Whatever happened to the classic races?

[Kthulhu]

So, the player should never have to deal with anything they don't like, but the GM should always just suck it up and give the player whatever they want, regardless of whether or not he has any fun or not.

When did being a GM become a paying job?

[TriOmegaZero]

Kthulhu wrote:

So, the player should never...

For f~!@'s sake dude, stop using the strawman absolutes! It's been repeated time and time again that when the player is the odd man out he needs to accept the groups decision.

[thejeff]

Kthulhu wrote:

So, the player should never have to deal with anything they don't like, but the GM should always just suck it up and give the player whatever they want, regardless of whether or not he has any fun or not.

When did being a GM become a paying job?

Which is just about as much of a strawman as "If you don't let the players play whatever they want, they lose their last tiny bit of agency."

Do we want to actually talk about this or just bash each other's strawmen?

[Tholomyes]

Kthulhu wrote:

So, the player should never have to deal with anything they don't like, but the GM should always just suck it up and give the player whatever they want, regardless of whether or not he has any fun or not.

When did being a GM become a paying job?

So you're saying not being able to deny your players what they want to play, based on personal dislike of the race, is enough to make DMing a chore? I find it amazing that you manage to find players at all.

[LazarX]

Zhayne wrote:

Cato Taldinius wrote:

The question is- do players play non-core races for their bonuses, or do they play them for their uniqueness?

That begs another question- if the PCs and GM is ok with any of it, who cares?

Observation: If the one of the priorities of the GM is game balance, then the non-core races will likely upset this as I believe the devs create encounters with balance in mind.

Balance is not a particularly high priority in PF, and as stated many times in this thread, Humans and Dwarves are more powerful than the vast majority of the non-core races.

Powergamers in PF play humans.

Until it gets dark. :)

[Matt Thomason]

Tholomyes wrote:

Kthulhu wrote:

So, the player should never have to deal with anything they don't like, but the GM should always just suck it up and give the player whatever they want, regardless of whether or not he has any fun or not.

When did being a GM become a paying job?

So you're saying not being able to deny your players what they want to play, based on personal dislike of the race, is enough to make DMing a chore? I find it amazing that you manage to find players at all.

So, you're both dragging out the most extreme examples instead of noticing that 95% of the time, the rest of us don't actually run into these issues so never have to worry about how to deal with them? ;)

Sometimes players have to put up with playing something other than their favorite race in order to get into a game.

Sometimes GMs have to accept the game isn't going to be 100% the way they want it, if they want any players to show.

Neither is being forced to do anything they don't want to do, both have the option of walking away and finding another game if things really are so bad they can't stand the hypothetical one they're currently playing. They could even sit down and actually talk the issue through with the rest of the group, and try to find a solution that suits everyone.

[RDM42]

Repost, since you don't like people not noting what you 'repeatedly say' perhaps you should note what other people 'repeatedly say'' throughout many threads.

I have three lists basically. Red light is 'this does not exist, cannot be here'. This list is usually small and targeted. But it is things that do. Not. Exist.

Green light is 'this is easy, likely automatic approval'. You don't need to get special input from me to make a character on those lists. If its on the green lists it will be all nice and easy.

Anything not on those two lists is 'yellow light' as in 'I'm disinclined to put it in or didn't specifically include it, or possibly it's not allowed to players for plot reasons, but talk to me and if you can make it fit the setting well, I'll add it. But you will have to do some work to make that happen. And the onus to make it fit and come up with some ways to do so is not on me, but on you. I'll help you. But you have to take the first step.

[Kthulhu]

Maybe its because I almost exclusively game with friends, but for me, as a played or a GM, if something like a catfolk annoys someone else at the table, I consider that more than sufficient reason to not play a catfolk. It wouldn't matter to me if that person was a fellow player or the GM. I wouldn't demand that they justify their dislike...that's just kind of being an ass. It shouldn't matter to me if its a completely baseless personal preference, or if their grandmother was eaten by her nine housecats after suffering a stroke. Its enough for me to know that they just don't f#$+ing like g@%**!n catfolk.

[Lord Mhoram]

I always find the player/GM entitlement discussions interesting.

I play a lot of HERO. Point based. Characters can be made that are worthless, or superpowered. Balance and character appropriateness is up to the GM - the is one of the assumptions of the game. You never come to a game with a character premade.

When I GM Pathfinder I have a world. This world is basically the same one I GMed in basic D&D, 1st edition D&D, and Pathfinder. It has decades of history, politics and structure. Now I am really open to using most races and classes so I tend not to have an issue... but if I have banned a race, and there is a reason for it - maybe part of the history of the world mystically hinges on the fact that every member of the race is dead, and it has been that way for 10 years of real time, and hundreds of years of game time, I'm not going to let a player play that race.

Now this may be because I don't play pick up games, and have had a stable group for 25 or so years, but I don't think a player should even have an idea of a character he wants to play much less have one built out before he talks to the DM. The DM's game world gets as much respect from me as any published setting. If something doesn't exist in the world, I'll just keep that character in mind for another game, not in this one. I expect the same respect from my players when I GM.

I am also one of those players who do not want any input into the campaign, it's history or story other than what I do with the actions of my character.

[Deadmanwalking]

Kthulhu wrote:

Maybe its because I almost exclusively game with friends, but for me, as a played or a GM, if something like a catfolk annoys someone else at the table, I consider that more than sufficient reason to not play a catfolk. It wouldn't matter to me if that person was a fellow player or the GM. I wouldn't demand that they justify their dislike...that's just kind of being an ass. It shouldn't matter to me if its a completely baseless personal preference, or if their grandmother was eaten by her nine housecats after suffering a stroke. Its enough for me to know that they just don't f$#!ing like g**@&&n catfolk.

But, uh, that's a reason. An explanation, right there; "I hate Catfolk, and will have less fun with one in the game."

I'm not suggesting the necessity of justification per se (though some justification of why you, say, dislike catfolk isn't a bad idea), just the necessity of explaining yourself.

[Matt Thomason]

Kthulhu wrote:

Maybe its because I almost exclusively game with friends, but for me, as a played or a GM, if something like a catfolk annoys someone else at the table, I consider that more than sufficient reason to not play a catfolk. It wouldn't matter to me if that person was a fellow player or the GM. I wouldn't demand that they justify their dislike...that's just kind of being an ass. It shouldn't matter to me if its a completely baseless personal preference, or if their grandmother was eaten by her nine housecats after suffering a stroke. Its enough for me to know that they just don't f~#!ing like g%%#~!n catfolk.

In that environment, you probably know already if someone dislikes something to that degree, or if not you know them well enough to know the look on their face when they say "no" means they're being serious.

It's also just as important to note here that you're talking about all the people in the group, GM and Players together. The group relationship is that of peers, having an agreed social contract between them.

[Kthulhu]

Except, apparently, for some posters here, if it is the GM that hates catfolk, that is NOT sufficient reason. Its either dead catfood granny or give them their g$*$!#n catfolk.

[Matt Thomason]

Lord Mhoram wrote:

Now this may be because I don't play pick up games, and have had a stable group for 25 or so years, but I don't think a player should even have an idea of a character he wants to play much less have one built out before he talks to the DM. The DM's game world gets as much respect from me as any published setting. If something doesn't exist in the world, I'll just keep that character in mind for another game, not in this one. I expect the same respect from my players when I GM.

I tend to work the same way, but not just for those reasons. If I know about the characters before we sit down for the first gaming session, I can ensure I've done any setup I need to do to get them involved properly, including any notes I need to make about longer-term subplots they might get involved in.

Knowing there's a dwarf ranger on the run from the Iron Mountain of Krarg means I can figure some of his people looking for him into the story, for example. It also means I can warn the player of any minor problems that character could run into "uh, you know the Human Empire is at war with the Elves, right? You sure you still want to play one, seeing as the campaign is going to mostly be set in the Empire? You're probably going to have a hard time getting into any settlements." Finally, I also like to try and help players integrate their characters into the setting where possible. "You want to play a Grippli hailing from a small village to the north? I think I may have found the perfect village for you, let me go get a map...."

[thejeff]

Lord Mhoram wrote:

I always find the player/GM entitlement discussions interesting.

I play a lot of HERO. Point based. Characters can be made that are worthless, or superpowered. Balance and character appropriateness is up to the GM - the is one of the assumptions of the game. You never come to a game with a character premade.

Yeah, how does this "It's a sign of GM power tripping to ban anything rules legal" approach apply to systems like HERO?

Would all games have to be anything goes superhero games, just at different power levels?

[Matt Thomason]

Kthulhu wrote:

Except, apparently, for some posters here, if it is the GM that hates catfolk, that is NOT sufficient reason. Its either dead catfood granny or give them their g~**!+n catfolk.

A lot of it is how we transfer what we read on the screen into our own situations.

Someone that's dealt with a lot of character rejections is going to assume any unspoken reason is just because the GM hates them, hates their idea, or generally just doesn't want that ugly blot in their game.

Someone with a severe phobia of spiders is going to see people saying you can't tell someone not to play their arachnid race, and worry how they're ever going to find a group that'll accept them.

Those people are going to see offence where none was really intended, and make an exaggerated counterpoint.

I'll say an outright "no" to some things. I do it rarely enough that I've usually got a good enough reason, so my permanent group trust me enough that if I say "no" they don't need to ask "why?". I like to think I'm more of a "no, but how about...", and even more so a "yes, but...". On the other hand, it sounds like some people here have dealt with people for whom "no" was an expected reaction a lot of the time. Hearing about the one time I say "no" is probably going to place me in the wrong box in their minds, unless they also hear about all the times I've said "yes".

(However, before anyone thinks of me too positively, I should also remind everyone of my opinion of equine casters. Some things just shouldn't be allowed to happen ;) )

[DM_aka_Dudemeister]

Indeed, I'll usually say "No" if people present me with a Drow character concept in Golarion, because Drow are not just a badguy race, but a secret race (unless you run Second Darkness). I usually tell those players:

"If you're looking to be a misunderstood anti-hero may I suggest Half-Orc, Dhampyr or Tiefling?
If you want to be an evil character from a machiavellian civilization, may I suggest playing a Chelish human or half-elf?
If you just want the visual of pointy ears and dark skin, then perhaps you might consider an Ekujae elf?
If you want to worship Lloth, this is the wrong campaign setting, may I suggest Calistra, the wasp goddess of sex and revengeance? BONUS: She's Chaotic Neutral so you don't need to worship an evil god."

[RDM42]

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Indeed, I'll usually say "No" if people present me with a Drow character concept in Golarion, because Drow are not just a badguy race, but a secret race (unless you run Second Darkness). I usually tell those players:

"If you're looking to be a misunderstood anti-hero may I suggest Half-Orc, Dhampyr or Tiefling?
If you want to be an evil character from a machiavellian civilization, may I suggest playing a Chelish human or half-elf?
If you just want the visual of pointy ears and dark skin, then perhaps you might consider an Ekujae elf?
If you want to worship Lloth, this is the wrong campaign setting, may I suggest Calistra, the wasp goddess of sex and revengeance? BONUS: She's Chaotic Neutral so you don't need to worship an evil god."

My general response is, to use the example "there are no dwarves in this setting but what was it you were wanting to get out of dwarves? Perhaps we can find another way to arrive at those things. So more or less what you just said. That doesn't exist in this setting, but let's try to find other things in this setting that do exist and can fill your desire.

(Note, the setting I mentioned at least DOES have dwarves. Although in the first campaign set there they weren't available. They became available by the end of that campaign and have been available since.

[captain yesterday]

i'm a big fan of halflings and dwarves myself, i've never had an elf, i do like what pathfinder has done with them tho (more alien, less faerie)

of the odd ball races from ARG i like Suli-Jann, Samsaran and Vishkanya

other then mer folk i can't think of other races i wouldn't allow

[Zhayne]

thejeff wrote:

Lord Mhoram wrote:

I always find the player/GM entitlement discussions interesting.

I play a lot of HERO. Point based. Characters can be made that are worthless, or superpowered. Balance and character appropriateness is up to the GM - the is one of the assumptions of the game. You never come to a game with a character premade.

Yeah, how does this "It's a sign of GM power tripping to ban anything rules legal" approach apply to systems like HERO?

Would all games have to be anything goes superhero games, just at different power levels?

HERO is easily adaptable to any genre of gaming, including Fantasy.

[knightnday]

Zhayne wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Lord Mhoram wrote:

I always find the player/GM entitlement discussions interesting.

I play a lot of HERO. Point based. Characters can be made that are worthless, or superpowered. Balance and character appropriateness is up to the GM - the is one of the assumptions of the game. You never come to a game with a character premade.

Yeah, how does this "It's a sign of GM power tripping to ban anything rules legal" approach apply to systems like HERO?

Would all games have to be anything goes superhero games, just at different power levels?

HERO is easily adaptable to any genre of gaming, including Fantasy.

Fantasy HERO in fact. Plus. there are all the YIELD and STOP powers that the GM can restrict should they have cause. Or limit the amount of points and so on.

One of my big No things is evil characters. This isn't something that I'm going to be won over on or bend about. Unless I've drank a few bottles and just decided I don't care, I don't do all evil campaigns or let evil characters intermingle with the goods and neutrals. It hasn't worked out well in 35 years and I have no reason to believe that it is going to go over well this time around either.

[Robert Carter 58]

Weird stuff was always in D&D from the very beginning. Gygax was doing all stuff of crazy stuff in his home games- then he would advise other GMs to be conservative, when he, on the other hand, had people playing quasi-deities who had magic pistols, and aliens crashing down in the barrier peaks with laser rifles, and travelling to the land of "boot hill".

So I guess I don't buy the side of the coin when people say "such and such is classic D&D and such and such isn't" Aliens are part of classic D&D (Ring of Gaxx and Barrier Peaks) Clone spells and Kung fu monks are part of D&D... This isn't Tolkien

I can see someone limiting stuff for a campaign setting, but to declare X races isn't D&D, doesn't make much sense to me.

So, if someone wants to play a... whatever... it's all well and good. Because this was always a game where pretty much everything goes. If someone wants to play Tolkien, there are very nice Middle Earth RPGs. I would rather blast fireballs, with my Rogue Modron buddy.

[RDM42]

knightnday wrote:

Zhayne wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Lord Mhoram wrote:

I always find the player/GM entitlement discussions interesting.

I play a lot of HERO. Point based. Characters can be made that are worthless, or superpowered. Balance and character appropriateness is up to the GM - the is one of the assumptions of the game. You never come to a game with a character premade.

Yeah, how does this "It's a sign of GM power tripping to ban anything rules legal" approach apply to systems like HERO?

Would all games have to be anything goes superhero games, just at different power levels?

HERO is easily adaptable to any genre of gaming, including Fantasy.

Fantasy HERO in fact. Plus. there are all the YIELD and STOP powers that the GM can restrict should they have cause. Or limit the amount of points and so on.

One of my big No things is evil characters. This isn't something that I'm going to be won over on or bend about. Unless I've drank a few bottles and just decided I don't care, I don't do all evil campaigns or let evil characters intermingle with the goods and neutrals. It hasn't worked out well in 35 years and I have no reason to believe that it is going to go over well this time around either.

Amen to that. I have had an evil character in one campaign in probably the last twenty years. That was someone I knew really well, and the explicit storyline he wanted was one of reform and redemption, and I trusted that guy to play it. But I don't do evil pcs.

Don't ask.

[Hitdice]

Matt Thomason wrote:

(However, before anyone thinks of me too positively, I should also remind everyone of my opinion of equine casters. Some things just shouldn't be allowed to happen ;) )

Billy-bob just wanted to play an Arcane Trickster . . .

[Umbral Reaver]

Next game I run is going to have no Golarion races!

[Damian Magecraft]

My issue is as follows...
I provide a campaign guide 3 weeks prior to game day.
Said guide contains a list of all house rules that will be in effect, Which classes will be acceptable, which races will be acceptable, etc...

Come game day I invariably get that ONE player who seems to think the restrictions were not meant for him.

That Guy: "Hey GM I know you said only the 7 core races; But I really want to play a Drow, Tiefling, Half-Dragon, whatever..."
Me: "Did you read my Guide?"
TG: "Yeah..."
Me: "Then you already know my answer. Can you roll up one of the 7 core races?"
TG: "Yeah, I can, but I want to play this! Why cant I?"
me: "Did you read my guide?"
TG: "Yeah, what does that have to do with why you wont let me play XYZ?"
Me: "Are you going to play one of the 7 cores?"
TG: "I want XYZ"
Me: "Fine... Hey Alternate #1 a slot just opened in my Game you got a character made?"
TG: "WHAT?!"
Me: "you have demonstrated an inability to follow instructions... you are not welcome at my table."
Alt1: "Well I wanted to run a Tiefling but you said core races only so I opted for a Human Sorcerer with the Aberrant bloodline... Is that cool?"
Me: "both are on the approved list so I see no issue with it."

And yet somehow that type of exchange makes me the bad guy...
Why?
Because I did not justify restriction?

[Tholomyes]

Damian Magecraft wrote:

My issue is as follows...

I provide a campaign guide 3 weeks prior to game day.
Said guide contains a list of all house rules that will be in effect, Which classes will be acceptable, which races will be acceptable, etc...

Come game day I invariably get that ONE player who seems to think the restrictions were not meant for him.

That Guy: "Hey GM I know you said only the 7 core races; But I really want to play a Drow, Tiefling, Half-Dragon, whatever..."
Me: "Did you read my Guide?"
TG: "Yeah..."
Me: "Then you already know my answer. Can you roll up one of the 7 core races?"
TG: "Yeah, I can, but I want to play this! Why cant I?"
me: "Did you read my guide?"
TG: "Yeah, what does that have to do with why you wont let me play XYZ?"
Me: "Are you going to play one of the 7 cores?"
TG: "I want XYZ"
Me: "Fine... Hey Alternate #1 a slot just opened in my Game you got a character made?"
TG: "WHAT?!"
Me: "you have demonstrated an inability to follow instructions... you are not welcome at my table."
Alt1: "Well I wanted to run a Tiefling but you said core races only so I opted for a Human Sorcerer with the Aberrant bloodline... Is that cool?"
Me: "both are on the approved list so I see no issue with it."

And yet somehow that type of exchange makes me the bad guy...
Why?
Because I did not justify restriction?

Sounds like "That guy" is free to join another group; I just so happen to have an open spot at my table. And who knows, he'll probably have a better time, because I respect my players enough to at least give a reason if I want to disallow something.

[Umbral Reaver]

In my games, players (especially regulars) tend to be most interested in playing races/ethnicities that are already well-established in the setting. This is because I usually have long, complex histories of cultural development and interaction, and players tend to like having a character that comes with 'built in' ties to the world's history and events.

[Damian Magecraft]

Tholomyes wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:

My issue is as follows...

I provide a campaign guide 3 weeks prior to game day.
Said guide contains a list of all house rules that will be in effect, Which classes will be acceptable, which races will be acceptable, etc...

Come game day I invariably get that ONE player who seems to think the restrictions were not meant for him.

That Guy: "Hey GM I know you said only the 7 core races; But I really want to play a Drow, Tiefling, Half-Dragon, whatever..."
Me: "Did you read my Guide?"
TG: "Yeah..."
Me: "Then you already know my answer. Can you roll up one of the 7 core races?"
TG: "Yeah, I can, but I want to play this! Why cant I?"
me: "Did you read my guide?"
TG: "Yeah, what does that have to do with why you wont let me play XYZ?"
Me: "Are you going to play one of the 7 cores?"
TG: "I want XYZ"
Me: "Fine... Hey Alternate #1 a slot just opened in my Game you got a character made?"
TG: "WHAT?!"
Me: "you have demonstrated an inability to follow instructions... you are not welcome at my table."
Alt1: "Well I wanted to run a Tiefling but you said core races only so I opted for a Human Sorcerer with the Aberrant bloodline... Is that cool?"
Me: "both are on the approved list so I see no issue with it."

And yet somehow that type of exchange makes me the bad guy...
Why?
Because I did not justify restriction?

Sounds like "That guy" is free to join another group; I just so happen to have an open spot at my table. And who knows, he'll probably have a better time, because I respect my players enough to at least give a reason if I want to disallow something.

I see no point in justifying my restrictions. It just gives them something to try and talk their way through.

If I do justify it is a simple "I do not want that in this campaign." I need no reason beyond that.

[TOZ]

Damian Magecraft wrote:

And yet somehow that type of exchange makes me the bad guy...

Sez who?

[Kthulhu]

TOZ wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:

And yet somehow that type of exchange makes me the bad guy...

Sez who?

Tholomyes

[Rynjin]

LazarX wrote:

Zhayne wrote:

Cato Taldinius wrote:

The question is- do players play non-core races for their bonuses, or do they play them for their uniqueness?

That begs another question- if the PCs and GM is ok with any of it, who cares?

Observation: If the one of the priorities of the GM is game balance, then the non-core races will likely upset this as I believe the devs create encounters with balance in mind.

Balance is not a particularly high priority in PF, and as stated many times in this thread, Humans and Dwarves are more powerful than the vast majority of the non-core races.

Powergamers in PF play humans.

Until it gets dark. :)

There's like a jillion ways to get Darkvision though.

Damian Magecraft wrote:

My issue is as follows...

I provide a campaign guide 3 weeks prior to game day.
Said guide contains a list of all house rules that will be in effect, Which classes will be acceptable, which races will be acceptable, etc...

Come game day I invariably get that ONE player who seems to think the restrictions were not meant for him.

That Guy: "Hey GM I know you said only the 7 core races; But I really want to play a Drow, Tiefling, Half-Dragon, whatever..."
Me: "Did you read my Guide?"
TG: "Yeah..."
Me: "Then you already know my answer. Can you roll up one of the 7 core races?"
TG: "Yeah, I can, but I want to play this! Why cant I?"
me: "Did you read my guide?"
TG: "Yeah, what does that have to do with why you wont let me play XYZ?"
Me: "Are you going to play one of the 7 cores?"
TG: "I want XYZ"
Me: "Fine... Hey Alternate #1 a slot just opened in my Game you got a character made?"
TG: "WHAT?!"
Me: "you have demonstrated an inability to follow instructions... you are not welcome at my table."
Alt1: "Well I wanted to run a Tiefling but you said core races only so I opted for a Human Sorcerer with the Aberrant bloodline... Is that cool?"
Me: "both are on the approved list so I see no issue with it."

And yet somehow that type of exchange makes me the bad guy...
Why?
Because I did not justify restriction?

Yes.

If you don't have any sort of justification, the restriction is arbitrary. Why did you make it? If you can't answer a simple question like that, you need to question whether the limitation is necessary at all.

"Did you read the guide?" does not answer any of the person's questions. It is saying "Because" with a few more words. If your only response to "Why" is "Because" then you don't have a good reason. So, again, why the restriction?

"It doesn't fit the setting" is sometimes a good reason.

"That thing is OP" is sometimes a good reason.

"Everyone else agreed to play with these races and don't want to let an exception" is sometimes a good reason.

"Because." is not a good reason. Ever. Because it's not even a reason. It is the exact opposite. It's an implicit statement that you don't HAVE a reason and would just like to be an a&&#@&@.

It's not even a BAD reason like "I don't like them". It's just...not a reason. It's pointless. You've called out your restriction as utterly pointless with that robotic repetition.

"Why is this thing?"

"Because I said so."

"Why did you say so?"

"Because I said so."

[Kthulhu]

Hypothetical question for you all: If it was another playere who objected to you wanting to play a [insert oddball race here], then would you be more likely to aquiess to their desire for you to play something else, less likely, or would you just scream "QUIT TRYING TO LIMIT MY CHOICES, TYRANT PLAYER!!!"

[Forrestfire]

Damian Magecraft wrote:

I see no point in justifying my restrictions. It just gives them something to try and talk their way through.

If I do justify it is a simple "I do not want that in this campaign." I need no reason beyond that.

Personally, if a DM gave me restrictions with no reason, I'd drop their game. In my circle of friends, we're all competent, reasonable (sometimes) people, and can discuss how things will work together to reach an end that makes everyone happy.

"Because I said so" is a reason a parent gives a child. Among adults, it's just insulting.

[Prince of Knives]

Kthulhu wrote:

Hypothetical question for you all: If it was another playere who objected to you wanting to play a [insert oddball race here], then would you be more likely to aquiess to their desire for you to play something else, less likely, or would you just scream "QUIT TRYING TO LIMIT MY CHOICES, TYRANT PLAYER!!!"

I wouldn't necessarily do either of those things. Pathfinder is a social game, and a bit of consideration for the group goes a long way. The best thing to do for anything like that - DM objection, player objection - is to open up a dialogue about why the restriction or objection is in place and see where a middle ground can be met. Y'know, like mature adults sitting down to have fun or something.

[Tholomyes]

Kthulhu wrote:

TOZ wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:

And yet somehow that type of exchange makes me the bad guy...

Sez who?

Tholomyes

And I stand by it. If you can't justify it to your players, then it's not a good reason. The DM is first among equals of the group, but the key word there is "equals"; I have stated before that there are legitimate reasons to disallow options, but these are all dependent on the group being on board. "Because I say so, because I'm the DM" is not one of these reasons.

Prince of Knives wrote:

Kthulhu wrote:

Hypothetical question for you all: If it was another playere who objected to you wanting to play a [insert oddball race here], then would you be more likely to aquiess to their desire for you to play something else, less likely, or would you just scream "QUIT TRYING TO LIMIT MY CHOICES, TYRANT PLAYER!!!"

I wouldn't necessarily do either of those things. Pathfinder is a social game, and a bit of consideration for the group goes a long way. The best thing to do for anything like that - DM objection, player objection - is to open up a dialogue about why the restriction or objection is in place and see where a middle ground can be met. Y'know, like mature adults sitting down to have fun or something.

Agreed; the key word, here, being dialogue. In Damian's example there is no dialogue. Even when the so-called "That Guy" tries to initiate some level of dialogue, by trying to understand even the base reason behind his restriction, Damian refuses to enter into a dialogue. It's just "No, because I said so" and if the issue is pressed, the player gets booted. I honestly can't see why DMs like this still have groups, to be honest.

[Green Smashomancer]

Have we yet considered the possibility that "why?" was answered in the guide that was mentioned? Feels like "Who lives here" is the kind of thing that would be included in any half-decent guide book.

[Deadmanwalking]

Damian Magecraft wrote:

And yet somehow that type of exchange makes me the bad guy...

Why?
Because I did not justify restriction?

Because you come off as a dick, basically. In fairness, so does he...but you come off as a bigger one.

Why? Basically because, as much as what he's doing is impolite and disrespectful to some degree (and it is), his manner is at least relatively courteous. Yours is not.

Your manner, as presented by you I might add, comes off as condescending, dismissive, and generally disrespectful to a much greater degree than any ignoring of the rules you set out. You come off as arrogant and well, frankly, just plain mean.

Now, having given character creation guidelines, you are certainly well within your rights to enforce them...but there are much more polite and less jerkish ways to do so than you demonstrate in the dialogue you show us here.

Explaining things politely is one, obvious and logical, way to come off as much less of a dick. It's not the only one, I suppose, but it's the only one I can think of off the top of my head.

Disclaimer: I have no idea if you come off this way in real life. It's very possible you do not. Heck, you don't usually seem to online...but you asked what was wrong with the scenario as you presented it. This is what's wrong, and why you come off as the bad guy.

[Damian Magecraft]

Forrestfire15 wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:

I see no point in justifying my restrictions. It just gives them something to try and talk their way through.

If I do justify it is a simple "I do not want that in this campaign." I need no reason beyond that.

"Because I said so" is a reason a parent gives a child. Among adults, it's just insulting.

Player wants to act like a spoiled manipulative child... Then they should expect to be treated like one.

They had 3 weeks to object.
They waited until game night. Why?
Because other GMs have buckled under that tactic.
I set the restrictions because I all I wanted in that campaign was what I placed on the approved list. I need explain my reasons no further. All the other players were willing to follow those guidelines.
But not our "special little snowflake" the rules do not apply to him.

I have 3 different Fantasy Campaign worlds that I utilize. All 3 are "living settings." I have run these setting for the last 30 years. The Players enjoy the idea that their characters have an effect on the landscape as tales of daring do, and legends of the past. (A couple have moved on to NPC status and become Living Legends).
I place restrictions on race, class, level, spells, etc... with no explanation as to why all the time and I always have a "wait list" of players... So I must be doing something right.

[Umbral Reaver]

Kthulhu wrote:

Hypothetical question for you all: If it was another playere who objected to you wanting to play a [insert oddball race here], then would you be more likely to aquiess to their desire for you to play something else, less likely, or would you just scream "QUIT TRYING TO LIMIT MY CHOICES, TYRANT PLAYER!!!"

Here's what happened to me:

GM: "I'd like you to reprise character X that you played in a previous game."

Me: "Okay. Here's the backstory."

GM: "Hmm. A human doesn't quite fit this campaign. Could you redo this as a drow?"

Me: "Sure."

[Prince of Knives]

Umbral Reaver wrote:

Kthulhu wrote:

Hypothetical question for you all: If it was another playere who objected to you wanting to play a [insert oddball race here], then would you be more likely to aquiess to their desire for you to play something else, less likely, or would you just scream "QUIT TRYING TO LIMIT MY CHOICES, TYRANT PLAYER!!!"

Here's what happened to me:

GM: "I'd like you to reprise character X that you played in a previous game."

Me: "Okay. Here's the backstory."

GM: "Hmm. A human doesn't quite fit this campaign. Could you redo this as a drow?"

Me: "Sure."

Bam - polite, reasonable, perfectly good reason, honest dialogue with the player. Go your GM!

[Umbral Reaver]

Prince of Knives wrote:

Umbral Reaver wrote:

Kthulhu wrote:

Hypothetical question for you all: If it was another playere who objected to you wanting to play a [insert oddball race here], then would you be more likely to aquiess to their desire for you to play something else, less likely, or would you just scream "QUIT TRYING TO LIMIT MY CHOICES, TYRANT PLAYER!!!"

Here's what happened to me:

GM: "I'd like you to reprise character X that you played in a previous game."

Me: "Okay. Here's the backstory."

GM: "Hmm. A human doesn't quite fit this campaign. Could you redo this as a drow?"

Me: "Sure."

Bam - polite, reasonable, perfectly good reason, honest dialogue with the player. Go your GM!

It was a campaign that took place almost wholly within a homebrewed blend of the Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk Underdarks and Golarion's Darklands.

[Forrestfire]

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Forrestfire15 wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:

I see no point in justifying my restrictions. It just gives them something to try and talk their way through.

If I do justify it is a simple "I do not want that in this campaign." I need no reason beyond that.

"Because I said so" is a reason a parent gives a child. Among adults, it's just insulting.

Player wants to act like a spoiled manipulative child... Then they should expect to be treated like one.

They had 3 weeks to object.
They waited until game night. Why?
Because other GMs have buckled under that tactic.
I set the restrictions because I all I wanted in that campaign was what I placed on the approved list. I need explain my reasons no further. All the other players were willing to follow those guidelines.
But not our "special little snowflake" the rules do not apply to him.

I have 3 different Fantasy Campaign worlds that I utilize. All 3 are "living settings." I have run these setting for the last 30 years. The Players enjoy the idea that their characters have an effect on the landscape as tales of daring do, and legends of the past. (A couple have moved on to NPC status and become Living Legends).
I place restrictions on race, class, level, spells, etc... with no explanation as to why all the time and I always have a "wait list" of players... So I must be doing something right.

Firstly: I'd like to say that this is in no way meant to disparage your DMing skill. If you've had a setting last that long and consistently have players, you're definitely doing something right (or you're the only DM around, but I'm discounting that possibility).

In any case, something that bugged me about this is, well... If they waited until game night to object, where was their character sheet for these three weeks? What sort of DM stays out of contact with their players for three weeks before starting a new game?

I understand that you have set restrictions. I understand banning a player that shows up with something you haven't approved. Hell, if I had a player come with a completely new sheet compared to what we'd agreed on, I'd be angry, too.

What I don't understand is how you put all the blame on the player being "that guy," when you have obviously given them a list of restrictions with no explanation to a group of equally-competent adults, and then just assumed that they'd follow them. If the other players are not opening a dialogue with you regarding their characters, then opening one yourself is your job as the DM. How else are you going to integrate backstories into the world, figure out possible plotlines, and weave together a good story for the players to wreck?

In conclusion... Even if there's reasons for a set of options to exist, even if they're good ones...

Unless you're opening the game with the intent of having an extremely adversarial relationship with the other players, why aren't you working with the other players? Wouldn't it be a much more fun game if you figure out a good way to make both the player (they have the character concept they want) and you (it fits into your world) happy?.

I guess I'm just a bit confused by the lack of communication that you've described in your posts. I may not have 30 years of experience running a setting, but when I DM, my job is to make everyone, including myself, happy. I have a lot of banned stuff in my games, mostly in the realm of common sense, but if I'm refusing an option for no real reason, then, honestly, I'm doing it wrong. Not only that, but if I don't talk to a player for three weeks, that's on me, not the other player. The DM's job is to make sure everything's running smoothly, and if I shut myself off from the players, that becomes impossible.

[Damian Magecraft]

Green Smashomancer wrote:

Have we yet considered the possibility that "why?" was answered in the guide that was mentioned? Feels like "Who lives here" is the kind of thing that would be included in any half-decent guide book.

"Deadmanwalking wrote:

Because you come off as a dick, basically. In fairness, so does he...but you come off as a bigger one.

Why? Basically because, as much as what he's doing is impolite and disrespectful to some degree (and it is), his manner is at least relatively courteous. Yours is not.

Your manner, as presented by you I might add, comes off as condescending, dismissive, and generally disrespectful to a much greater degree than any ignoring of the rules you set out. You come off as arrogant and well, frankly, just plain mean.

Now, having given character creation guidelines, you are certainly well within your rights to enforce them...but there are much more polite and less jerkish ways to do so than you demonstrate in the dialogue you show us here.

Explaining things politely is one, obvious and logical, way to come off as much less of a dick. It's not the only one, I suppose, but it's the only one I can think of off the top of my head.

Disclaimer: I have no idea if you come off this way in real life. It's very possible you do not. Heck, you don't usually seem to online...but you asked what was wrong with the scenario as you presented it. This is what's wrong, and why you come off as the bad guy.

To be Fair I did fail to mention it does say right at the start of the Guide "If this is your first campaign at my table you are restricted to the core races and classes. This is non-negotiable."

So the "reason" was already given. My asking if he read the Guide was me checking to see if he actually bothered to read it...
I do not argue with players.
When Rules issues come up I make a judgement.If a player objects I invoke rule 4. They get 5 minutes to calmly present their case.
Then I make a judgement and it stands. If the player continues to disrupt the game after that... an Alternate is informed that a slot in the game has opened up.
I run 10 player games with up to 20 alternates on any given campaign.
I do not tolerate disruptive behavior.
This system has been in effect for the last 20 years and outside of a rare few habitual problem players, (My table is usually their chance at reputation redemption... If they can last through one of Damians games they can't be that bad after all), no one has complained about my style.

[Kthulhu]

Tholomyes wrote:

If you can't justify it to your players, then it's not a good reason. The DM is first among equals of the group, but the key word there is "equals"

Yes. It is a key word. If, for whatever reason, or possibly no rational reason whatsoever, catfolk set the GM's teeth on edge, they I see no reason for any player to demand to play a catfolk. Even if the GM's full explanation is: "I hate them. I don't even know why, but I hate them."

If the GM is the first among EQUALS, then why are some of you valuing his ability to have fun in the game so much less than that of the player who wants to play the catfolk?

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:

And yet somehow that type of exchange makes me the bad guy...

Why?
Because I did not justify restriction?

Because you come off as a dick, basically.

As too does the player who demands they be allowed to play a catfolk, even when the GM has told them that he cannot, for whatever reason, stand catfolk.

The GM hates catfolk. Why can some of you simply not accept this? Is it SO important that he gives you a detailed explanation of WHY he hates catfolk? Will you bankroll the therapy sessions where he and his therapist delve deep into his psyche to determine the roots of his catfolk hatred?

Wouldn't it be simpler just to accept that the guy doesn't like g!$#*$n catfolk, and play an elf or something instead?

[Ilja]

Kthulu: probably because the gm gets to decide on the inclusion/exclusion of dozens of races,and what race dozens of npcs are; then it seems quite small-minded to ban the single race that a player wants just because the gm doesnt like them. When its the only thing players get to decide, i think its a sign of good dming to cut them some slack. Exceptions occur of course, but they should ve kept rare exceptions, not anything close to default.

With the caveat that kirth mentioned of course; if other players too want to exclude catfolk that is a different thing.

[137ben]

Damian Magecraft, I'm curious: you said you put out the guide three weeks before the game starts, and the one player in question shows up with something that breaks your rules on game day.

So, what happened in the intervening three weeks? Did the player try to initiate dialogue between him/her/itself and you during that time?
Or did the player just say "yea, I got it," for three weeks up until right when the game was suppose to be starting?
There's a pretty big difference between those two scenarios!

[Damian Magecraft]

Forrestfire wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Forrestfire15 wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:

I see no point in justifying my restrictions. It just gives them something to try and talk their way through.

If I do justify it is a simple "I do not want that in this campaign." I need no reason beyond that.

"Because I said so" is a reason a parent gives a child. Among adults, it's just insulting.

Player wants to act like a spoiled manipulative child... Then they should expect to be treated like one.

They had 3 weeks to object.
They waited until game night. Why?
Because other GMs have buckled under that tactic.
I set the restrictions because I all I wanted in that campaign was what I placed on the approved list. I need explain my reasons no further. All the other players were willing to follow those guidelines.
But not our "special little snowflake" the rules do not apply to him.

I have 3 different Fantasy Campaign worlds that I utilize. All 3 are "living settings." I have run these setting for the last 30 years. The Players enjoy the idea that their characters have an effect on the landscape as tales of daring do, and legends of the past. (A couple have moved on to NPC status and become Living Legends).
I place restrictions on race, class, level, spells, etc... with no explanation as to why all the time and I always have a "wait list" of players... So I must be doing something right.

Firstly: I'd like to say that this is in no way meant to disparage your DMing skill. If you've had a setting last that long and consistently have players, you're definitely doing something right (or you're the only DM around, but I'm discounting that possibility).

In any case, something that bugged me about this is, well... If they waited until game night to object, where was their character sheet for these three weeks? What sort of DM stays out of contact with their players for three weeks before starting a new game?

I understand that you have set restrictions. I understand banning a player...

3 Weeks gives all the players a chance to finish any games they are already taking part in that may coincide with my table times. (it also gives me time to finish up the current campaign I am running).

I am always available for consult during that 3 weeks. By e-mail, Phone, or just pigeon holing me after session at the shop.
My players are adults (mostly) They are informed through my guides, which of the 3 settings the game will take place, What area/town/kingdom of that setting, as well as what Classes, races, gear, etc... are approved for the campaign.
Already established PCs of appropriate level may (Not all campaigns take characters to max level) be permitted (they need to check with me on that).
Character Backgrounds are established in game.
I have a few "oddball" House rules that are Role-play specific and tend to see heavy workouts during the first 3 sessions.
The players are expected to show up at the table with a completed sheet on game day. (I am lenient on gear...)

[Damian Magecraft]

137ben wrote:

Damian Magecraft, I'm curious: you said you put out the guide three weeks before the game starts, and the one player in question shows up with something that breaks your rules on game day.

So, what happened in the intervening three weeks? Did the player try to initiate dialogue between him/her/itself and you during that time?
Or did the player just say "yea, I got it," for three weeks up until right when the game was suppose to be starting?
There's a pretty big difference between those two scenarios!

The Player in question waited until Game day and showed up with the Character that violated the guidelines. Never once asked me any questions prior to that. I was at the shop every Saturday and Sunday for those 3 weeks. As was the Player.

It was a blatant attempt to make an end run around my restrictions.

[lordfeint]

The precedent I put into place at my table almost 15 years ago is a simple one.
If its in the rules, I'll allow it.
I have absolutely no problem allowing Dhampir, Catfolk, Kitsune, Changelings, Kobolds, Aasimar, Teiflings... anything.
As long as you come to the table with a character built using the latest rules for the system we're playing, I'll welcome it.
I even allow EVIL characters with the single rule that if you do ONE SINGLE HOSTILE THING against the other players, you're permanently out of the game. (I've had one incident in 30 years)

Oh, that rule for characters is this; YOU play your character. If someone else at the table has a problem with someone else's Catfolk or Tiefling, they are free to find another game. We're all adults in my games and if you're upset that another person wants to be an anthropomorphic cat to the point that its actually ruining your own fun, then you should prioritize a bit before coming back to roleplay.

[Kthulhu]

Ilja wrote:

Kthulu: probably because the gm gets to decide on the inclusion/exclusion of dozens of races,and what race dozens of npcs are; then it seems quite small-minded to ban the single race that a player wants just because the gm doesnt like them. When its the only thing players get to decide, i think its a sign of good dming to cut them some slack. Exceptions occur of course, but they should ve kept rare exceptions, not anything close to default.

With the caveat that kirth mentioned of course; if other players too want to exclude catfolk that is a different thing.

Again, if the GM is the first among EQUALS, than why is a greater priority placed on the player having fun than the GM having fun?