how do I stop my players from wanting to play as flowers, quadrupeds and made to be a PC race(or basically a human with different stats, etc)?
I've tried explaining to them, that trying to RP any sort of interaction with normal races, is going to go down-hill fast, we're trying to set up an AP too(so, it's designed for them to you know, be human-like). They're honestly getting angry at me with trying to stop them, my explanation being is this won't be fun for me after the even 10th time or so.
pretty much only one out of five has decided to make an actual race, you know, with a cultural identity and societal norms, something I could actually have walking around and met upon. One of them actually asked me if he could play as a quadruped rat thing with carrion sense, and he was going to try to only scavenge to eat.
*faintly whimpers "help me"*
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Advanced Race Guide is a tool for GM's. The race creation rules are not balanced for players to make a race, there is no structure to keep them from making silly unbalanced races. It is simply a guide for the GM or others who are earnestly trying to make a race for a setting and want some guidance. Even for that purpose the guide is more of a yardstick as the bonuses are not balanced in any way really and at best it is a way to compare a new race to existing ones. I would highly recommend not letting players make races as part of character creation, it really is not designed for that in my opinion.
Also if you're the GM just say what the rules are. Core only, common or uncommon other races.
Hey guys here is the ARG. I am only allowing Featured Races oh and kitsune cause the rock.
Done
Agreed. The ARG is not designed for players to handmake their own race. With the options presented, and with no guidelines other than "Make a race," the characters in question would be way overpowered in comparison to what the game is originally designed for.
You have several options to combat this, and whether you choose to either heed them or use your own option is up to you.
The first is quite simple: Lay down the hammer. Tell the PCs you don't get to make any races. You select from the pre-set races that are already devised, such as the Aasimar, Changeling, etc. And you can even limit that list down to being Core + Featured only, or ban some races because they either don't fit the setting or they fall under the realm of "OP"ness. And that you won't run a game with them playing with OP cheese; it's either they play with your rules, or they can find a different table that appreciates their minmaxing playstyle. (For the record, they probably won't get too far on this, since almost everyone on these boards will tell you they don't allow PCs to make their own race.)
The second is a bit more complex, and one that the players would probably like a bit more: Allow them to conjure up some of their own races, but they must adhere to certain guidelines. You've said it yourself, you don't want to run a campaign with characters who have 500 sets of legs, 200 sets of arms, etc. Say "Look, I'll let you guys make your own races, but to keep the game interesting and fair, I'm going to restrict some of your power. You get X amount of race points to spend to create your races, you can't take Y, Z, and Q kinds of traits, and you can't take traits that are on tables N or M. Once you follow those guidelines, bring them to me, and I'll give them one last look-over." After that, you can then say "To make this book relevant throughout the game, I'll also grant everyone a race point to spend for each character level they get after 1st level, which can be stored up for some of the more expensive traits."
The third is to simply allow it, run the module as-is, and show them by example how lame it is to give them all this power and for them to cakewalk the adventure. When they complain about how easy it is, you tell them "Hey, this is the kind of game you wanted; I guess there's just no pleasing you, is there?"
For the record, our group had a similar issue when it came to this (that is, that we actually wanted to make use of the book instead of it being stupid GM-only fluff), and we went with option 2; we eventually stopped issuing race points by the time we had 20 race points, but that's primarily because the GM in our game can have difficulties keeping track of everybody's statistics, since we also run some 3.X content, like Weapons of Legacy (modified, of course). Both parties were happy with the result, so I recommend that option. It is ultimately your call, though.
Just RP it for them... they make the race and when the mother of a humanoid race gives birth to a rat carrion eater the village takes it out to the lake and drowns the monster.
Really, making races is a DM tool for when they are building the world... not for a player to try and create the perfect "thing". A one shot TMNT type game could be fun, but as you said an Adventure Path set in Golarion is not going to go well for monster creatures most of the time. It is hard enough if you try and play an Orc or Gnoll let alone a thing that is totally unknown.
Don't go with option 3 above, that's being a passive-aggressive dip.
Don't go with option 3 above, that's being a passive-aggressive dip.
I'm not sure what the problem is. To be honest, it's a lot better option than option 1, I find, assuming he still wishes to play with the group he's currently GMing for.
It really boils down to if the OP is willing to tolerate boring games for the PCs because they think being the Ultimate Lifeform is fun.
As it is with Schrodinger's Wizard by the endgame, when you're the best, and there's nothing that can stop you except maybe another you (and even that's a close gamble), there's no fun or point to it after a while. The conflicts that arise become child's play and the PCs have nothing important to fight for, because what they're fighting for is so damn insignificant.
A lot of times, players don't see things until they actually happen in a game, and the GM showing that to the whining players via example is probably the smartest thing he can do; especially if he wants to continue playing with this group. (It's actually worked for the group that I'm currently playing with, so it's not like it's an absolutely horrid option that ends with nothing but bad and hurt feelings.)
Indeed, Bandw. You have to learn to say "no". People will actually respect you for being assertive without being aggressive.
On the other hand, you have have tapped-into some potential fun with your players: they want to play alien weirdos? Build your campaign around that. Make them the escaped creations of some demiplane-hidden society of wizards and give them a general quest. See how it goes for a session or two. Often times, weird inspirations like this wear off quickly.
There's another option: they give you a concept, you build the race.
Pros: It allows you to create races that are consistent with your world, and stops them from making them too crazy, too powerful, or too min/maxed
Cons: more work for you
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Say Yes, but on 2 conditions
-Make and X page essay on this new race, it has to have information on A and B, and specially about C so i can work the race on the world.
-It has to follow the regular point system and i can discard it if i dont find it balanced
If your players are "that" interested they will have to work for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
how do I stop my players from wanting to play as flowers, quadrupeds and made to be a PC race(or basically a human with different stats, etc)?Say 'no'.
Repeat as necessary.
This. It's really not that hard. Turn to page 9 of the Core Rulebook. Read "The Most Important Rule" to the party. Bold or emphasize or just plain YELL the part about the GM being the final arbiter of the rules.
looking at most of the suggestions, I've tried. They're getting angry at this, like drop the campaign angry. The reason they're angry is BECAUSE I've said no so much, I want to make them stop asking and not drop the campaign.
it basically goes along the lines, of them saying I'm crushing their creativity, when I mention they're only thinking I am because I've showed them this, and that several of these concepts are going to make my GMing unfun for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
looking at most of the suggestions, I've tried. They're getting angry at this, like drop the campaign angry. The reason they're angry is BECAUSE I've said no so much, I want to make them stop asking and not drop the campaign.
*shrug* Call their bluff. If they leave, find other players. If you can't find any in your city, there's a TON of people looking for good games online, and the player to GM ratio there is STAGGERINGLY in favor of GMs.
If it's gotten to this point, you shrug, and say "Okay." When they start smiling and saying what they're going to make, you pack your stuff up, and leave. If they stop you, inform them that your "okay," was to killing the campaign.
"Crushing their creativity" is almost always a coded statement that you're not going to let them come up with some monstrosity that does something abhorrent, or kills the entire game for everyone else.
Say they can only use 5 RP points
cite the kobold
watch them cry
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
how do I stop my players from wanting to play as flowers, quadrupeds and made to be a PC race(or basically a human with different stats, etc)?
You CANNOT stop them WANTING to play that.
You CAN stop them from PLAYING it. The word is No. They should learn to respect that word when you use it.
The reasoning is "That concept does not fit into the world setting and campaign I am running and the entire book is optional and primarily for ME, the GM, to make balanced races for you to interact with. Should you come up with an idea for a race and it is balanced and fits in with the setting I will CONSIDER it."
There's another option: they give you a concept, you build the race.
Pros: It allows you to create races that are consistent with your world, and stops them from making them too crazy, too powerful, or too min/maxed
Cons: more work for you
This is what I tend towards.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Call their bluff is right.
Know your audience, and your audience wants to play 'wacky'.. Let them do it. If you're not able (in this case not being able to convince yourself to be willing) to roll with it you should get outta the chair. If knowing your own limitations means 'if I let them then I wont find it fun to run the campaign anymore' then don't run it.
That way you're not running what you don't wanna run, and they're not trapped in a campaign with a dm that's generous on the front end but resentful on the back end.
Who knows. Once they find out you don't wanna run it they'll either want to run it so bad anyway that someone else will step up to run it, or they'll want to run it so bad that they're willing to let you run it your way.
If not... well... Sometimes 'everyone gets what they want' is the same as 'nobody gets what they want'.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, you can't stop people from WANTING to play them. It's something people just need to get out of their system.
That can be in your game, or in someone else's game.
Apart from many suggestions given by other players, allow me to propose something different:
Change your game. Temporarily. Set up a mini-campaign actively focused on them playing weird races. Rather than trying to keep your campaign "normal" and "sane", run with the craziness. No standard races allowed, not for PCs, not for NPCs. Let your players run wild, but in a wild world of your own. Instead of playing Hamlet, play Looney Tunes for a change.
Just tell the players that they all get to use the same amount of race points. If they all agree on 25bp, fine; that's what you'll use for NPC races as well. If they want to start at level 5, fine; you'll start with CR 5+ encounters.
Just make it clear from the outside that this is something you haven't done before, that you're not sure how long you'll enjoy it. But that you're willing to give it a try for say, six sessions. After that, you'll evaluate how well you like it, and might go back to "normality". But for those six sessions, you'll go with the flow and see if you can't enjoy it.
You really need to suspend your sense of normality for this. Otherwise you won't enjoy it. But that goes both ways; if your players use this opportunity to shamelessly powergame, making races that are just power stats with no actual cool style or background, it's going to be just six sessions. But if they blow you away with aforementioned creativity, this could be a lot of fun.
I'm not a fan of an absolute "no". The Advanced Race Guide can be helpful to flesh out a lot of interesting character concepts (especially hybrid races). However that's what I would demand, a character concept that fits into the world (meaning the GM has to approve it in the end). If someone would come to me because he wants to make a half-elf/half-orc who was abandoned at birth and raised by wolves (Feral Child or that new brawler archetype) with bonuses to strength and dexterity I would set a race point limit, tell him to go for it and check if what he comes up with actually fits (if he tries to give his elf/orc hybrid a wisdom bonus the hammer comes down). If someone comes up with a monstrosity that has no reason for existing besides its stats he can go home.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rather than saying no. Say "Ok as long as we do it like this ..."
I didn't handle it real well with my group either. So here is what I will be doing the next time we restart.
If you want to make a new race, we can work together on it. You do not get to do it by yourself and surprise me with it on game day.
You will have to help create a functioning sustainable race and society not just cherry pick the few abilities that are perfect for your particular Flying/Fey/MoMS/Necromancer.
You are not going to be the only representative of your race in the world. If I'm going place them in the campaign, I need to know all about the race. Which country(ies) are they most commonly seen? Do they rule anyplace? What languages do they speak? How do they relate to the other races and why? How do the other races relate to them and why? What are their personalities like? What is their society like? Basically, you will have to do a full write-up on the race.
If you show up game day with a snowflake race point conglomeration that has no society or write up and we didn't work on together, you get to play a pregen.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So ... not seeing a problem.
Nothing says you have to be a 'race' of more than one. You could be a mad wizard's experiment that escaped, a random mutation, someone who fell through a dimensional portal ... hell, you could even be from another planet.
As far as how people respond, well, that's entirely up to you; there's no rule that says every townsperson is an inbred ignorant superstitious racist moron. I intentionally make my worlds cosmopolitan for precisely this reason. You're free to make your world's inhabitants more accepting and enlightened than dark-age Europe (and since there actually ARE other sentient races, they should be anyway). How much you want to emphasize or de-emphasize that sort of thing is completely under your control.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Allow them to do whatever they want.
It is legitimately impossible to make a 10 RP race that is more powerful than Humans, simply because of FCB.
Now, if your problem is that races are not in the game world you are building... add them? So you have a random NPC, why can't he be a delicious flower person? You have a random warrior type, why cannot it be a quadruped dude?
Because it would allow players to try to parlay the situation out? How is that a LOSS? That is roleplaying, you are moving the game along.
I always bring up the case in which most of my players went with off-kilter race/class combos (they just opened up the Race Guide and went to town), and I changed some of the background to suit them.
Why can't Quadruped Dudes be a normal race in your game world? I'm not seeing the issue.
Why not just let them try out something out of the ordinary?
Once they have their fill of it, they will probably switch back to Core races.
I mean, it's not like you have to treat your players like enemies in a group game, right?
Edit: I completely agree with what Secret Wizard has said above. Being flexible with your campaign world is not bad.
There is no cure for unreasonable players.
Seems to me like there is no cure for unreasonable DM behaviour either. The street goes both ways when it comes to this stuff. Nobody is truly infallible.
I used to play wacky races... Then I found evolutionist summoner.
Now my character is human but the eidolon looks however I like.
Best of both worlds.
The Quadraped race thing btw, is nothing more than a centaur in a basic sense.
For me of course, I rarely ever make my own race, as I feel cheap doing it.
|
If they ALL want to do this, then maybe you need to adjust the campaign you were going to run. It sounds like the players want to run an awakened animal campaign. You can make them in a world that is mostly human, or a world of all awakened animals.
You don't HAVE to run a normal world of all humans who will hate your players, that is your CHOICE to do so.
In short, if ALL but one of your players want to do this, then I submit the problem is your unwillingness to go along with the team, not their wanting to play a different campaign than you want.
You can also do it as a one shot, if you still want to run the AP which probably won't work. If they like it, turn it into a campaign, if not, make new characters for the AP
If you really hate the idea, ask someone else to volunteer to DM.
That is why in the campaign I started, I sent out rules beforehand, and we discussed them. Things the players didn't like I got rid of.
|
If they ALL want to do this, then maybe you need to adjust the campaign you were going to run. It sounds like the players want to run an awakened animal campaign. You can make them in a world that is mostly human, or a world of all awakened animals.
There's even a setting you can crib.
|
I can sympathise with this.
I agree with all the points above that your players are being unreasonable if they are essentially threatening you with dropping the campaign if you don't let them play some weird frog/flower/fey combo.
Some are simply not interested in the roleplaying aspect of the game (when many, myself included, would see that as at least 80% of the game in the first place) and that's a shame. Try sitting down with them and reasonably explaining your concerns that the races they want to play have no cultural grounding in your campaign world and will find it extremely difficult to interact with 'normal' races because they have pretty much just dropped from the sky!
You can't be held ransom by your players though. At the end of the day it's a game and everyone should be having fun, yourself included.
The reason I can sympathise is because every time I start a new campaign most of my players pretty much automatically head for the Aasimar and Tiefling subraces, in which you can find the perfect chassis for any superpower gaming version of any class you like. They also have no desire to play small races because of the movement, CMB penalty, reduced weapon damage and so on.
Shame, because I feel the traditional races have a rich history in the game that provides a 1001 roleplaying opportunities.
Just say no and call their bluff but dont be surprised if they leave. BUT thats ok if they do just like its ok if they stay. U have many avenues to get ur setting played and there are many oppertunities for players to find a game.
When u do a game, EVERYONE is supposed to have fun. The GM has every right to have just as much fun as the players and vice versa.
So ... not seeing a problem.
Nothing says you have to be a 'race' of more than one. You could be a mad wizard's experiment that escaped, a random mutation, someone who fell through a dimensional portal ... hell, you could even be from another planet.
As far as how people respond, well, that's entirely up to you; there's no rule that says every townsperson is an inbred ignorant superstitious racist moron. I intentionally make my worlds cosmopolitan for precisely this reason. You're free to make your world's inhabitants more accepting and enlightened than dark-age Europe (and since there actually ARE other sentient races, they should be anyway). How much you want to emphasize or de-emphasize that sort of thing is completely under your control.
Agreed. Up to a point.
In my case, I asked the players what they wanted me to run. They picked a 4 module mini-arc. I bought the 4 modules. Gave them the intro information that their PC's have (which admittedly isn't much) AND a bunch of background info to tell them what type of campaign it will be what types of characters, races, and abilities will be helpful. I specifically told them that nearly everyone encountered is racist against anything not human. Even more so if the are obviously from somewhere out of the country. This fact is very central to the whole theme of the arc. All of them agreed that this was what they still wanted to run. I said they could use the race builder if they did a complete write-up of the race and it made sense as a race that could survive in the world (they all agreed that was reasonable).
Then on game day:
- Two of them brought builds which were nearly useless because their specialty could not effect 90% of the opposition encountered. They said that was intentional. They wanted to find a way to uniquely use their skills and make it work. Then made no unique effort and were upset they couldn't do anything.
- Everyone of them brought a VERY visibly non-human/non-local race guaranteed to send chills to any xenophobe. I reminded them of the xenophobic aspect. They said they wanted to play through overcoming that handicap. They were all frustrated that they couldn't get anything done with their social skills (stacking penalties up to -4 to -12 depending).
-Not one even bothered using a single skill point to learn the local language until I very loudly meta-game pointed out that it was giving them another -4 penalty on social interactions.
- Three of them cobbled together a race with that made no sense and was good for nothing except the particular character they were playing. They didn't even follow the rules in the ARG. None of the 3 did any kind of write-up, background, or history for their race or even let me look at it before game day. (One said "I thought I wrote down that he was plane shifted here from somewhere else" and that was as close as I got.)
I allowed their special races as long as they could give me some sort of write-up, history, justification and the race made sense. I think that was pretty darn permissive. They couldn't be bothered to do anything like that.
They said they wanted specifically to play those special races in this exact mini-campaign even with all the problems it would give. Then they were all frustrated with it.
I wanted a race write-up. I would have been satisfied with some sort of readable character background that included, for example, a mad wizard's experiment. I got nothing. Even then, I let them use it with only a bit of eye rolling on my part.
Then their frustration was my fault for running exactly what they said they wanted in the way they said they wanted it run.
And that's a huge thing that some people in this thread are ignoring. THE GM HAS AS MUCH RIGHT TO HAVE FUN AS THE PLAYERS. As the OP has said that GMing wacky races would not be fun for them, they should not run wacky races. It is not unreasonable, as they have the right to have fun playing. To do otherwise would likely result in another case of GM burnout, and there are too few people willing to GM as it is.
However, if a group of players is demanding that they get to do something, even after the GM has repeated said they don't want to run that way, then the players are being ureasonable. And frankly, kinda mean, and very selfish. They are basically saying to the GM "I don't care about you." or "You having fun doesn't matter".
Likely in this case it would be best for the GM and the players to go their seperate ways. The GM could then find players that respect them, and the players could find a GM that enjoys what they do.
how do I stop my players from wanting to play as flowers, quadrupeds and made to be a PC race(or basically a human with different stats, etc)?
I've tried explaining to them, that trying to RP any sort of interaction with normal races, is going to go down-hill fast, we're trying to set up an AP too(so, it's designed for them to you know, be human-like). They're honestly getting angry at me with trying to stop them, my explanation being is this won't be fun for me after the even 10th time or so.
pretty much only one out of five has decided to make an actual race, you know, with a cultural identity and societal norms, something I could actually have walking around and met upon. One of them actually asked me if he could play as a quadruped rat thing with carrion sense, and he was going to try to only scavenge to eat.
*faintly whimpers "help me"*
You don't stop them from 'wanting' anything. You simply set the rules that you're willing to GM by and let them decide if your game is something they wish to be a part of or not.
|
|
You shouldn't allow yourself to be pressured into running a game you won't enjoy, and if your players won't accept that then they aren't being fair to you.
That said, have you considered why you think you won't find this fun? The problems might not be as big as you think (Kydeem de'Morcaine's case is extreme).
I've tried explaining to them, that trying to RP any sort of interaction with normal races, is going to go down-hill fast,
Not if you make the odd races part of the world, in which case they are "normal." See for example Bas-Lag which has cactus people and scarab-beetle people, and these are mostly integrated into society and interact just fine with the human characters.
we're trying to set up an AP too(so, it's designed for them to you know, be human-like).
APs can be altered. Would it really change things that much to replace all the halfling or gnome or elf NPCs with flower-people such that the race is integrated into the campaign? Unless specific racial dynamics or xenophobia are a big part of the AP (like in Kydeem de'Morcaine's example) it shouldn't be an issue.
pretty much only one out of five has decided to make an actual race, you know, with a cultural identity and societal norms, something I could actually have walking around and met upon.
Are the players willing to create culture and societies for the new races they want to play? If so, that should not be a problem (though you will want to require the cultural details well in advance of the first session).
One of them actually asked me if he could play as a quadruped rat thing with carrion sense, and he was going to try to only scavenge to eat.
Here's where compromise would be a good idea. Explain to him that quadrupeds are normally not used as player races because of their difficulty with handling items. Would a ratfolk not satisfy this character? If he really wants carrion sense, he can trade swarming for it - carrion sense is not a great ability so it's not an OP trade. Alternatively, he might consider a rat shapeshifter.
It's also important to discuss the scavenging aspect - how prominent does he want that to be, and will it make anyone at the table uncomfortable? Are you mostly worried about what NPCs would think, or do you personally find it gross? If so, would having that activity be handled off-screen with Survival checks be acceptable?
The thing is you opened the door by here by saying "Here folks. have the Create Your Own Race book." And then you shut it again. And it seems you were honestly surprised at what people would do when you opened that door.
The moral of the story is that before you open doors for players, walk through them yourself and try to imagine how much havoc you can do when you do so.
I think there's more to that book than just creating a new race. He was showing new book, book has a part to create your own races. He doesn't want to have his players use that part.