That has been stipulated multiple times and the recommendation has been for the OP to go back and say "I made a mistake by giving you the impression that you could do that. Sorry." Not "Oh, I made a mistake that suggested you can do it, so I'll now reconfigure my entire concept of my world to accomodate you because I made that mistake."Which doesn't explain the demonization the player is receiving.
Literally all that has happened from the player's perspective is that he asked the GM for permission to do something, the GM granted him permission, and then he did the thing he got permission to do.
Everyone here is acting like the GM said no and the player punched the GM in the face and demanded to do his thing anyhow.
Nope. That's not what I'm reading Roberta. In fact most of the posts I've read have been calm, reasonable and supportive. There are a few highly reactionary posts which take an extreme position and present that position. Which is common on the interwebz. Mostly I try to ignore those posts, except when I feel a need to reply, like this time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A quest. He has to find a Stargate, dial Golarion's Gate to open a stable wormhole, and then travel to Golarion to get his nekojin and travel back. Simplicity itself.I did compromise.What was the compromise?
OK, so then?? The player refused to go on the quest, demanding the cohort anyway? Or the PC did go on the quest, but you still said no, due to another player complaining? Or was it that the PC never had a chance to go on the quest due to another player complaining?
I am with Roberta here. The player made a reasonable request. The DM/OP could have said NO, and that would be that. Instead he said “Yes, if”, which is entirely different than “NO”. If a cat-folk would “ruin his setting” the answer should have been NO! But I don’t know how a extra-planar gating in one of a kind cohort could “ruin a setting”.
|
It might be just me, but it sounds like for all the claiming that the OP's player is a furry, the DM sure is bending over backwards to deny the player what he's asking for because one of the girls at his table asked him to.
Just sayin', these supposedly sexually-motivated assumptions can go both ways.
Nope. That's not what I'm reading Roberta. In fact most of the posts I've read have been calm, reasonable and supportive. There are a few highly reactionary posts which take an extreme position and present that position. Which is common on the interwebz. Mostly I try to ignore those posts, except when I feel a need to reply, like this time.
“Calm, reasonable and supportive”? What, the poster calling the player a perv for wanting to have a cat-folk? Or the posters not bothering to read the OP, going off into the perennial “Tin-pot dictator DM vs Entitled Players” debate? Roberta, BBT and you are about it.
I think it could actually make the setting a lot more interesting as people react to the cohort and cause the player all sorts of interesting situations as he has to explain why he is friends with the freak "cat folk" or worse people think he is some form of demon summoner ect because he travels with a creature so out of place. could make a lot of side quests and interesting rp if handled correctly.
Yah, sure, perfectly acceptable GM decision there. So is "no catfolk in my world."
|
A quest. He has to find a Stargate, dial Golarion's Gate to open a stable wormhole, and then travel to Golarion to get his nekojin and travel back. Simplicity itself.I did compromise.What was the compromise?OK, so then?? The player refused to go on the quest, demanding the cohort anyway? Or the PC did go on the quest, but you still said no, due to another player complaining? Or was it that the PC never had a chance to go on the quest due to another player complaining?
I am with Roberta here. The player made a reasonable request. The DM/OP could have said NO, and that would be that. Instead he said “Yes, if”, which is entirely different than “NO”. If a cat-folk would “ruin his setting” the answer should have been NO! But I don’t know how a extra-planar gating in one of a kind cohort could “ruin a setting”.
He accepted the quest. I didn't tell him it would entail Interstellar travel yet.
That they exist isn't .. bothersome.. just .. where before I could say no on premise that "They don't exist and I only go by the published material".. now I have to say "No. I use published material but disallow certain races." I can't even use relative power as a reason because they are fairly tame."
First, "you can use this but not this" is not hard to say. I've yet to encounter a player who failed to grasp the concept. Sometimes argued with it, sure, but never failed to grasp it.
Second, "core only races." There, that was easy. Not every game uses every book published, nor requires it, despite some gamers' irritating tendency to insist upon it. Supplementary, optional materials are defined by being both supplementary and optional.
Third, "it doesn't fit the concept of my world" is good reason enough. Others certainly can and will disagree, but, personally, as far as I am concerned, a player who can't accept that isn't welcome at my table, because it usually means the player either doesn't care about the setting (in which case, why would I want a player who doesn't care about the game the play) or isn't interested in being cooperative with the ground rules set and is bound to cause trouble in the future.
I've often and designed characters and character concepts before that I feel really passionate about, and then sometimes I present them to a GM and they say, "sorry, doesn't work with my campaign." My response is to quickly get over it, tuck that character sheet away and plan to play it some other time, and pull out a different concept that better suits the GM's guidelines. End of story. I expect no more or less from myself or any other player. I cannot personally see any justified reason to do differently, and no, "but I paid for the books" does not count. No one made you spend your money, and you can always use them when you GM or play with a different GM who uses different ground rules.
As to the OP:
Just clarify and be firm. I don't think this player did anything wrong to ask, but if they are pushing the issue, then they need to be told.
"This is the only way you can have a catfolk in this world. There are no other options. Period, end of story. Please recognize that I am already compromising with you, but I will compromise no further. Take it, or if it doesn't work for this character you made, then create a new character that fits my character creation guidelines. Or, if that is not acceptable, you can find another GM who will let you play this concept exactly as you see it. I hope that doesn't have to happen, but if my world isn't going to be to your taste, then you might have more fun finding another GM with a play style better suited to yours."
|
Boy, this got ugly. Moving on...
Seriously, you've got Stargates and Angel/Demon blooded races, so this idea is no stretch.
Really, is all the minute details of your setting being just so, a top priority.
The only way it ruins the setting, is if you let it do so.
Stop thinking about what other people's ideas and desires take away, and think about what they can add.
Pathfinder is a group effort, for the enjoyment of all.
Oh, and always be straight. Subtlety is completely lost on many, so next you want to say no, then just say no.
|
|
It might be just me, but it sounds like for all the claiming that the OP's player is a furry, the DM sure is bending over backwards to deny the player what he's asking for because one of the girls at his table asked him to.
Just sayin', these supposedly sexually-motivated assumptions can go both ways.
So, to make an informed decision here, we need to see a photo of the girl in question so we can judge the hotness factor which might trigger a reaction from a male GM...
OOoookayyy.
Someone decided that having a female catgirl was grounds to say that he was trying to force his fetish into the game. Why is the DM, who was apparently completely okay with this prior to the player complaining, not held to the same standard?
If it had been a male player complaining, would he have acted the same? I don't know, and he'll likely deny it, but if we're going to go off making baseless accusations, then let's just drop the subject entirely.
"Yes, if," does not mean "No." Passive-aggressive nonsense is not a good solution to this problem.
Boy, this got ugly. Moving on...
Seriously, you've got Stargates and Angel/Demon blooded races, so this idea is no stretch.
Really, is all the minute details of your setting being just so, a top priority.
The only way it ruins the setting, is if you let it do so.
Stop thinking about what other people's ideas and desires take away, and think about what they can add.
Pathfinder is a group effort, for the enjoyment of all.
Oh, and always be straight. Subtlety is completely lost on many, so next you want to say no, then just say no.
Amen!!
|
Ciretose, you are literally blaming a player for doing a thing that the player got the DM's explicit permission to do.
It's not the player's fault that the DM is passive-aggressive and doesn't actually mean yes when he says yes.
I am actually saying the GM was wrong when he didn't say no.
And I am further saying many of the people complaining would then complain the GM was wrong for saying no.
Do you disagree with either of these statements?
"Yes, if," does not mean "No." Passive-aggressive nonsense is not a good solution to this problem.
Stipulated repeatedly. Conceded repeatedly, including by the OP himself. Multiple suggestions offered. Time to move on.
So what we have learned is that when in doubt, the GM should say no with absolute conviction, because otherwise he is asking for whatever comes.
Is that about right?
LOL, I wouldn't be quite that rigid ciretose, but it's not a bad guideline to follow.
I say no a lot.
A lot.
Stipulated repeatedly. Conceded repeatedly, including by the OP himself. Multiple suggestions offered. Time to move on.
"Yes, if," does not mean "No." Passive-aggressive nonsense is not a good solution to this problem.
To what? According to the OP “He accepted the quest. I didn't tell him it would entail Interstellar travel yet. “ but apparently due to another player whinging, after this quest the DM will just say “ha-ha, fooled you!”.
There’s no indication (other than the fevered imaginations of some posters who should be looking more closely at themselves- as indeed, I checked and unless you add some strange qualifiers you don’t get that sort of google search results) that the player is a perv. There’s no indication that the player is demanding his cohort without the quest. The DM said “Ok, if you go on this quest” The Player said “OK, sure”. How is this being a entitled player trying to ruin the DM’s setting?
But somehow this is all the fault of a perv player making unreasonable demands. Huh?
Deth, the "perv angle" on this thread seems, to me, to be a very poorly lit side street.
I'm just trying to stay on the highway.
I still dont get it. OP said he would have to 'gate in' this cat person, because there were none in this world. So ummm thats not going to happen at 1st level, and unlikely to happen at 7th... if a cat person doesn't exist, wouldn't it be fair to assume, gaining the knowledge of existence of such a creature in order to gate one in would be.... a fair amount of role playing?
Wouldnt the GM have the control over all of this?
And since it its a gated in rarity, lets use New York, then that could cause all sorts of crazy RP situations (many of which the PC might not even like).
Ever been out and around with your pregnant wife? The universe runs up to touch her stomach.... umm hello do I know you? IMAGINE what it would be like if you were a cat person??
Yea...-20 to stealth checks, everyone is ALWAYS staring at you, talking to you, touching you, following you around.
Plus if it's a HOT cat CHICK this would be even worse. Dudes coming up to buy a her drink, constant interruptions m star struck lovers following them on quests and into dungeons.
I can picture it now, the party is sneaking up on the demon queen, coming up with a plan, when in stumbles Sir Bumble Lovescats "Don't worry my sweet furry love goddess I'll save you!"
Plan blown.
besides what difference does it make if HE thinks cat chick is hot? In his mind it looks like cheetara in your mind it looks like panthro with lipstick...
Actually, the whole "catgirl fetish" thing is random posters created.
Nothing the OP has stated, suggests this is the case.
It might be sub-consciously affecting DM judgement.
That, or the stigma towards "furries" doing the same thing.
Good thing any Catfolk I play is just a Human with cat ears and a tail.
I haven't seen many people ask the first question I would have asked as a GM:
"What makes your character think cat people exist?"
So what we have learned is that when in doubt, the GM should say no with absolute conviction, because otherwise he is asking for whatever comes.
Is that about right?
When I GM, I follow these three maxims and they have helped me and others greatly.
1. Know when to say yes, and say it with conviction.
2. Know when to say no, and say it with conviction.
3. Prepare to lose, but go down fighting like a honey badger covered with live grenades.
I actually don't know what the OP has decided on, as it looks like he is following through with the "Stargate to Golarion" plan, which... isn't MY cup of tea, but whatevs, it's his game.
And to the others, chill out. OP's acknowledged his mistake on not say no, but in the end, it is his setting. If he decides to ban certain races, that in itself doesn't make him a lousy GM. The player in question is causing some issues with another player, so this is something the GM has to sit down and talk with. Personally, I think the Stargate into Golarion idea is, and I apologize for offending you, really dumb. I honestly say you just tell the guy this:
"Hey XXX, I've been doing some thinking and I'm just not into the catfolk in my setting. I know I did say you could have one and I should have said no to start. I don't mind working with you on accommodating other racial options, within the setting of course. No hard feelings, man? How about I buy you a [insert drink of choice that isn't PBR]?"
There. You are totes welcome to print that, practice in a mirror, and use it.
I am digging the Panthro Monk Catfolk with Nunchaku idea.
Also, if we keep using the New York example, then my answer Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.
Oh yea totally. How would you go about making it? Cat folk monk/alchemist? I mean he had gadgets n stuff in the chucks?
OR do a monk/ninja to get things like egg shell poof?
Or just straight monk??
As for creepy. I must have missed the part where a female player was objecting to cat girl?
I don't get it... maybe SHE should just imagine it as Panthro with lipstick? Or is there some creep going on at the table and this dude has a bicep tattoo of a cat girl nude he can make hula by flexing??
I mean if ALL he said is I want a cat girl an I want her to be HOT. Why would this offend the girl, unless there is constant reference to uncomfortable things?
What we know is this.
Two people (The GM and one of the players) at the table are annoyed about one players choices and behavior.
So clearly the answer is to allow the player annoying the other two to continue doing so. One is greater than two, right?
Nope. The answer is for all three to sit down and (I know this sounds crazy, but...) talk this out like adults.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nope. The answer is for all three to sit down and (I know this sounds crazy, but...) talk this out like adults.What we know is this.
Two people (The GM and one of the players) at the table are annoyed about one players choices and behavior.
So clearly the answer is to allow the player annoying the other two to continue doing so. One is greater than two, right?
And that conversation should go:
DM: "Hey, sorry dude, made a mistake in trying to give you a hint about cat people not being in my world. Fixing that now. No cat people. Any questions?"
|
|
I am digging the Panthro Monk Catfolk with Nunchaku idea.
Also, if we keep using the New York example, then my answer Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.
Oh yea totally. How would you go about making it? Cat folk monk/alchemist? I mean he had gadgets n stuff in the chucks?
OR do a monk/ninja to get things like egg shell poof?
Or just straight monk?
Worth making a new thread!
I'm not clear on how a catgirl (boy?) cohort is ruining the feel of your setting. Is it that the character is dragging the cat-buddy everywhere and making a scene?
Is it that your player wants to roleplay out explicit scenarios that are filling you/the room with squick?
Actually, the whole "catgirl fetish" thing is random posters created.
Nothing the OP has stated, suggests this is the case.
Nope, it’s one poster who claimed to “Having never heard of a "nekojin" before, I googled it and got hundreds of cat girl porn results.”, which is incorrect (as I did the same, with safe search both off & on, and got a couple which were “iffy” but that’s about it) and impossible as unless you add in qualifiers, Google doesn’t show you much porn results anymore.
As this continues to go on with several posters expressing complete confusion over why requesting a catgirl cohort could possibly be any problem... I repeat myself.
What led the player's character to believe that catfolk exist to become cohorts?
To me until that question is answered, this entire conversation is just a bunch of metagame angel pinhead dancing.
Nope. The answer is for all three to sit down and (I know this sounds crazy, but...) talk this out like adults.
And that conversation should go:
DM: "Hey, sorry dude, made a mistake in trying to give you a hint about cat people not being in my world. Fixing that now. No cat people. Any questions?"
Why? Why not allow the cat-folk after the quest?
Why? Why not allow the cat-folk after the quest?
Nope. The answer is for all three to sit down and (I know this sounds crazy, but...) talk this out like adults.
And that conversation should go:
DM: "Hey, sorry dude, made a mistake in trying to give you a hint about cat people not being in my world. Fixing that now. No cat people. Any questions?"
Oh, I dunno Deth, perhaps I'm reading the title of this thread too literally I suppose.
|
|
I'm not clear on how a catgirl (boy?) cohort is ruining the feel of your setting. Is it that the character is dragging the cat-buddy everywhere and making a scene?
Is it that your player wants to roleplay out explicit scenarios that are filling you/the room with squick?
The man is a furry roleplayer, so yes, that pretty much confirms to all their suspicions. I allowed the Catfolk first on story, but I reconsidered that it could make a bad precedent for my world. Some Pathfinder GMs may allow Fursona and allow their players to create all sorts of Anthropormorphic characters -- I felt it might lead to an over furrization of my campaign. No room for humans, elves, or dwarves.
I still feel that a Nagaji would satisfy his "furry" need and it is lore friendly. He's still out of place (his PC name makes no sense in strict context of the setting), but I worked with him to have his character be more appropriately dressed for the campaign's feel.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have already typed like six posts in this thread that I each got about three-quarters done with then decided to delete and not post and usually when I reach that stage and self-edit it is probably a good indication that we are rolling downhill in an old tire that is on fire and on its way to crash into an even larger tire fire. So basically this thread is the smell of vulcanized rubber that is burning if threads had smells.
can someone explain what a furry roleplayer is?
Is that simply someone who always wants to play chewbacca and never han?
Or does it mean something else?
Pendagast: Google is your friend.
Or in this case, the means to see that which cannot be unseen...
I'm not clear on how a catgirl (boy?) cohort is ruining the feel of your setting. Is it that the character is dragging the cat-buddy everywhere and making a scene?
Is it that your player wants to roleplay out explicit scenarios that are filling you/the room with squick?
The man is a furry roleplayer, so yes, that pretty much confirms to all their suspicions. I allowed the Catfolk first on story, but I reconsidered that it could make a bad precedent for my world. Some Pathfinder GMs may allow Fursona and allow their players to create all sorts of Anthropormorphic characters -- I felt it might lead to an over furrization of my campaign. No room for humans, elves, or dwarves.
I still feel that a Nagaji would satisfy his "furry" need and it is lore friendly. He's still out of place (his PC name makes no sense in strict context of the setting), but I worked with him to have his character be more appropriately dressed for the campaign's feel.
Man, when you make blanket statements about GMs allowing anthropomorphic characters and Fursona, it really REALLY makes it more difficult for me to stay on your side. I allow catfolk and dogfolk, but that's a farcry for allowing Fursona or furries.
Anyways, point is, you have yourself and one other person that isn't comfortable with having catfolk in your game. So just say no and move on. No Stargates, no Golarion, no cat-people. Just say no as respectfully as possible.
|
|
can someone explain what a furry roleplayer is?
Is that simply someone who always wants to play chewbacca and never han?
Or does it mean something else?
Furry roleplayer is someone who wants to play an anthromorphized animal. Typically the term is used with sexual connotations. However, Pathfinder actually has "furry" races and I know a guy who likes playing catfolk but doesn't do it sexually.
Whether or not what the player is doing is less clear. As cat-girls frequently don't have fur(often they simply have ears and a tail with a cat-like personality).
Its popular for cos-play.
I asked him to be professional in this instance, and so he's being professional.
The main difference between playing an anthropomorphic animal and a furry are the sexual connotations. People just tend to forget that last part because it's easy to just lump an entire group together and hate them.