How do you decide which classes / races to exclude from your campaign?


Homebrew and House Rules

51 to 100 of 185 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zhayne wrote:

It's usually dead simple to have a 'one-off' race in a game world, if you have a multiplanar cosmology. People and things from other dimensions drop in all the time. Plus, there's always the idea of wizard experiments, random mutations, and all that. In Golarion, you even have the potential to be an alien.

Nothing says you have to be a 'race' of more than one.

And some of us consider that trope to be hackneyed, overused, and objectionable on aesthetic grounds, and won't allow it. I'm quite upfront about this sort of thing. If I'm going to invite you to a campaign, I'm going to tell you it's theme and setting first. If you can't get around making a character that fits, I won't strongarm you into playing. It helps however, that I only invite people I know, and this has not been an issue to date.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Zhayne wrote:

It's usually dead simple to have a 'one-off' race in a game world, if you have a multiplanar cosmology. People and things from other dimensions drop in all the time. Plus, there's always the idea of wizard experiments, random mutations, and all that. In Golarion, you even have the potential to be an alien.

Nothing says you have to be a 'race' of more than one.

And some of us consider that trope to be hackneyed, overused, and objectionable on aesthetic grounds, and won't allow it. I'm quite upfront about this sort of thing. If I'm going to invite you to a campaign, I'm going to tell you it's theme and setting first. If you can't get around making a character that fits, I won't strongarm you into playing. It helps however, that I only invite people I know, and this has not been an issue to date.

I agree. If it's just that you hadn't thought to put the race in the world yet, then "I just popped in from some other dimension" can work fine. For example if you were playing wide-open Golarion and someone wanted to use a 3rd Edition race that hadn't been ported over to PF, then it's not a big deal to add.

But if you're planning a campaign where the restriction on theme and setting actually matter, then asking to play something that doesn't fit is a pretty big warning flag that either the player didn't understand the theme and the setting or that he didn't really care and went on to do his own thing. The first can be fixed. The second is a problem.

My response, after making sure it isn't just miscommunication, is to get the player to sell me on it: "This concept doesn't really seem to fit what we talked about. What am I missing? How is this character going to make the campaign better?" Not just, "How can you justify bringing it in", but either "Why does it really fit, even though I can't see it?" or "What is so awesome about it that it's worth reworking the campaign so that it really does fit?"


2 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Zhayne wrote:

It's usually dead simple to have a 'one-off' race in a game world, if you have a multiplanar cosmology. People and things from other dimensions drop in all the time. Plus, there's always the idea of wizard experiments, random mutations, and all that. In Golarion, you even have the potential to be an alien.

Nothing says you have to be a 'race' of more than one.

And some of us consider that trope to be hackneyed, overused, and objectionable on aesthetic grounds, and won't allow it. I'm quite upfront about this sort of thing. If I'm going to invite you to a campaign, I'm going to tell you it's theme and setting first. If you can't get around making a character that fits, I won't strongarm you into playing. It helps however, that I only invite people I know, and this has not been an issue to date.

*yawn* Whatever. The stick up your butt ain't my problem.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zhayne wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Zhayne wrote:

It's usually dead simple to have a 'one-off' race in a game world, if you have a multiplanar cosmology. People and things from other dimensions drop in all the time. Plus, there's always the idea of wizard experiments, random mutations, and all that. In Golarion, you even have the potential to be an alien.

Nothing says you have to be a 'race' of more than one.

And some of us consider that trope to be hackneyed, overused, and objectionable on aesthetic grounds, and won't allow it. I'm quite upfront about this sort of thing. If I'm going to invite you to a campaign, I'm going to tell you it's theme and setting first. If you can't get around making a character that fits, I won't strongarm you into playing. It helps however, that I only invite people I know, and this has not been an issue to date.
*yawn* Whatever. The stick up your butt ain't my problem.

And your attitude isn't mine. See... symmetry at work!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Zhayne wrote:

It's usually dead simple to have a 'one-off' race in a game world, if you have a multiplanar cosmology. People and things from other dimensions drop in all the time. Plus, there's always the idea of wizard experiments, random mutations, and all that. In Golarion, you even have the potential to be an alien.

Nothing says you have to be a 'race' of more than one.

And some of us consider that trope to be hackneyed, overused, and objectionable on aesthetic grounds, and won't allow it. I'm quite upfront about this sort of thing. If I'm going to invite you to a campaign, I'm going to tell you it's theme and setting first. If you can't get around making a character that fits, I won't strongarm you into playing. It helps however, that I only invite people I know, and this has not been an issue to date.

I agree. If it's just that you hadn't thought to put the race in the world yet, then "I just popped in from some other dimension" can work fine. For example if you were playing wide-open Golarion and someone wanted to use a 3rd Edition race that hadn't been ported over to PF, then it's not a big deal to add.

But if you're planning a campaign where the restriction on theme and setting actually matter, then asking to play something that doesn't fit is a pretty big warning flag that either the player didn't understand the theme and the setting or that he didn't really care and went on to do his own thing. The first can be fixed. The second is a problem.

My response, after making sure it isn't just miscommunication, is to get the player to sell me on it: "This concept doesn't really seem to fit what we talked about. What am I missing? How is this character going to make the campaign better?" Not just, "How can you justify bringing it in", but either "Why does it really fit, even though I can't see it?" or "What is so awesome about it that it's worth reworking the campaign so that it really does fit?"

That in itself is pretty good. Again I have the advantage of knowing my players, It's not an iceberg I run into because I have maps that keep me on course away from it. When I start a campaign, I know who I want in it and try to make a theme that they can all have fun with.

Messageboards are adept at inventing problems that a group of people with a little bit of maturity and social upbringing can avoid without the drama everyone seems to expect.


LazarX wrote:
thejeff wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Zhayne wrote:

It's usually dead simple to have a 'one-off' race in a game world, if you have a multiplanar cosmology. People and things from other dimensions drop in all the time. Plus, there's always the idea of wizard experiments, random mutations, and all that. In Golarion, you even have the potential to be an alien.

Nothing says you have to be a 'race' of more than one.

And some of us consider that trope to be hackneyed, overused, and objectionable on aesthetic grounds, and won't allow it. I'm quite upfront about this sort of thing. If I'm going to invite you to a campaign, I'm going to tell you it's theme and setting first. If you can't get around making a character that fits, I won't strongarm you into playing. It helps however, that I only invite people I know, and this has not been an issue to date.

I agree. If it's just that you hadn't thought to put the race in the world yet, then "I just popped in from some other dimension" can work fine. For example if you were playing wide-open Golarion and someone wanted to use a 3rd Edition race that hadn't been ported over to PF, then it's not a big deal to add.

But if you're planning a campaign where the restriction on theme and setting actually matter, then asking to play something that doesn't fit is a pretty big warning flag that either the player didn't understand the theme and the setting or that he didn't really care and went on to do his own thing. The first can be fixed. The second is a problem.

My response, after making sure it isn't just miscommunication, is to get the player to sell me on it: "This concept doesn't really seem to fit what we talked about. What am I missing? How is this character going to make the campaign better?" Not just, "How can you justify bringing it in", but either "Why does it really fit, even though I can't see it?" or "What is so awesome about it that it's worth reworking the campaign so that it really does fit?"

That in itself is pretty...

I've seen it happen even with long-term groups. Though it's usually been more miscommunication than anything. At least once the GM rolled with it and it pretty much ruined the game. A couple of times the player's argument was good enough to spark something in the GM's head and make the game even better.

Dark Archive

6 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
"What is so awesome about it that it's worth reworking the campaign so that it really does fit?"

What needs to be reworked, 'though? The object of running a game is giving people a chance to share some fun for a couple of hours, not for one frustrated wanna-be author to sit four other people down and tell them a story, and refuse to allow anyone to play any character that I don't pre-approve as existing in this story I'm telling them.

There is no 'setting' outside of the group fun we are having. If the setting is the Forgotten Realms, and somebody wants to play a member of the Sueloise Brotherhood, or an Eberron Changeling, then, bang, so it happens. If we decide to play a vampire game, and one dude wants to play a werewolf, there are balance issues, because vampires are the ugly stepsisters of the World of Darkness, and either they need to be toned up (or at least have their non-daylight operations rule negated, so that the werewolf player doesn't spend half the game waiting for the sun to set and the vampire players don't spend half the game waiting for the werewolf's daytime adventures to end). 'Theme' is not an issue. We aren't a boy band, and everybody doesn't have to dance in lockstep. We're more like the Village People, one dude playing a cop does not preclude someone else playing a cowboy.

Again, I'm spoiled by superhero games, where the players can literally say 'I'm playing the avatar of an Egyptian god I just made up' and I, as GM, do not have to GAF that Egyptian gods may not have existed in the setting I'm using until this very second. It's the work of a second for me to say 'Okay.' It's not like I have to go invent an Egyptian pantheon to go along with that character origin, or rearrange any pre-existing gods I've got going on or anything.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Set wrote:
thejeff wrote:
"What is so awesome about it that it's worth reworking the campaign so that it really does fit?"

What needs to be reworked, 'though? The object of running a game is giving people a chance to share some fun for a couple of hours, not for one frustrated wanna-be author to sit four other people down and tell them a story, and refuse to allow anyone to play any character that I don't pre-approve as existing in this story I'm telling them.

There is no 'setting' outside of the group fun we are having. If the setting is the Forgotten Realms, and somebody wants to play a member of the Sueloise Brotherhood, or an Eberron Changeling, then, bang, so it happens. If we decide to play a vampire game, and one dude wants to play a werewolf, there are balance issues, because vampires are the ugly stepsisters of the World of Darkness, and either they need to be toned up (or at least have their non-daylight operations rule negated, so that the werewolf player doesn't spend half the game waiting for the sun to set and the vampire players don't spend half the game waiting for the werewolf's daytime adventures to end). 'Theme' is not an issue. We aren't a boy band, and everybody doesn't have to dance in lockstep. We're more like the Village People, one dude playing a cop does not preclude someone else playing a cowboy.

Again, I'm spoiled by superhero games, where the players can literally say 'I'm playing the avatar of an Egyptian god I just made up' and I, as GM, do not have to GAF that Egyptian gods may not have existed in the setting I'm using until this very second. It's the work of a second for me to say 'Okay.' It's not like I have to go invent an Egyptian pantheon to go along with that character origin, or rearrange any pre-existing gods I've got going on or anything.

Some of us have different backgrounds. We're not all raised on superhero gaming traditions, and not all of us want to be "the Village People". Some of us put in a good deal of time and effort into creating the internal consistency of our worlds, and prefer to GM for people that actually have an interest in them. Not everyone has to be all things to all people.

Your people play a style that works for you. And that's fine. it's a bit much to accept that however as the ONLY way that someone should GM.


It's all tone and world for me.
My primary game world, I don't really disallow much - and I use a ton of 3PP (as well as bits from older d20 games like Arcana Unearthed, Iron Hero, and thought about Cook's World of Darkness). So that rarely comes up.

I've done things where I run a themed game, and let the players know the theme to make characters that fit theme. My current thought (and it would be a lot of work) Ban all Paizo classes. Martials covered by Path of War, Psionics to replace magic; the Occultist from the Pact Magic Unbound; Dilettante for the skill monkey. It would be a very different feel that a normal game, for a change of pace.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I only ban options if the player is new to Pathfinder and--unbeknownst to them--they are wading into very complicated mechanics.

But someone who has played through at least a few levels before, I let 'em have their options. Generally, no 3PP just because I'm not familiar with any of it.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Flail snails guys. It's the best way.

Seriously though it depends on the campaign, because different campaigns have different needs. I call it the Marvel vs DC game building. Although the reference is slightly dated, since they've become so similar.

In a "Marvel" style game the characters are interesting, and the world exists to showcase what's interesting about those characters. It's a "characters first, setting second" style of world. So with a Marvel style game the player characters will in some senses dictate the setting. If your group is a Human Fighter, Android Nanite Sorcerer, Elf Witch and Catfolk Alchemist then you are going to have a point of view character, some sci-fi elements, deal with a dark patron's demands and maybe meet the Catfolk race. The characters have dictated the story to tell (Guardians of the Galaxy is a good example of this).

In a "DC" universe, the setting is interesting and the characters are meant to be representative elements of that setting. Most APs run more smoothly if the advice in the player's guide is followed, characters feel more integrated into the setting, the players get to interact with the cool stuff in the setting with minimum dissonance. If you're playing Mummy's Mask you'll come up with appropriate treasure hunters and Egypt themed characters and have a grand time. Show up with a Nanite powered Android sorcerer and you're just begging to have your backstory ignored.

There is no one true way, as a GM sometimes I'm one way, sometimes I'm the other (often I'm a mix of both). As a player I try to follow the GM's advice, but in general am more satisfied with a character that integrates with the setting.


Set wrote:
thejeff wrote:
"What is so awesome about it that it's worth reworking the campaign so that it really does fit?"

What needs to be reworked, 'though? The object of running a game is giving people a chance to share some fun for a couple of hours, not for one frustrated wanna-be author to sit four other people down and tell them a story, and refuse to allow anyone to play any character that I don't pre-approve as existing in this story I'm telling them.

There is no 'setting' outside of the group fun we are having. If the setting is the Forgotten Realms, and somebody wants to play a member of the Sueloise Brotherhood, or an Eberron Changeling, then, bang, so it happens. If we decide to play a vampire game, and one dude wants to play a werewolf, there are balance issues, because vampires are the ugly stepsisters of the World of Darkness, and either they need to be toned up (or at least have their non-daylight operations rule negated, so that the werewolf player doesn't spend half the game waiting for the sun to set and the vampire players don't spend half the game waiting for the werewolf's daytime adventures to end). 'Theme' is not an issue. We aren't a boy band, and everybody doesn't have to dance in lockstep. We're more like the Village People, one dude playing a cop does not preclude someone else playing a cowboy.

Again, I'm spoiled by superhero games, where the players can literally say 'I'm playing the avatar of an Egyptian god I just made up' and I, as GM, do not have to GAF that Egyptian gods may not have existed in the setting I'm using until this very second. It's the work of a second for me to say 'Okay.' It's not like I have to go invent an Egyptian pantheon to go along with that character origin, or rearrange any pre-existing gods I've got going on or anything.

Two separate but related things: I like to have stuff in the setting connect and make sense. If there's a race in the setting, I like to know something about its history and how it fits in with the other races and cultures. This helps me root the characters in the setting and develop plots for them to deal with. The Eberron Changelings would be fairly easy to work in to most settings, since they don't really seem to have much culture of their own. They blend in to others. So they're a mystery with a few references to past historical events. Fine. Eberron's Warforged would require much more effort to find them an origin and a place.

Second and more important: I don't run (or often play) sandboxes. Nor do I just run players through basically unconnected adventures that they get sent on or happen to hear about.
I'm also not a frustrated wanna-be author sitting four other people down and telling them a story, and refusing to allow anyone to play any character that I don't pre-approve as existing in this story I'm telling them.
There's a vast area in between sandbox and railroad, where there's a basic concept and there are bad guys who have plots going on that the PCs will wind up dealing with, but they still have freedom to respond to what the outside world is doing. But sometimes the premise of the game I'm interested in running requires limitations. Obviously if the players aren't interested in the game I'm proposing, then it's not going to happen, but they can't agree to play in it and then bring characters that don't fit. Maybe theme was a bad word choice, but I didn't mean the party has to have a theme, like a boy band, but that the campaign itself has a theme or a concept. If the concept is elven court politics, that limits characters in one way. If the concept is "urban adventures of a gang of thieves", that limits the characters in a different direction. And that's where I'm talking about "What's so awesome about the character?" Don't come up with an excuse why your half-orc barbarian could be at the elven court, sell me on why this half-orc barbarian is going to make this elven court politics game so much better.

If your group is just a bunch of random murder-hobos who met in a bar and off killing things for fun and profit, then none of this matters. Include anything you like. I like my games to be more focused than that. I like that as a player too.

Oh, since you mentioned superhero games, not all concepts work there either. The one I mentioned where the GM went with it and it ruined the game was a superhero game. And partly my fault. The game proposal, as I heard it, was child proteges of 1950's superheroes. I played a demon mageling adopted and being taught by that world's Sorcerer Supreme equivalent. Another player was playing a ninja with some complicated background I don't remember. What the other players heard for the proposal and what the GM intended had much more of an emphasis on the 1950's 4-color, code-approved, straight-forward heroics. And that's what the other characters were. Clashed with our two gritty 90s style near anti-hero characters.
GM absolutely should have shot that character down. Didn't fit the theme.


Set sums up my opinions on the subject and the way my games are run pretty much 100%. As usual.

Shadow Lodge

I don't ban pretty much anything, even third party (though I ask my players to run them by me at first)
Exceptions include stuff like machinesmith(3rd party) if tech is rare or a teleportation/plane shift class if the characters are in a place like ravenloft
But even then, if they have an awesome backstory or concept I may allow it
As for races, I'm usually even more accepting, even allowing monster races or templates, but I penalize them the appropriate numbers of levels (note this doesn't nessiarially exactly line up with the race's CR, Quicklings, for example cost five or six levels, depending on the build, despite being CR 2, because Quicklings have a load of powerful abilities) if they still want it, they can have it


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think what's in and out (classes, races, etc.) depends on the nature of the given campaign (as others have said above). I have run the same campaign / setting since 1974. It has undergone changes (usually when editions changed or during periods of down time due to moves etc.) and that's usually when I fit in new things. When they fit :) The game has a history, cultures are carefully crafted and I like to think it's a coherent world / setting with thousands of years of history / mythology behind it. Minor things are pretty easy to fit in but major changes not so much. My players are comfortable with this and enjoy it. I'm in a reboot phase right now, getting ready to get the game started again.

Things I don't have... gunpowder (and hence Gunslingers), Summoners, Alchemists, Paladins, oriental classes, some feats and certain spells as well as numerous monsters. Why don't I have them... gunpowder: my original players were wargamers, just add gunpowder and watch them blow up the world. No gunpowder, no Gunslingers. Summoners, I have specialists, but didn't have Eidolons. It's a nice concept but doesn't really fit my current / evolved campaign. If you are looking for a literary version of them btw, David Eddings has Magicians in his world who summon "demons" and control them by forcing them into a specific shape. Neat idea, fits pretty well with the evolutions. Alchemists: I already have a system of alchemy in my game, didn't feel the need to shoehorn another in. If I did a steam punk game I'd be thinking Alchemists. Paladins: I have a homebrew Templar class with various abilities and alignments / codes tailored to my campaign / religions. Several of them are pretty close to the Paladin. Oriental classes; the Ninja and Samurai are variant classes which are pretty close to existing base classes. Nothing against them, but no real reason for them to be included, cultural or practical. Some feats have been replaced or made obsolete by homebrew feats. I have my own versions of certain spells (Wish, Miracle, Polymorph, Curses etc.). Monsters: some are in, some aren't. How many humanoid types do you need (for example)? Especially if you have developed a significant history / culture for them. Others just missed the cut or have been replaced by homebrew monsters or variant monsters.


So much depends on the setting. If it's Spelljammer, pretty much everything fits. If it's a quasi-historical campaign where even elves are considered monsters, you're going to have a very hard time convincing me that it makes sense for a wayang multiclassed gunslinger/monk to be hanging out with a group of Charlemagne's paladins.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think I'd outright ban anything unless I had it on good word from multiple people better with the system than I that it was flat-out broken. (A category in which I pretty much put the Synthesist and nothing else.) And I *do* try to wring a rudimentary backstory out of my players before we begin so I can make things personal.

(Ex. In addition to the broader plot, one guy's hunting his father's murderer who made off with the family sword, one gal's carrying a dangerous artifact her master tried to have her deliver without being fully aware of what it does, one crazy person has hallucinations no one else can see that predict the plot, etc.)

Are there things in Pathfinder I'm not fond of? Yes. (Wizards, and their armies of constructs casting wish spells for more wishes, for one. Humans in general for another.) But I'd let it pass unless they were literally overwhelming every other aspect of every encounter for everyone else.

I had a player complain once about a gunslinger in the party, and I honestly tried to listen to his concerns. But then he actually used the phrase "disdaining the glory of close combat" in a real world conversation, and I both had trouble taking him seriously and began to feel content that he didn't have much of a point beyond "EVERYONE SHOULD PLAY THE GAME EXACTLY LIKE ME!" One nasty misfire in the session after that changed his tune a little.

In terms of the Race Builder and such, I tell them to keep it around ten RP, with a couple extra "mulligan points" if they really want something but can't quite fit it in. If they want to build their own and are having trouble doing so (one guy likes playing weird creatures and wanted to have face-tentacles and snake legs respectively), I mostly just look for similar abilities in the book before assigning a points value. (Face-tentacles is about the same as prehensile tail, snake-legs involved trading in the foot slot for immunity to trips, etc.)

Shadow Lodge

Are you asking me as a GM what I don't allow myself to use or what I don't allow my players to use?

If the former that short answer is I really don't ban anything. I like to live in a world where anything out of Paizo and potentially 3rd parties is mine to use until I don't want to use it. Now this psyker eidolon spawn my party just ran into might be the only one in existence but that is sort of my right as the GM to plop that sucker down if I feel like it will add something to the narrative I'm telling (ohh I might have to use that for something later).

As for players it really depends on:

1. Where & when the game is taking place.
2. What I think is common around there.
3. What the characters narrative is.

My usual way of going about legality for players is I figure out what commonly and uncommonly populates the region of the world the players will be spending most of their time in. This list can be core races, noncore, and 3rd party stuff but it's meant to be what lives around their, is 0 hd, and interacts with the societies therein in a way that doesn't always end with shouting mobs and spear points. That list usually runs between 7-18 races depending on what I'm doing.

Now all that being said I leave room for players to present me with something really interesting and cool that turns on the characters race. For example in my home game right now elves are banned as a starter race since they don't generally live in the region the party is exploring. Now that being said if someone decided to check out the lore for the game and really dug on the struggle of the elves to cure the wasting affliction that effects them all and staggers their birth rate and was heading out to the frontier against his families wishes I could be swayed to let him. Now if that happens I make sure they understand that they will be rare or nonexistant in the area and people will probably at the very least stare and very worst might try to I don't know, burn them at the stake but if they are really willing to give it a run and make me a fan of that character and the integral nature of the race then I usually let them.

All in all my 1st rule as a gm with character creation is the more of a fan I become of your character the more likely I am to say yes to the stuff that goes off book.


As pointed out in this thread, Race Points are problematic for use as anything other than a very vague guide. For example, Sulis cost 16 RP; Fetchli9s cost 17 RP; and Svirfneblins cost **24** RP; they are not terrible, but they aren't THAT good. Going the other way, the other Elemental-touched races cost 6 to 7 RP, but they aren't THAT bad. So setting any arbitrary Race Point limit doesn't really do what you want in the way of keeping balance.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

Oh, since you mentioned superhero games, not all concepts work there either. The one I mentioned where the GM went with it and it ruined the game was a superhero game. And partly my fault. The game proposal, as I heard it, was child proteges of 1950's superheroes. I played a demon mageling adopted and being taught by that world's Sorcerer Supreme equivalent. Another player was playing a ninja with some complicated background I don't remember. What the other players heard for the proposal and what the GM intended had much more of an emphasis on the 1950's 4-color, code-approved, straight-forward heroics. And that's what the other characters were. Clashed with our two gritty 90s style near anti-hero characters.

GM absolutely should have shot that character down. Didn't fit the theme.

And yet, that doesn't sound like a 'race / class' problem, so much as a tone or theme issue, one that would not be solved by restricting race / class, but by encouraging role-play appropriate to the tone of the game.

If your mage was played up as a more noir-ish stage magician (secretly using real magic from his dark heritage), I feel like that might have made more of a difference than whether or not your character had supernatural ties (since it's entirely possible to use supernatural stuff along the lines of 'monster comics' or even with a Lovecraftian moody feel).

Just like the 'forbid playing evil characters' or 'don't allow Paladins because PVP' trope, a problem player is going to be a problem player, whether you allow them to play an undead assassin, a Paladin or a furry fox-person. The race-you-hadn't-already-put-in-your-setting seems less about improving a game than picking one thing (unplanned races) and labeling it as 'the problem' with problem players.

I do get that sometimes what make a good painting are the colors that you don't use, and that making a stew with every single ingredient in your kitchen is a great way to create inedible swill, but it's not like your players are going to be playing *every single race and class* available to them, all at once. If you want a limited number of races to avoid 'cantina,' it's easy enough to remove races that nobody wants to play. (Someone wants to play a gnoll, and *nobody* wants to play a dwarf and you feel like all the core races + gnoll = cantina? Bang. There are no dwarves in this iteration of the setting. Your 'cantina' hang up is solved.)


Set wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Oh, since you mentioned superhero games, not all concepts work there either. The one I mentioned where the GM went with it and it ruined the game was a superhero game. And partly my fault. The game proposal, as I heard it, was child proteges of 1950's superheroes. I played a demon mageling adopted and being taught by that world's Sorcerer Supreme equivalent. Another player was playing a ninja with some complicated background I don't remember. What the other players heard for the proposal and what the GM intended had much more of an emphasis on the 1950's 4-color, code-approved, straight-forward heroics. And that's what the other characters were. Clashed with our two gritty 90s style near anti-hero characters.

GM absolutely should have shot that character down. Didn't fit the theme.

And yet, that doesn't sound like a 'race / class' problem, so much as a tone or theme issue, one that would not be solved by restricting race / class, but by encouraging role-play appropriate to the tone of the game.

If your mage was played up as a more noir-ish stage magician (secretly using real magic from his dark heritage), I feel like that might have made more of a difference than whether or not your character had supernatural ties (since it's entirely possible to use supernatural stuff along the lines of 'monster comics' or even with a Lovecraftian moody feel).

Just like the 'forbid playing evil characters' or 'don't allow Paladins because PVP' trope, a problem player is going to be a problem player, whether you allow them to play an undead assassin, a Paladin or a furry fox-person. The race-you-hadn't-already-put-in-your-setting seems less about improving a game than picking one thing (unplanned races) and labeling it as 'the problem' with problem players.

I do get that sometimes what make a good painting are the colors that you don't use, and that making a stew with every single ingredient in your kitchen is a great way to create inedible swill, but it's not like your players are...

True that the issue wasn't "Race or class ban", but I don't see that as the root of the issue.

The issue was that the GM had laid out what he wanted from the game and I'd gone with a character that didn't fit, even if I'd done it by misunderstanding. I'm trying to emphasize that it's not "race-you-hadn't-already-put-in-your-setting", but race/class/concept that doesn't fit in the campaign. Might even exist in the setting, but isn't going to work in this particular campaign.

But even in the larger setting sense, it's not that easy to remove races that nobody wants to play. Not unless you're capable of throwing the setting together on the fly after character creation. If you like to have a world with some sense of history then the races are all likely to have their own roles to play in that history. You can't just cut the dwarves out and replace them with gnolls because they wouldn't have done the same things in that history.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:
Set sums up my opinions on the subject and the way my games are run pretty much 100%. As usual.

While I did already comment here, I am seconding this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Zhayne wrote:

It's usually dead simple to have a 'one-off' race in a game world, if you have a multiplanar cosmology. People and things from other dimensions drop in all the time. Plus, there's always the idea of wizard experiments, random mutations, and all that. In Golarion, you even have the potential to be an alien.

Nothing says you have to be a 'race' of more than one.

And some of us consider that trope to be hackneyed, overused, and objectionable on aesthetic grounds, and won't allow it. I'm quite upfront about this sort of thing. If I'm going to invite you to a campaign, I'm going to tell you it's theme and setting first. If you can't get around making a character that fits, I won't strongarm you into playing. It helps however, that I only invite people I know, and this has not been an issue to date.
*yawn* Whatever. The stick up your butt ain't my problem.

You two are obviously different types of gamers, Zhayne. While this is a bit of a simplification, there are players who like a Tolkien-esque world which limits exotic races and there are players who have more fun with an anything goes star wars approach, with as many sentient races walking about the kingdom as there are different ethnicities on a Manhattan sidewalk. I belong to the former group, as does the poster who disagreed with you. Players like him and I wouldn't allow certain things in our respective worlds. In my case there would certainly be no fox people allowed at my table, or space travel, or frog people. Maybe at your table new races are popping out of portals all the time. Neither approach is "right" or "wrong", this is all a matter of personal preference.

It doesn't anger me that people want to run around as fox people and jump through time portals and explore foreign planets in their fantasy setting. What does anger me is when people equate aesthetic conservatism with having a stick up the ass or aesthetic liberalism with (insert insult here). Some people might find his setting stuffy and woefully limiting, others might find yours childish and silly. But please, don't bring your anger and immaturity into so small a thing as this.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Set wrote:


We do play a lot of superhero games, where a robot, an alien, a demigod and a mutant sorceress are perfectly acceptable 'party members.' (Then again, that's not an impossible party to see in Alkenstar or Numeria...)

The Synnibarr forum is that way ------->


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zolanoteph wrote:
. . . Neither approach is "right" or "wrong", this is all a matter of personal preference.

I tend to agree with this... but possibly because I don't want to try to establish parameters for a proper value judgement.

Part of me thinks that it is just our current society that wants to eliminate conflict and lower expectations and requirements so that "you're ok. I'm ok." and the idea of good, better, best is being systematically destroyed by persons who are incapable or unwilling to analyze themselves, both thoughts and behaviors, to head toward the self actualization end of the spectrum because... well, that stuff takes work.

Maybe it's like like the son in The Shakespearean Play that Shall Not Be Named who asks his mother why does good triumph. Won't the wicked just rise up and kill the good, especially if outnumbered?... which is what happens in the same scene.

But those are ramblings for some other time...

Zolanoteph wrote:
. . . What does anger me is when people equate aesthetic conservatism with having a stick up the ass or aesthetic liberalism with (insert insult here). Some people might find his setting stuffy and woefully limiting, others might find yours childish and silly. But please, don't bring your anger and immaturity into so small a thing as this.

It could just be a problem with where I live, but I've heard variations of "Pull the Stick Out" so often that it no longer feels angry to me, just a lazy shorthand for "You seem preoccupied with set parameters that don't actually accomplish anything positive."

However, I would point out that it seems popular to attack the conservative or traditionalist viewpoint because it creates some sort of underdog/angsty/rebel legitimacy. It makes me think of the appeal to tradition fallacy, because sometimes it's not an actual appeal to tradition that's happening but the audience is making the assumption that it is. Maybe one is not suggesting that the way one has always done something is proper, but that what has been suggested as a replacement is not any more effective.

And what do I mean by any of this?... Nothing in particular.

But I still like me some crazy over the top action, which is what happens if you get to level 11+ even if you try to limit for "thematic" reasons.


Zolanoteph wrote:
...there are players who have more fun with an anything goes star wars approach, with as many sentient races walking about the kingdom as there are different ethnicities on a Manhattan sidewalk... Players like him and I wouldn't allow certain things in our respective worlds. In my case there would certainly be no fox people allowed at my table, or space travel, or frog people. Maybe at your table new races are popping out of portals all the time. Neither approach is "right" or "wrong", this is all a matter of personal preference.

While I agree there is no need for name calling I'll admit I'm in the bolded text's camp. But I think your reasoning against kitsune, (or any race outside of core for that matter.) is wrong. They don't HAVE to 'popping out of portals', or using anything else different. They are born into the world as much as any hairless vanilla ape is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KingmanHighborn wrote:
While I agree there is no need for name calling I'll admit I'm in the bolded text's camp. But I think your reasoning against kitsune, (or any race outside of core for that matter.) is wrong. They don't HAVE to 'popping out of portals', or using anything else different. They are born into the world as much as any hairless vanilla ape is.

Maybe he edited his posted before I saw it, but I don't see any indication that he believes kitsune or any race aren't born in a given world, just that it's possible to have any race pop in from anywhere else if it doesn't already exist.


If I ever ran a campaign, in addition to some of the more standard bans (witch, summoner, gunslinger) for reasons mentioned before, I would ban Fighters.

Why? Because Fighters are boring; they don't have any class abilities that define them, and they can't participate in out of combat challenges since they bring NOTHING to the table with their meager selection of class skills and skill points. I'm not interested in people taking levels in a class that encourages someone to not participate in a game unless initiative gets called.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zolanoteph wrote:
You two are obviously different types of gamers, Zhayne. While this is a bit of a simplification, there are players who like a Tolkien-esque world which limits exotic races and there are players who have more fun with an anything goes star wars approach,

Tolkien, who fielded a party consisting of a bunch of dwarves, a Halfling and a demigod / aasimar / something or other, and not a single human, probably isn't the go-to example to use.

When he did use humans, one of them was an 80 something year old Numenorian (pretty much a pureblood Azlanti, in Golarion terms), and the elf in the party was a 'powerful race' completely out of balance with the hobbits and dwarf and other human.

5 hobbits, 14 dwarves, an elf, a demigod / istari / angel, a 'black Numenorian' and a single token 'normal human' (who dies in the first act) in Tolkien's two 'parties.'

Tolkien may not have had any orcs or goblins or trolls or bear-changers or ents or talking spiders in 'the party,' but he's about as 'cantina' as it gets, compared to stuff like Fafhrd & the Gray Mouser (in which the only 'party members' were human)...


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Set wrote:
Zolanoteph wrote:
You two are obviously different types of gamers, Zhayne. While this is a bit of a simplification, there are players who like a Tolkien-esque world which limits exotic races and there are players who have more fun with an anything goes star wars approach,

Tolkien, who fielded a party consisting of a bunch of dwarves, a Halfling and a demigod / aasimar / something or other, and not a single human, probably isn't the go-to example to use.

When he did use humans, one of them was an 80 something year old Numenorian (pretty much a pureblood Azlanti, in Golarion terms), and the elf in the party was a 'powerful race' completely out of balance with the hobbits and dwarf and other human.

5 hobbits, 14 dwarves, an elf, a demigod / istari / angel, a 'black Numenorian' and a single token 'normal human' (who dies in the first act) in Tolkien's two 'parties.'

Tolkien may not have had any orcs or goblins or trolls or bear-changers or ents or talking spiders in 'the party,' but he's about as 'cantina' as it gets, compared to stuff like Fafhrd & the Gray Mouser (in which the only 'party members' were human)...

I think the relevant point though is that all of the races Tolkien included in his party were established as part of the world, with societies that had been developing and interacting with one another for millennia. In other words, all of Tolkien's races fit. If you're following Tolkien's approach, you can't just add a wayang character to the party without figuring out where the wayang live, what customs they follow, who the great wayang heroes and/or villains were, and what role the wayang have played in world history. That's very different from the "cantina" approach, where strange aliens just show up with no explanation offered or expected.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I have had a world where the Druid was banned - along with all element-based spells and nature type spells. It had to do with a theme of being "disconnected" from the natural world, and an ongoing theme of the campaign was trying to get that magical connection BACK. I suppose someone could have played a Druid with no nature based spells or abilities, but it wouldn't have been much fun. No matter how much someone wanted to ask, they weren't going to be the "lone Druid".

The issue in a long term persistent world is that if you constantly make exceptions and add in just anything anyone wants every time they want it, then the world inevitably becomes cluttered. Over time it inevitably becomes the forgotten realms or Golarion instead of what it was, as new race after race gets added to it. I know there are people that don't play persistent worlds, or remake the world anew every time they play, or 'reset' their world every time, or play in kitchen sinks or "Star Wars cantina" worlds. I've run one myself. Its one of the ones I keep around for if people just want to cut loose and play anything that pops into their head. But in one of the other more persistent themed worlds, new races and the like are only added very carefully.

To deflect the next criticism that is always brought up ... the fact that the initial ingredients are restricted in no way prevents the players from having agency in the world, or makes it a story read to them. They are prime movers within the setting. Their actions change things, often in large ways. But the setup of the setting is the setup. Kings may be toppled, nations split in two, temples founded, the priesthood of an evil good wiped out, a new knighthood established, a new kingdom established. Etcetera. None of these things require "anything goes" at character creation. The combinatorial possibilities of even a trimmed and shaped racial and class pallet are still quite large.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:

I go in reverse; instead of deciding what to ban, I make a list of what is allowed based on what I can see fitting thematically into the world. If a player wants something that isn't on the list, it's their job to show me how it fits into the established world.

Bingo


Lord Vukodlak wrote:
JoeJ wrote:

I go in reverse; instead of deciding what to ban, I make a list of what is allowed based on what I can see fitting thematically into the world. If a player wants something that isn't on the list, it's their job to show me how it fits into the established world.

Bingo

Mine is green light, yellow light, red light.

Green light is "these things definitely exist, are definitely playable, and if you choose one you should have no issues unless you just do something truly bizarre with your background.

Yellow light is "I'm disinclined to have it in, or hadn't thought of adding it, but if you can make it fit, make it sing in tune with the chorus of the setting and be a part of it, it can be added. But the extra work of fitting one of THOSE things in is incumbent on you. I'll help you trim and fit once you have something that seems reasonably close, but ...

And then there is red light. This is the "no, and don't ask" list. Now sometimes you can ask if you can play something that lets you sort of get something you were interested in from that race. For example, if the long life was what you were interested in and there are no elves, there can be other ways to accommodate you ... but it still isn't going to be an elf.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I've often thought about writing down my idea for a Fablewood campaign which would exclusively have anthropomorphic animal races, with a faerytale/medieval theme, and dinosaurs acting as the ecology.

Were I to run that campaign, then I'd hate for a player to insist they be allowed to play a human. The entire point of the campaign is that the standard humanish (humans, elves, dwarves, orcs) just don't exist. If a player couldn't get on board with the idea then they are the wrong player for the campaign.

On the other hand if I am running a setting like Golarion, and a player had homebrewed a race of spider-people, then I'd try to find room for them and try and work with the player to see what the culture would be like and where I could fit it.

There is no blanket rule other than respect and communication between players and GMs, and that everyone needs to compromise a little from time to time.


I ask myself "what would Jesus do?"

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
I ask myself "what would Jesus do?"

He would tie tiny flails to tiny snails and make them fight to the death for inclusion in his campaign setting.


withdrawing heavily from ATM
Alright! finally some snail fight action!
you dont know how long i've waited for this!


Zhayne wrote:
Generally, only things that are overpowered, or over-complicated. Since things can be easily re-flavored, there's no real reason to ban things for 'theme'.

You see, looking back, I think this is part of the problem right here. You are viewing the race as the packet of stats and numbers. I'm viewing the race as being its flavor, its culture, its history etcetera regardless of its numbers. I agree. Sometimes things can be reskinned and its to an issue. If there are no gnomes, a gnome being a "fae touched halfling" and letting them used gnome stats? Meh, could probably work with that(not an actual world, just a posited scenario). But if what you want to do is play a physical gnome, with all of the appearance, background and the like - then in that world, no, it's not happening. To a large degree things are in the presentation. Of course, sometimes there are things that literally do not exist for a reason, but ...


JoeJ wrote:
I think the relevant point though is that all of the races Tolkien included in his party were established as part of the world, with societies that had been developing and interacting with one another for millennia. In other words, all of Tolkien's races fit. If you're following Tolkien's approach, you can't just add a wayang character to the party without figuring out where the wayang live, what customs they follow, who the great wayang heroes and/or villains were, and what role the wayang have played in world history. That's very different from the "cantina" approach, where strange aliens just show up with no explanation offered or expected.

I thought near the end of Lord of the Rings that mercenaries from other parts of the world that really had not been referenced before showed up on the bad guy's side... or was that just the movies?

To be honest, it's really been a while since I read the books, and when I first read the books, I had no idea that Gandalf and a few others were Maiar/Angels.


JoeJ wrote:

I think the relevant point though is that all of the races Tolkien included in his party were established as part of the world, with societies that had been developing and interacting with one another for millennia. In other words, all of Tolkien's races fit. If you're following Tolkien's approach, you can't just add a wayang character to the party without figuring out where the wayang live, what customs they follow, who the great wayang heroes and/or villains were, and what role the wayang have played in world history. That's very different from the "cantina" approach, where strange aliens just show up with no explanation offered or expected.

Thing is if you are playing in a Golarion setting there is 50+ some playable races that are IN World. If you are playing an RPG on Middle Earth it's a different set of circumstances until you realize the books had a 'very localized' geography. Middle Earth not that big As compared to Faerun The bulk of Middle Earth's land mass and countries would fit almost entirely in a Faerun country. (If you go by how 'long' it takes to travel) So it's not outside the realm of possibility to put a Wayang in as a race from outside the very small focal point the Middle Earth books represented. A good DM will find a way that fits, especially if they actually 'read' the monster's entry, it generally points to their culture and where they like to live. You don't NEED to figure out the heroes and villains too much because that PC is going to BE the hero or villain recorded.

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:

My personal taste don't make me ban things, well except for that antagonize feat.

The errata for Antagonize brings it back in line. It is much better now. But seriously, what made you specify that specific feat?


DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

I've often thought about writing down my idea for a Fablewood campaign which would exclusively have anthropomorphic animal races, with a faerytale/medieval theme, and dinosaurs acting as the ecology.

Were I to run that campaign, then I'd hate for a player to insist they be allowed to play a human. The entire point of the campaign is that the standard humanish (humans, elves, dwarves, orcs) just don't exist. If a player couldn't get on board with the idea then they are the wrong player for the campaign.
{. . .}

What, no Adventures of Normalman? (I read the first handful of chapters of that comic, and this reference is just too good to pass up. Too bad it seems to have vanished off the face of the Earth.)

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
UnArcaneElection wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

I've often thought about writing down my idea for a Fablewood campaign which would exclusively have anthropomorphic animal races, with a faerytale/medieval theme, and dinosaurs acting as the ecology.

Were I to run that campaign, then I'd hate for a player to insist they be allowed to play a human. The entire point of the campaign is that the standard humanish (humans, elves, dwarves, orcs) just don't exist. If a player couldn't get on board with the idea then they are the wrong player for the campaign.
{. . .}

What, no Adventures of Normalman? (I read the first handful of chapters of that comic, and this reference is just too good to pass up. Too bad it seems to have vanished off the face of the Earth.)

Just googled it, and yeah, no.


KingmanHighborn wrote:
JoeJ wrote:

I think the relevant point though is that all of the races Tolkien included in his party were established as part of the world, with societies that had been developing and interacting with one another for millennia. In other words, all of Tolkien's races fit. If you're following Tolkien's approach, you can't just add a wayang character to the party without figuring out where the wayang live, what customs they follow, who the great wayang heroes and/or villains were, and what role the wayang have played in world history. That's very different from the "cantina" approach, where strange aliens just show up with no explanation offered or expected.

Thing is if you are playing in a Golarion setting there is 50+ some playable races that are IN World. If you are playing an RPG on Middle Earth it's a different set of circumstances until you realize the books had a 'very localized' geography. Middle Earth not that big As compared to Faerun The bulk of Middle Earth's land mass and countries would fit almost entirely in a Faerun country. (If you go by how 'long' it takes to travel) So it's not outside the realm of possibility to put a Wayang in as a race from outside the very small focal point the Middle Earth books represented. A good DM will find a way that fits, especially if they actually 'read' the monster's entry, it generally points to their culture and where they like to live. You don't NEED to figure out the heroes and villains too much because that PC is going to BE the hero or villain recorded.

Meanwhile one could also say that a 'good player' will find a way to play something that fits in the milieu as presented. I find the implication that if you don't fit in a wayang into your middle earth campaign you somehow 'aren't a good gm' a bit annoying.

Edit (Added three words to an incomplete sentence)

Silver Crusade

CommandoDude wrote:

If I ever ran a campaign, in addition to some of the more standard bans (witch, summoner, gunslinger) for reasons mentioned before, I would ban Fighters.

Why? Because Fighters are boring; they don't have any class abilities that define them, and they can't participate in out of combat challenges since they bring NOTHING to the table with their meager selection of class skills and skill points. I'm not interested in people taking levels in a class that encourages someone to not participate in a game unless initiative gets called.

It is to bad that your experience with fighters makes you believe that combat is all they are good at. But to ban them for having low skill points? What about the cleric, or sorcerer, or any of the other 2pt skill classes that Int is not the #1 stat?

You know, (and I am not talking down to you), there are traits that give extra class skills. with the right trait you can have any skill be a class skill that is not on the fighter list. You could easily have a 4 trick skill pony with a 10 Int. Sure, you need to invest a general feat in a skill focus or two.

But what I think I am hearing you say is that your players don't choose this path. correct?

I think what you want to ban is a fighter with a low Intelligence and no creativity behind the fighter concept. (Some of the best fighters never even step on the intimidate skill/feat train).

If you are a GM, it is to bad that you only have players that reinforce this belief you have.


I Allow everything...if my players will work with me and provide me with a hard copy of class or race they want to use if I don't own the books.


RDM42 wrote:


Meanwhile one could also say that a 'good player' will find a way to play something that fits in the milieu as presented. I find the implication that if you don't fit in a wayang into your middle earth campaign you somehow 'aren't a good gm'.

It's not just a wayang but the point is there is ROOM in a Middle Earth campaign for more then just human, elf, hobbit and dwarf. And the DM and player can work together on it, but all it takes is a tiny bit of imagination on the DM's part.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

i'm fine with whatever, as long as you provide me a copy of the relevant mechanics, rules interpretations and goals you plan to achieve.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There is a whole lot of "if you don't do it my way, you suck" in this thread. These forums would be a much better place for conversation if there was a lot less of this.


KingmanHighborn wrote:
RDM42 wrote:


Meanwhile one could also say that a 'good player' will find a way to play something that fits in the milieu as presented. I find the implication that if you don't fit in a wayang into your middle earth campaign you somehow 'aren't a good gm'.
It's not just a wayang but the point is there is ROOM in a Middle Earth campaign for more then just human, elf, hobbit and dwarf. And the DM and player can work together on it, but all it takes is a tiny bit of imagination on the DM's part.

And all it takes is the tiniest bit of imagination on the player's part to make something interesting which fits the campaign from the choices presented. See how that works there?

The point isn't necessarily whether its possible for it to exist. It is possible for an Aztec to exist in a campaign based on medieval pre new world Spain - its possible to have your Roman soldier in the middle of Imperial china. Its possible to have a Zulu warrior hanging around in your Japanese game. It is quite POSSIBLE. That doesn't mean, however, that it fits there. Just because it can be conceptualized doesn't mean it is always a good thing to add it in.

Does that mean its never a good idea? Heavens no. Sometimes its a cool addition that really fits and is good. But the answer doesn't always need to be 'yes'.

Also .. Why oh why is that imagination as you call it the GM's responsibility? If the player is wanting to add something entirely out of the milieu presented I'd rather think that the onus of extra effort belong squarely on the party making the unusual request, no?

51 to 100 of 185 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / How do you decide which classes / races to exclude from your campaign? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.