in Greyhawk or Dumb orc barbarian in Soveign Stone. They don't fit the settings.I'm not demanding everyone else change their characters. I could have lots of fun, even if someone plays a race I don't like.
Do you not understand the difference between wanting to do something and wanting everyone else to not do something?
That is possible. Although, the amount of times Tolkien's name is invoked as a negative, you'd think he was creeping into people's houses late at night and doing unspeakable things to them.
|
|
So what's wrong with a curious Halfling thief in forgotten realms, a wizard in grayhawk, and an ork barbarian in sovereign stone? At worst they're just unusual.
Not really on the orc barbarian(this isn't the 41st year after all). Its not "unusual, it tends to go against the norms of the orcs in the setting.
A curious Halfling is one thing. If it displays kender like tendencies to "find" things, its banned. Because that's not a Halfling, its a kender. And you are intentionaly trying to circumvent what the parameters of the game are. In fact, disruptive.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only part that's missing is the one where I threw my hands up in the air and said "whatever, I'll use some other character then", which is what happened in the end. What got me a bit more annoyed was that he basically planned EVERY campaign world he ever made to be such that my homebrews aren't allowed, which just shows he's either deliberately messing with me or he should switch to playing GURPS because he can't handle campaigns where races outside the Core exist. I'm actually surprised he didn't start to cry bloody murder now that he's in the player seat, I'm the DM, and my homebrew races exist on Golarion.And even though my general willingness to accept little changes such as homebrew spells and reskinning has improved the fun for the group as a whole, he told me he won't return the kindness when he gets back on the DM seat. Let's just say that none of the players were happy to hear this, but as usual, they're not telling anything to his face. Even when he stole the spotlight a few times, they didn't call him out on it. They complained to me about it, and I had to personally chastise the guy for it. It's just somewhat ironic in my opinion that he complained about me being ungrateful, when he tends to be much worse in that regard.
As opposed to him throwing his hands up in the air and saying "Whatever, I'll run some other setting then!"
If you don't like how he runs, don't give him back the GM seat. Or rather, don't take a seat at his GM table. But if 4 other people do like the way he runs, leave him alone to run what he and those 4 people want to run.
There is nothing wrong with that, in the same way there is nothing wrong if he walks and your group do whatever you do with custom races and such.
But you don't get to tell him what he has to run, and he doesn't get to tell you that you have to play what he is running.
What part of that do you disagree with?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Virtually no one on this thread has suggested that a player should always get their way, but you keep insisting that the GM should always get their way with no possible compromises.
"Even in cases where people have played characters I haven't liked, I don't think telling them to change it is a reasonable thing to do."
You were saying?
I don't this is a situation where a general statement can support either side. Sometimes the player needs to stay within what the GM wants, and sometimes GM's can be more flexible, and it won't ruin the game. For me a "snowflake" has to be really strange or far from what the intended campaign to be called a snowflake.
Example: A game where the players already agreed to be dwarfs and at the last minute someone wants to be an elf, or they want to be some elf/gnome hybrid.
|
|
Kender are a blight on the universe. Or so I hear.Its a PC race that says "Steal from everyone! No, really!" so... there might be something to that.
And yet apparently enough people like it so that it has a following. And may all those people play in some group away from me and many of the rest of us and be happy in that group.
But it is simply wrong to say that it is unreasonable to say "no" to such a concept if as a GM (or a fellow player) you think it will make the game less fun.
|
|
I don't this is a situation where a general statement can support either side. Sometimes the player needs to stay within what the GM wants, and sometimes GM's can be more flexible, and it won't ruin the game. For me a "snowflake" has to be really strange or far from what the intended campaign to be called a snowflake.
Example: A game where the players already agreed to be dwarfs and at the last minute someone wants to be an elf, or they want to be some elf/gnome hybrid.
For me, one of the criteria to make it a snowflake is when no other options are presented.
Quite often I'll throw an off the wall idea out at the GM as one of several for the GM to choose from.
That causes literally no problems.
I don't this is a situation where a general statement can support either side. Sometimes the player needs to stay within what the GM wants, and sometimes GM's can be more flexible, and it won't ruin the game. For me a "snowflake" has to be really strange or far from what the intended campaign to be called a snowflake.
Example: A game where the players already agreed to be dwarfs and at the last minute someone wants to be an elf, or they want to be some elf/gnome hybrid.
For me, one of the criteria to make it a snowflake is when no other options are presented.
I agree. The demand is also a factor..
In the end, it's a conversation and you have to come into it on both sides with the idea that the word "no" might come up just as much "sure, we can do that."
With the aforementioned good drow, for instance, there are certain campaigns I have run where it wouldn't work and I'd tell you as much. You can have the most magnificent back story and justification for your idea, but in the end I am extremely unlikely to yield on that point. In other campaigns, sure, bring them in.
Just as you can open the GMs eyes to new and interesting ways to expand their world with your concept, being told "no" or "not right now, maybe next time" can open your eyes to other choices out there.
That is possible. Although, the amount of times Tolkien's name is invoked as a negative, you'd think he was creeping into people's houses late at night and doing unspeakable things to them.While I agree that not every race belongs to every world, sometimes it's not that the issue. Sometimes a player wants to play a Gennassi in Faerum, or an Aasimar. Those races *do* exist in those worlds, but some GM don't want anything in their games that do not fit in their Tolkien-clone envisioned world.There are races and classes that don't fit various worlds. Its like playing a kender in Forgotten realms or Red mage in Greyhawk or Dumb orc barbarian in Soveign Stone. They don't fit the settings.I'm not demanding everyone else change their characters. I could have lots of fun, even if someone plays a race I don't like.
Do you not understand the difference between wanting to do something and wanting everyone else to not do something?
Tolkien isn't negative. Shoe-horning everything into Tolkien-like stories, however, is negative. Sure, The lord of the rings is awesome. But so is Game of Thrones, or The Illiad, or Wheel of Time, or Conan, or John Carter from Mars, or Beowulf, or Narnia, or Elric of Melnibone.
Playing an awakened polar bear with armor *could* be great, even if it was not an idea drawn from Tolkien, but from Phillip Pullman. I'm quite happy that Tolkien wrote the Middle Earth, so D&D could draw inspiration from it. But I'm even more happy that (some) designers are able to go beyond it, so we can have worlds with cannibal halfings like Dark Sun and dinosaur-riding plain barbarian halflings like in Eberron. Golarion is a much richer world with the addition of Numeria, the Mana Wastes, the Realms of the Mammoth lords or Sargava than if it everything were just another version of Rohan, Gondor and Mordor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Vivianne
You can't play your drow in my game.
I gave it some thought and it just won't work.
"Hmm... what's the problem/problematic part?"
-Coriat's likely response as a player, presumably after dopplegangering Vivianne or something.
...wow, this thread moves FAST if I'm missing stuff like that:O
In context though, what vivianne said was more moderated. It even ended with
I think the easiest way to resolve this alleged conflict, the way that is the most fun for the most people, is to not try to force your friends to only do what you want.That applies to everyone--the players can't force other people to only do what they want, and the GM can't force everyone to only do what he/she wants.
So it really just seems like an out-of-context snip, typical of political campaign ads.
I was explaining my approach to DMing in that post. As a DM, I don't think it's reasonable for me to tell players they can only use races/classes/etc. that I personally like. I personally don't like the fighter class, but I don't forbid other people from playing it.
But apparently my style of DMing is badwrongfun or something. I honestly don't see what ciretose finds objectionable about that paragraph.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why not just agree to disagree.
I think its because that's not how the internet works.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't worry, I won't!
Bottom line here is if you don't like the way I run things don't show up at my table.
If I am such a bad DM then stop trying to get in on my campaigns.
Don't worry, I haven't even met you before! I think I can manage that.
|
|
...wow, this thread moves FAST if I'm missing stuff like that:O
In context though, what vivianne said was more moderated. It even ended with
I think the easiest way to resolve this alleged conflict, the way that is the most fun for the most people, is to not try to force your friends to only do what you want.That applies to everyone--the players can't force other people to only do what they want, and the GM can't force everyone to only do what he/she wants.
So it really just seems like an out-of-context snip, typical of political campaign ads.
She was saying the GM should do what the player wants.
Or as I put it, the player can be reasonable forcing the GM to do something.
But you linked to the whole thing, so people can read exactly what was written and judge. I would also point to the back and forth role play she and I had.
It isn't a strawman if people are actually arguing the position.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Was Anzyr in this thread or the other one?Other one?!?!? Which other one? There have been like, 29385723985723 "other ones" on this exact topic!
The one with the Pony Wizard that you must allow and incorporate or you are a failure as a GM.
His actual argument. Not making that up, or even really exaggerating.
|
|
...wow, this thread moves FAST if I'm missing stuff like that:O
In context though, what vivianne said was more moderated. It even ended with
I think the easiest way to resolve this alleged conflict, the way that is the most fun for the most people, is to not try to force your friends to only do what you want.That applies to everyone--the players can't force other people to only do what they want, and the GM can't force everyone to only do what he/she wants.
So it really just seems like an out-of-context snip, typical of political campaign ads.
I was explaining my approach to DMing in that post. As a DM, I don't think it's reasonable for me to tell players they can only use races/classes/etc. that I personally like. I personally don't like the fighter class, but I don't forbid other people from playing it.
But apparently my style of DMing is badwrongfun or something. I honestly don't see what ciretose finds objectionable about that paragraph.
I'm still trying to figure out what you found objectionable in the paragraph you linked to earlier.
But if you want specifics, I find calling someone unreasonable for not wanting to run something they don't like running to be...well...an unreasonable position to take.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because part of the driving force behind this thread is a few people who think their way of playing is the only valid one, and they don't want other people to enjoy playing differently.
I agree with this.
So when people stop saying it is unreasonable for a GM to not want to have to run certain things in certain settings, we can all sing Kumbaya.
|
@Vivianne
You can't play your drow in my game.
I gave it some thought and it just won't work.
"Hmm... what's the problem/problematic part?"
-Coriat's likely response as a player, presumably after dopplegangering Vivianne or something.
The problem part is I don't want drow as player characters because in my world they are all evil and drizzt doesn't exist.
Try not to force your friends to do what you want to do, you know, unless if you don't get to do what you want to do, then you know, go ahead and force themMan, this sums up both sides of the argument so well it's amazing.Not my side.
Nobody should force anyone to do anything is my position.
I think my position is that if both PC and DM are on board with sustained communication, then 80% of the time they will arrive at a mutually satisfactory solution without resorting to demands from either side.
As such, I've been intermittently uncertain whether I actually have a horse in this race.
(which, btw, this is a race, not a thread... 120 posts before I get home from a holiday half shift? :o )
If your group continues to ask you to run games, as mine does, why should you care what someone ,that is not in your group, says negatively about how you run anyway?
Honestly I'm just giving suggestions here since there is this thread that is being posted in, on this website that I visit, and I like posting too. Go PM whoever started the thread though I guess if you want to ask why the topic first came up I guess?