|
Or is that the rub? Anyone can be disruptive to a game -- but is it the choice of the exotic race/class/look that makes it more disruptive or distasteful? Would a table/GM object less to a druid that stays in horse form rather than a horse that talks and casts spells? Is a small frail elven woman less disruptive than one dressed as a loligoth? Would someone who emulates demons or bats be less of a disturbance than a tiefling?
The decision to be disruptive is disruptive.
If it might be disruptive to play a human fighter, pick something else.
Pick something that won't be disruptive and that will make the game more fun.
If you can't, you are at the wrong table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i can understand that not every group likes the various forms of lolita fashion, but they are a clothing style that has been around for multiple centuries. before Victoria ruled England, the clothing style was restricted to the Nobility, the Wealthy and those with a sizeable Inheritance, and there is plenty of artwork for NPCs that can be considered lolita fashion
most of the lolita fashion substyles, merely take clothing of a well known archetype from history and adapt it for younger female individuals, and a lot of them are very similar in style, 16th century women's pirates garb is close to Renaissance Noblewoman's Garb is close enough to Victorian Doll's Garb. Steampunk is popular. but the only difference between Steampunk Lolita and Renaissance Lolita, is the former covers nearly every inch of skin and the latter has a few revealed zones around the neck, arms and legs
Honestly, I think it is less the clothing and more the lolita bit. There is a very strong distaste in many circles regarding young characters and younger seeming female characters. Some of it is a dislike for anime, some for the way the style portrays women/girls. A lot of it is that, frankly, it comes across creepy to some people. It is a popular look in a number of online games where people using that particular style/phrasing are trolling for sex.
I really don't think it is the clothing that gives folks pause.
i can understand that not every group likes the various forms of lolita fashion, but they are a clothing style that has been around for multiple centuries. before Victoria ruled England, the clothing style was restricted to the Nobility, the Wealthy and those with a sizeable Inheritance, and there is plenty of artwork for NPCs that can be considered lolita fashion
most of the lolita fashion substyles, merely take clothing of a well known archetype from history and adapt it for younger female individuals, and a lot of them are very similar in style, 16th century women's pirates garb is close to Renaissance Noblewoman's Garb is close enough to Victorian Doll's Garb. Steampunk is popular. but the only difference between Steampunk Lolita and Renaissance Lolita, is the former covers nearly every inch of skin and the latter has a few revealed zones around the neck, arms and legs
Honestly, I think it is less the clothing and more the lolita bit. There is a very strong distaste in many circles regarding young characters and younger seeming female characters. Some of it is a dislike for anime, some for the way the style portrays women/girls. A lot of it is that, frankly, it comes across creepy to some people. It is a popular look in a number of online games where people using that particular style/phrasing are trolling for sex.
I really don't think it is the clothing that gives folks pause.
so if i said small and vulnerable elven female of 120 years dressed in noble's garb modeled after designs from England used during the late 19th century. people would be less bothered?
so if i said small and vulnerable elven female of 120 years dressed in noble's garb modeled after designs of england in the late 19th century. people would be less bothered?i can understand that not every group likes the various forms of lolita fashion, but they are a clothing style that has been around for multiple centuries. before Victoria ruled England, the clothing style was restricted to the Nobility, the Wealthy and those with a sizeable Inheritance, and there is plenty of artwork for NPCs that can be considered lolita fashion
most of the lolita fashion substyles, merely take clothing of a well known archetype from history and adapt it for younger female individuals, and a lot of them are very similar in style, 16th century women's pirates garb is close to Renaissance Noblewoman's Garb is close enough to Victorian Doll's Garb. Steampunk is popular. but the only difference between Steampunk Lolita and Renaissance Lolita, is the former covers nearly every inch of skin and the latter has a few revealed zones around the neck, arms and legs
Honestly, I think it is less the clothing and more the lolita bit. There is a very strong distaste in many circles regarding young characters and younger seeming female characters. Some of it is a dislike for anime, some for the way the style portrays women/girls. A lot of it is that, frankly, it comes across creepy to some people. It is a popular look in a number of online games where people using that particular style/phrasing are trolling for sex.
I really don't think it is the clothing that gives folks pause.
I wouldn't be BOTHERED either way. How she is reacted to might vary quite a bit depending on the exact place in the setting she started or was playing: for example, certain of the northern nations would frown heavily upon the perceived excess of the clothing style. On the other hand, in some places it would fit right in.
I wouldn't be BOTHERED either way. How she is reacted to might vary quite a bit depending on the exact place in the setting she started or was playing: for example, certain of the northern nations would frown heavily upon the perceived excess of the clothing style. On the other hand, in some places it would fit right in.so if i said small and vulnerable elven female of 120 years dressed in noble's garb modeled after designs of england in the late 19th century. people would be less bothered?i can understand that not every group likes the various forms of lolita fashion, but they are a clothing style that has been around for multiple centuries. before Victoria ruled England, the clothing style was restricted to the Nobility, the Wealthy and those with a sizeable Inheritance, and there is plenty of artwork for NPCs that can be considered lolita fashion
most of the lolita fashion substyles, merely take clothing of a well known archetype from history and adapt it for younger female individuals, and a lot of them are very similar in style, 16th century women's pirates garb is close to Renaissance Noblewoman's Garb is close enough to Victorian Doll's Garb. Steampunk is popular. but the only difference between Steampunk Lolita and Renaissance Lolita, is the former covers nearly every inch of skin and the latter has a few revealed zones around the neck, arms and legs
Honestly, I think it is less the clothing and more the lolita bit. There is a very strong distaste in many circles regarding young characters and younger seeming female characters. Some of it is a dislike for anime, some for the way the style portrays women/girls. A lot of it is that, frankly, it comes across creepy to some people. It is a popular look in a number of online games where people using that particular style/phrasing are trolling for sex.
I really don't think it is the clothing that gives folks pause.
the northern nations would probably frown of the excessive expense that is loligoth? but i'm sure it works just fine for the ballroom?
would they frown at the money spent? the materials used? or the amount of skin covered?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
so if i said small and vulnerable elven female of 120 years dressed in noble's garb modeled after designs from England used during the late 19th century. people would be less bothered?
Presentation and wording go a great deal into people's perceptions and attitudes. I have a number of female friends that would have loved a lower back tattoo .. right until it started being called a tramp stamp. Then they hated the idea. All from a phrase.
...I wouldn't be BOTHERED either way. How she is reacted to might vary quite a bit depending on the exact place in the setting she started or was playing: for example, certain of the northern nations would frown heavily upon the perceived excess of the clothing style. On the other hand, in some places itso if i said small and vulnerable elven female of 120 years dressed in noble's garb modeled after designs of england in the late 19th century. people would be less bothered?i can understand that not every group likes the various forms of lolita fashion, but they are a clothing style that has been around for multiple centuries. before Victoria ruled England, the clothing style was restricted to the Nobility, the Wealthy and those with a sizeable Inheritance, and there is plenty of artwork for NPCs that can be considered lolita fashion
most of the lolita fashion substyles, merely take clothing of a well known archetype from history and adapt it for younger female individuals, and a lot of them are very similar in style, 16th century women's pirates garb is close to Renaissance Noblewoman's Garb is close enough to Victorian Doll's Garb. Steampunk is popular. but the only difference between Steampunk Lolita and Renaissance Lolita, is the former covers nearly every inch of skin and the latter has a few revealed zones around the neck, arms and legs
Honestly, I think it is less the clothing and more the lolita bit. There is a very strong distaste in many circles regarding young characters and younger seeming female characters. Some of it is a dislike for anime, some for the way the style portrays women/girls. A lot of it is that, frankly, it comes across creepy to some people. It is a popular look in a number of online games where people using that particular style/phrasing are trolling for sex.
I really don't think it is the clothing that gives folks pause.
Unless its different from what I get in an image search the extravagance, possibly expense of cloth. Given the chief state deity, parsimony, thrift and economy of resources are a chief civic virtue,
On the other hand, in the city of Novluka, the might look at her as a little underdressed, at lest for someone of high station. It varies.
so if i said small and vulnerable elven female of 120 years dressed in noble's garb modeled after designs from England used during the late 19th century. people would be less bothered?Presentation and wording go a great deal into people's perceptions and attitudes. I have a number of female friends that would have loved a lower back tattoo .. right until it started being called a tramp stamp. Then they hated the idea. All from a phrase.
such a description sounds convoluted and excessive on top of my already convoluted and excessive descriptions that could be considered explicit levels of detail. not due to anything sexual, but the long and excessive attention payed to every last button on my half-nymphs dress, to the effect of her movements shifting the ruffles of the skirt slightly and when some guy takes a peek against without her permission, i keep a long and convoluted description of her garter, corset, bloomers and stockings ready. i try to avoid using that last description unless a player is really darn curious. my fastest description of her lightly tapered ears was 3 minutes, without interruptions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
such a description sounds convoluted and excessive on top of my already convoluted and excessive descriptions that could be considered explicit levels of detail. not due to anything sexual, but the long and excessive attention payed to every last button on my half-nymphs dress, to the effect of her movements shifting the ruffles of the skirt slightly and when some guy takes a peek against without her permission, i keep a long and convoluted description of her garter, corset, bloomers and stockings ready. i try to avoid using that last description unless a player is really darn curious. my fastest description of her lightly tapered ears was 3 minutes, without interruptions.so if i said small and vulnerable elven female of 120 years dressed in noble's garb modeled after designs from England used during the late 19th century. people would be less bothered?Presentation and wording go a great deal into people's perceptions and attitudes. I have a number of female friends that would have loved a lower back tattoo .. right until it started being called a tramp stamp. Then they hated the idea. All from a phrase.
I think maybe that's too much information for most people. While preparation can help certain people with roleplay, not everyone needs to know you keep a long description of her dressing. I've spent most of my gaming career with immature males, they fail at handling that sort of thing maturely(erm... that goes without saying doesn't it?).
I think maybe that's too much information for most people. While preparation can help certain people with roleplay, not everyone needs to know you keep a long description of her dressing. I've spent most of my gaming career with immature males, they fail at handling that sort of thing maturely(erm... that goes without saying doesn't it?).such a description sounds convoluted and excessive on top of my already convoluted and excessive descriptions that could be considered explicit levels of detail. not due to anything sexual, but the long and excessive attention payed to every last button on my half-nymphs dress, to the effect of her movements shifting the ruffles of the skirt slightly and when some guy takes a peek against without her permission, i keep a long and convoluted description of her garter, corset, bloomers and stockings ready. i try to avoid using that last description unless a player is really darn curious. my fastest description of her lightly tapered ears was 3 minutes, without interruptions.so if i said small and vulnerable elven female of 120 years dressed in noble's garb modeled after designs from England used during the late 19th century. people would be less bothered?Presentation and wording go a great deal into people's perceptions and attitudes. I have a number of female friends that would have loved a lower back tattoo .. right until it started being called a tramp stamp. Then they hated the idea. All from a phrase.
the concept behind the long and convoluted descriptions, is to create a deterrent to certain immature actions and the reason for them, is also to discourage peeking. go ahead and peek if you want to be blamed for wasting 10 minutes of everyone elses table time
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
such a description sounds convoluted and excessive on top of my already convoluted and excessive descriptions that could be considered explicit levels of detail. not due to anything sexual, but the long and excessive attention payed to every last button on my half-nymphs dress, to the effect of her movements shifting the ruffles of the skirt slightly and when some guy takes a peek against without her permission, i keep a long and convoluted description of her garter, corset, bloomers and stockings ready. i try to avoid using that last description unless a player is really darn curious. my fastest description of her lightly tapered ears was 3 minutes, without interruptions.so if i said small and vulnerable elven female of 120 years dressed in noble's garb modeled after designs from England used during the late 19th century. people would be less bothered?Presentation and wording go a great deal into people's perceptions and attitudes. I have a number of female friends that would have loved a lower back tattoo .. right until it started being called a tramp stamp. Then they hated the idea. All from a phrase.
I think there was a misunderstanding in what I'm saying. I'm talking about how you are selling your concept. The word lolita provokes a reaction in many people's minds; frankly, the "cute and frail young females of long lived races who dress like loligoths and turn their vulnerability into a charm all it's own. " comes across creepy to my female players. They asked if we could have a talking horse instead. It is that, rather than the description of your buttons, that I was speaking about.
I think there was a misunderstanding in what I'm saying. I'm talking about how you are selling your concept. The word lolita provokes a reaction in many people's minds; frankly, the "cute and frail young females of long lived races who dress like loligoths and turn their vulnerability into a charm all it's own. " comes across creepy to my female players. They asked if we could have a talking horse instead. It is that, rather than the description of your buttons, that I was speaking about.such a description sounds convoluted and excessive on top of my already convoluted and excessive descriptions that could be considered explicit levels of detail. not due to anything sexual, but the long and excessive attention payed to every last button on my half-nymphs dress, to the effect of her movements shifting the ruffles of the skirt slightly and when some guy takes a peek against without her permission, i keep a long and convoluted description of her garter, corset, bloomers and stockings ready. i try to avoid using that last description unless a player is really darn curious. my fastest description of her lightly tapered ears was 3 minutes, without interruptions.so if i said small and vulnerable elven female of 120 years dressed in noble's garb modeled after designs from England used during the late 19th century. people would be less bothered?Presentation and wording go a great deal into people's perceptions and attitudes. I have a number of female friends that would have loved a lower back tattoo .. right until it started being called a tramp stamp. Then they hated the idea. All from a phrase.
i guess the description is a little awkward
i guess "small and fragile female elf of 120 years who dresses in darker hued 19th century English noble's garb" is a more appropriate description than "young and vulnerable elven loligoth who turns her vulnerability into it's own unique charm"?
it's the same thing, without the word lolita
i have no issues with the word nor do i associate any sexual connotations, nor do i troll people for Erotic RP either
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is sarcasm right? I'm just checking out of fear some people might actually do this, given that seems to be what some people are arguing for in the thread...As usual the answer to that impasse is simply that I try to avoid playing with people who get annoyed by my playstyle... I have proclivities against kender but mostly because kender is kind of written to be an a$$ to his own party members and it takes a particular group to be ok with that kinda thing...
I don't think rainbow ponies come anywhere close to that concept but if I had a rainbow pony player at my table and a table full of folks who are fine with it, we'd replace a whole game session with a group exploratory activity into why the player who doesn't like ponies experiences rainbow pony trauma...
No way brah. Dislike of the rainbow ponies is grounds for a full on investigation. We'll strap a dude into a chair and attatch some electrodes for a first class shock therapy rainbow pony based 'intervention' man.
Even 6 year old girls like rainbow ponies... You got something against rainbow ponies we gotta get to the heart of that matter and exorcise those demons... Pony hate is a gateway drug to more powerful hates like care bear ire. I mean if you got a legitimate case of pony trauma stress disorder, the most effective cure is catching and treating it early.
Or is that the rub? Anyone can be disruptive to a game -- but is it the choice of the exotic race/class/look that makes it more disruptive or distasteful? Would a table/GM object less to a druid that stays in horse form rather than a horse that talks and casts spells? Is a small frail elven woman less disruptive than one dressed as a loligoth? Would someone who emulates demons or bats be less of a disturbance than a tiefling?The decision to be disruptive is disruptive.
If it might be disruptive to play a human fighter, pick something else.
Pick something that won't be disruptive and that will make the game more fun.
If you can't, you are at the wrong table.
One of the (many) things that I think that's causing a perceived disagreement here, even when people otherwise agree, is the perceived emphasis on where the disruptiveness* lies.
To me, it's the player (or even GM!) who is being disruptive.
In posts like this, it seems to me** makes it seem like it's the character concept.
I think, to some it's both, and to some it's neither (or rather, they've likely got a low interaction rate with disruptive folk, and thus have been able to roll with it).
Again, I'm not actually disagreeing with you, but pointing out a possible breakdown in communication.
* ()
** Upon first reading, though not upon second or third.
there are younger people in every world, i mean, the population has to remain stable somehow. even if you might not approve of PCs doing it frequently, some group of NPCs is going to procreate (a lot of NPCs really) and not all of them are going to stick with their race alone, some even contribute to entirely new races.
imagine if a virus killed off 90% of the male elven population, those elven women are going to change their standards rather than wait for another male elf. some of those elves are going to find human mates, some of them, nymph or other fey mates, some of them, demonic partners or whatever.
a species that failed to resume producing viable children on a regular basis is effectively a dead species
shorter lived species, like human are going to breed left and right to retain their population
eventually, experienced adventurers are going to run dry, so the groups will have to start taking child apprentices and training them. where do those child apprentices that produce the future adventurer population come from?
there are few knights who didn't start as squires, few wizards who didn't do slave labor for their teachers or attend an academy, and few sorcerers born with full innate control over their bloodline. either they learn to hone their skills on their own, or they take a mentor to show them the correct method. and an apprentice learns rather quickly under the pressure of harsh risks and heavy penalties for failure.
This is sarcasm right? I'm just checking out of fear some people might actually do this, given that seems to be what some people are arguing for in the thread...As usual the answer to that impasse is simply that I try to avoid playing with people who get annoyed by my playstyle... I have proclivities against kender but mostly because kender is kind of written to be an a$$ to his own party members and it takes a particular group to be ok with that kinda thing...
I don't think rainbow ponies come anywhere close to that concept but if I had a rainbow pony player at my table and a table full of folks who are fine with it, we'd replace a whole game session with a group exploratory activity into why the player who doesn't like ponies experiences rainbow pony trauma...
No way brah. Dislike of the rainbow ponies is grounds for a full on investigation. We'll strap a dude into a chair and attatch some electrodes for a first class shock therapy rainbow pony based 'intervention' man.
Even 6 year old girls like rainbow ponies... You got something against rainbow ponies we gotta get to the heart of that matter and exorcise those demons... Pony hate is a gateway drug to more powerful hates like care bear ire. I mean if you got a legitimate case of pony trauma stress disorder, the most effective cure is catching and treating it early.
Equinophobia arcus pluvius is a misunderstood condition but it is curable. Check with your obamacare provider to see if fulgura in homine gonads is right for you.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Depends on the orc village? Its not impossible there's an odd family out or an adopted member. Heck, its a trait. Its not that unreasonable. In any game I run its unreasonable that anything is 100%. The evil society is 100% NE, and the orc village isn't 100% orc(they might have a goblin!).
There doesn't have to be sweeping changes unless the orcs have a 'we eat all elves' policy or something.
Oh yeah let's play stochastics. Nothing is 100%. But the extremely minuscule chance that there may be life in the corona of a star, does not mean it has to be permitted in a campaign. There is a point where stochastic improbabilty is not deemed relevant anymore even in hard science..
Yes, there MAYBE a tribe out there who will not eat the elf etc etc etc. Maybe they will initiate a human into the deeper mysteries of Orc Shamanism etc (looking at all the Orcish Witchdoctor human "raised ouside the race" guys here ).If a player absolutely insists on it, let him/her run the campaign and deal with the follow-up consequences.
Because Creativity and long-term viability are two entirely different concepts.
And what is fine for the player to argue - is much more work for the GM to implement.
Nevermind it setting a precedent for the next utterly absurd character concept someone wants to implement ("yeah, you allowed the half-drider, now please allow me my orca-lycanthrope Half-giant Oread... *pretty please") .
Friend of mine build an entire subcontinent's racial structure and realms, invented a sub-race and re-worked several dieties to implement such a character. Say, around 30 man hours of work
Yes, he was pretty smitten with the player.
Yet, as he admits, nowadays, the character was the same typecast, skillset, powers qnd personality she has always been playing, so basically she could have cloned her old character(s), repainted, restoried, re-explained. Neither the player nor the world profited.
The player just needed something "special", e.g. fancy racial clothing, for vanity's sake.
The GM spend 30 hours to rework his world for it.
Besides :
For myself IMHO, what makes a character interesting is how it is played, not what a board thinks makes it more powerful or "flavour of the moment", how much of an odd-ball menagerie it is and how positively broken the rules for it are. Just my take.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think to often weird exceptionalism is used as a crutch. It it intended to show how "creative" someone is, when in fact I think it demonstrates the opposite.
That you can't think of anything interesting, so you go with something odd.
It is kind of like going out in public wearing a Banana suit. Yes, you will get attention...but...you know, you are a guy in a Banana suit. It didn't take a lot of effort, no one thinks you are the interesting part of the suit. They just think you are weird and possibly unhinged.
Meanwhile, actual interesting people who are actually creative are able to be interesting without being jarring attention seekers in Banana suits.
Wanting to play something strange right out of the gate with no context is a big red flag to me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think to often weird exceptionalism is used as a crutch. It it intended to show how "creative" someone is, when in fact I think it demonstrates the opposite.
Wanting to play something strange right out of the gate with no context is a big red flag to me.
@trying to keep this on the original track (yeah, probably hopeless !)
Besides breaking possible campaign parameters, has anyone ever considered that other players actually have to play alongside your character (and supposedly have fun too ) ?
Their concept of "adequate" "reasonable" or "cute" might arguably vary.
Nevermind that non-powergaming exotics commonly are a cheap grasp for the social limelight e.g. "see how cute I am" or watch me, deeply awed, looking awesome !" (or totally avoiding all roleplaying scenes, by creeping in the shadows for being "unaccepted" by faux-medieval society), but not necessarily for an overall enjoyment at the table.
personally : i'd like to see the awakenend sentient mud-geyser in a scene involving the local powers court^^ (once)
I think to often weird exceptionalism is used as a crutch. It it intended to show how "creative" someone is, when in fact I think it demonstrates the opposite.
Wanting to play something strange right out of the gate with no context is a big red flag to me.
@trying to keep this on the original track (yeah, probably hopeless !)
Besides breaking possible campaign parameters, has anyone ever considered that other players actually have to play alongside your character (and supposedly have fun too ) ?
Their concept of "adequate" "reasonable" or "cute" might arguably vary.Nevermind that non-powergaming exotics commonly are a cheap grasp for the social limelight e.g. "see how cute I am" or watch me, deeply awed, looking awesome !" (or totally avoiding all roleplaying scenes, by creeping in the shadows for being "unaccepted" by faux-medieval society), but not necessarily for an overall enjoyment at the table.
personally : i'd like to see the awakenend sentient mud-geyser in a scene involving the local powers court^^ (once)
Not only only have we considered this, it's been a main topic of conversation (shortly before the "that's an insult" back and forth).
The (apparent) problem from this idea is, effectively, other people are telling someone "you can't play what you want."
There is a good side and bad side about that statement.
The good side, of course, is that it minimizes what's disruptive or harmful to others (after a fashion).
The bad side, of course, is that it inhibits a person's gaming choices.
My perspective is one of permissiveness. I like letting people play what they want. If people come at me with strange concepts, I'm likely to give them good consideration.
The important thing is to note that I might not say yes, which, I think, is true of most people, because there are always those corner or hedge cases that exist (including many of the extreme examples). Sometimes it might not fit in the setting. I get that.
But where for many the immediate answer is either "no" or "probably not" mine tends to be, "probably" with the added "if you give me some time to think, but if not, I'll try to get close, if possible".
There's a lot of people that say the latter is untenable. In some cases it is. In many cases, it's not. Sometimes the limitation is on the player who creates weird ideas. Sometimes the limitation is on the GM.
In all cases, if you cannot get along with your group, you shouldn't play the game.
But personally, if someone came to the game where I was a player with:
1) a small blue humanoid fey wearing white,
2) a pony (of any color or style) who utilized magical abilities
3) a creature made of mud*
4) a monster character
5) some other strange combination
... it's not going to break my enjoyment of the game I play in. I won't let it.
The thing that will harm my enjoyment of the game, as a player, is only if they start actively begin undermining the other players... and even then, there's a lot of tolerance, depending on how they're undermining the other players.
ciretose's example of a booze-focused necrophiliac? () That player would have a severe talking to, complete with the description of what they're doing wrong and why. We'd probably give them a second (or even third!) chance before requesting they leave.
My first response is always to talk (as these forums should make obvious - just look at the typical size of my posts!). That won't always work. I get that.
One of the things that causes dissonance to me is the rather immediate "jump" (at least if feels like an immediate jump, even if it's not) some make to "they're out of the group!" or "not in my campaign!"
But that's because we're different people. I strongly suspect that no matter who they are on these forums (with few exceptions) they're probably quite reasonable in real life, and I'd likely enjoy gaming with most of them.
* Totally fit in to my Kingmaker Kingdom's court, if they're not aggressive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
personally : i'd like to see the awakenend sentient mud-geyser in a scene involving the local powers court^^ (once)
Judge Awakened Sentient Mud Geyser! I wonder how he keeps his wig clean.
I'd imagine he'd have a hard time standing in court without being accused of mud slinging.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@trying to keep this on the original track (yeah, probably hopeless !)
Besides breaking possible campaign parameters, has anyone ever considered that other players actually have to play alongside your character (and supposedly have fun too ) ?
Their concept of "adequate" "reasonable" or "cute" might arguably vary.Nevermind that non-powergaming exotics commonly are a cheap grasp for the social limelight e.g. "see how cute I am" or watch me, deeply awed, looking awesome !" (or totally avoiding all roleplaying scenes, by creeping in the shadows for being "unaccepted" by faux-medieval society), but not necessarily for an overall enjoyment at the table.
personally : i'd like to see the awakenend sentient mud-geyser in a scene involving the local powers court^^ (once)
This dials us back into the special snowflake thread and contains what I think is the kernel of truth in the argument against many of the concepts: they are a shortcut for attention. That in and of itself isn't bad, but it also isn't necessary. Everyone should share the limelight in the game, and while this doesn't always happen it should in my opinion be the goal of the players and GM alike, to make sure that everyone gets something to do, a way to shine -- be it combat, solving the puzzle, having the right information/roll at the right time, and so on.
I agree with Tacticslion regarding trying to work with folks and having a "perhaps" or "probably" answer -- as long as the player is ready and willing to bend a little as well and work with the GM -- preferably before the game starts! -- on how their character can fit into the party and the world at large.
I agree that people should get to play something along the lines of what they want -- within reason. Not every concept is a winner, not every one will fit in. The mutant badger Army Ranger with an M-16 that I spoke about earlier fits into this category; sorry, that doesn't always work in every game. It's my opinion that every concept doesn't .. and perhaps shouldn't fit into every game. I encourage my players and myself for that matter to have a number of ideas and not get so dialed into one that they forget the whole realm of possibilities out there.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I've mentioned before, I mostly run 2nd edition AD&D games. And when running 2nd edition, I have two hard rules concerning player character races that are non negotiable...
The first is, if the race never saw publication in 2nd edition with stats for player characters (and I include Dragon and Polyhedron magazine sources), then that race simply cannot be played. This also, by extension, includes a good number of hybrid races as 2nd edition did not have near as many hybrid races as 3rd edition or Pathfinder (where seemingly almost every race has a "half" something or other)....
The second rule that I use that is not negotiable, is that I use level limits for non human characters (and almost every non human race in 2nd edition had a maximum level that they could attain). I will however, allow a non human race unlimited advancement at the cost of having to gain more experience points needed to advance in level (the amount depends upon the race, but the cost is usually twice the amount normally needed).
A rule I have that is negotiable is that of playing races that are specific to certain campaign settings (e.g. kender, half-giants, half-dragons, tieflings, etc.) outside of the setting that the race comes from. Whether I allow the race or not is determined on a case by case basis.
This still leaves a wide variety of races open for players to choose from, and in all my time gaming, this has yet to be a deal breaker for anyone who has sat at my table.
But players should also have more than one thing they can play and enjoy if they want to claim "creativity" as a virtue.
I agree! (At least insomuch as they have creativity, but are still limited.)
I'd also suggest that GMs who cannot compromise on a setting suffer a restriction on creativity as well. Not to the same extent, certainly, but a restriction on creativity nonetheless.
And the best thing about this? That doesn't mean that either of them are bad. It just means they are people.
Frankly, I think we all should get over the idea that limits on creativity is a bad thing or makes you "lesser" somehow. I know I do. Someone implies that about me and my hackles raise. It feels like an insult, even when it's not. It's something I need to get over.
I'dlike people to accept the idea of "creative limitations" - more is not always better. It can be. But so can 'less'.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
|
|
But players should also have more than one thing they can play and enjoy if they want to claim "creativity" as a virtue.
Do variations on one concept count ?
But really, GMs should put effort in understanding their players' expectations and how they want to get their fun out of the game. Especially if they want to claim "good GMing" as a virtue.
Granted, this effort could be on the players part too. But in the end, the GM has far more power over the PCs that the players do about the setting. And with great power ...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But players should also have more than one thing they can play and enjoy if they want to claim "creativity" as a virtue.Do variations on one concept count ?
But really, GMs should put effort in understanding their players' expectations and how they want to get their fun out of the game. Especially if they want to claim "good GMing" as a virtue.
Granted, this effort could be on the players part too. But in the end, the GM has far more power over the PCs that the players do about the setting. And with great power ...
It better be a hell of a concept. And if you aren't interested in creativity being your goal as much as fun, I salute that.
But I am so tired of people claiming random and/or odd = creative.
And I agree, if the GM is boring, that also sucks. But it equally sucks when the GM is random and you can't figure out what the hell is going on because they want to show how "creative" they are.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only shame is the falling of beautiful but specific and restrictive worlds or campaigns is not as a result of our doing, as then it would be a simple matter of stopping us to save them... Instead their fall comes at our *being*.... Our very existance alone being enough to sunder whole worlds or campaigns having done not one single thing within them.
Takeda, Ruiner of Worlds and Rainbowponythulhu welcome Judge Awakened Sentient Mud Geyser to the fold. Forth and fear no darkness. Ride to ruin and the world's ending. Go now and die in what way seems best to you. Let us ease thier suffering. Let us be rid of it once and for all. Come Mr. Frodo. And many other quotes.
Rainbowponythulhu cometh. And he rides not alone.