|
Generally speaking, I tend not to like a lot of splat material and find trying to include it all gets overwhelming. So there's a lot of supplementary stuff I won't include or will allow only on a case by case basis.Every GM has things they don't run, systems they don't like, monsters that are too complicated to run, spells that break the game, crazy items that destroy the session, ect.
Lets hear yours!Not to rain on your parade, but you've reminded me of another kind of game I don't run: core only. Tried it once because I thought it would make the game simpler for brand new role players, but within a week they were chomping at the bit for more options.
So now I run Everything-and-the-Kitchen-Sink style, only banning things due to extreme genre violation and balance reasons. I guess I've never had a problem including everything because I don't try to define the whole fantasy world before a campaign starts.
Most of the stuff I exclude isn't necessarily because it doesn't fit into the world (a handful of things don't fit into my world but my homebrew world is pretty "standard fantasy" so at the very least 90% of it could apply). It's more about just not wanting to keep track of all that crap and wonder if/how it fits balancedly in with everything already in the game. I don't have a head that easily wraps around that many extra rules and options, and as my players are kind enough to not want to see DQ be overwhelmed and stressed out and not having any fun whatsoever, they'll not beg overmuch for extra stuff and know how to ask for stuff based on concept rather than just wanting X powerful thing that breaks my brain. (As it is, I allow way more in Pathfinder than I ever did in 3.x.)
But if the Kitchen Sink method works for you, then that's great! I'm glad you have something that works for you and your players and that you are having fun.
I do like having options and my players having options, but I agree with you, DQ. It can just get too much. I'm not real happy with the new Ultimate Races book, myself. Mind you, it's not because I have any real problem with any particular entry, but it was hard enough trying to get people to play a human, or even just an elf, dwarf, gnome, etc, before.
I simply cannot justify all the Aasimar, Djinn-offspring, and beastial races coming out of the woodwork. Currently, in one campaign I'm playing, we have one human, who is severely outmatched by every other character. Looking at all the bells-and-whistles of these races, I have a hard time seeing the balance. Who would want to play a human. But from a story angle, How can anyone justify all these creatures running around.
I readily admit. I'm one of those who always likes to do something different, but even I have limits.I sincerely hope Paizo sticks with not allowing the bulk of the book in organized play.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I play humans because the bonus feat is worth more than any of the monster races abilities.
As for justifying them...have you looked at all the crazy monsters the PCs encounter? Are you seriously saying in a world where you encounter goblins, orcs, hobgoblins, gnolls, vampires, ghouls, nymphs, dryads, barghests, basilisks, chokers, centaurs, dragons, gargoyles, six types of giants, lamias, lizardfolk, minotaurs, hags, pixies, ogres, sahuagin, satyr, yetis, and so many other things, you balk at the players having access to aasimar, tieflings, ifrits, or anything else because they don't make sense?
Your PCs are only a handful of characters in a MUCH bigger world.
No evil, CN or N...I've yet to meet the person who can play a truly N or CN person.
I thought most people are Neutral.
|
|
No evil, CN or N...I've yet to meet the person who can play a truly N or CN person.I thought most people are Neutral.Some people see N alignment as not being particularly for or against either side of either axis.
Some people see N alignment as being fully dedicated to balance of both axes.
That's why there end up being people that feel like no one can "truly play" the alignment.
As for CN - too many people think that stands for "crazy nuts".
My own experience on Evil characters: intentionally taking things way overboard to make some kind of point, which just spoils it - no need to go straight for in-character murder at the drop of a hat, rape, or full on genocide... but I've seen so many players do that instead of just being selfish, easy to violence, and generally spiteful and hateful.
Noble and Sun, there are good points from both of you. Sun, I would tend to agree that it is natural, especially in our society, for most people to have Neutral tendencies. Neutral, when you look at the definition, truly insinuates either selfish or dissasociated viewpoints (For Noble's statement of balance, dissasociation would have to be involved). However, these are accompanied with personal biases, which interfere with the perception, thus good, evil, lawful and chaos would have sway over any action and/or interaction. There is simply not the person that can completely dissociate him/herself to the point of maintaining absolutely no bias, whatsoever. Further, since even trained, celebrity actors/actresses acknowledge that every part played contains aspects of the person playing the role (which adjudicates preferences for certain ones from fans), then it really becomes impossible to achieve true neutrality.
The CN alignment builds upon that. While one does not have to be 'crazy nuts' to be CN, they would have to extricate themselves from any semblance of order. CG and CE would both compensate at least aspects of order in the attempt to pursue good/evil biases. However, the neutral/chaos blend demands only chaos. Even in nature, one can perceive that order blends with chaos so that sustainability can take place. Humanity operates on at least the underlying assumption of at least points of order.
|
|
I play humans because the bonus feat is worth more than any of the monster races abilities.
As for justifying them...have you looked at all the crazy monsters the PCs encounter? Are you seriously saying in a world where you encounter goblins, orcs, hobgoblins, gnolls, vampires, ghouls, nymphs, dryads, barghests, basilisks, chokers, centaurs, dragons, gargoyles, six types of giants, lamias, lizardfolk, minotaurs, hags, pixies, ogres, sahuagin, satyr, yetis, and so many other things, you balk at the players having access to aasimar, tieflings, ifrits, or anything else because they don't make sense?
Your PCs are only a handful of characters in a MUCH bigger world.
No, Trio, I don't balk at the access...I balk at the dominance of it. Even in a world rife with alternative lifeforms...the game mechanics and campaign settings are both clear....humans are the dominant lifeform, even over elves, dwarves, gnomes, halfings, etc. I certainly don't mind the occasional, and even common, inclusion of such races. But when alternatives become the mainstream, I believe it is time to review precisely what is going on.
Now, if we're playing in a nation where the dominant race is one of those rare ones, then it is understandable, albeit restrictive in its scope. But these races are supposed to be either the results of exceptionally rare matings (Assimars, etc., of small and/or hidden populations that do not interact with society-at-large typically, or monstrous in its nature being the thing that is slain. Having nothing but them running around...yeah, I got a problem with that.
Noble and Sun, there are good points from both of you. Sun, I would tend to agree that it is natural, especially in our society, for most people to have Neutral tendencies. Neutral, when you look at the definition, truly insinuates either selfish or dissasociated viewpoints (For Noble's statement of balance, dissasociation would have to be involved). However, these are accompanied with personal biases, which interfere with the perception, thus good, evil, lawful and chaos would have sway over any action and/or interaction. There is simply not the person that can completely dissociate him/herself to the point of maintaining absolutely no bias, whatsoever. Further, since even trained, celebrity actors/actresses acknowledge that every part played contains aspects of the person playing the role (which adjudicates preferences for certain ones from fans), then it really becomes impossible to achieve true neutrality.No evil, CN or N...I've yet to meet the person who can play a truly N or CN person.I thought most people are Neutral.Some people see N alignment as not being particularly for or against either side of either axis.
Some people see N alignment as being fully dedicated to balance of both axes.
That's why there end up being people that feel like no one can "truly play" the alignment.
As for CN - too many people think that stands for "crazy nuts".
My own experience on Evil characters: intentionally taking things way overboard to make some kind of point, which just spoils it - no need to go straight for in-character murder at the drop of a hat, rape, or full on genocide... but I've seen so many players do that instead of just being selfish, easy to violence, and generally spiteful and hateful.
Ah, different definitions then. :)
(Mine are much less demanding.)
|
|
No, Trio, I don't balk at the access...I balk at the dominance of it. Even in a world rife with alternative lifeforms...the game mechanics and campaign settings are both clear....humans are the dominant lifeform, even over elves, dwarves, gnomes, halfings, etc. I certainly don't mind the occasional, and even common, inclusion of such races. But when alternatives become the mainstream, I believe it is time to review precisely what is going on.
Now, if we're playing in a nation where the dominant race is one of those rare ones, then it is understandable, albeit restrictive in its scope. But these races are supposed to be either the results of exceptionally rare matings (Assimars, etc., of small and/or hidden populations that do not interact with society-at-large typically, or monstrous in its nature being the thing that is slain. Having nothing but them running around...yeah, I got a problem with that.
And again you are treating your PCs as representative of the entire population.
They are not a representative sample. They are 4 to 6 people in a population of millions or even billions.
For all you know, they are the ONLY six non-humans in the country.
But I don't believe that humans are the dominant race either, just the most diverse.
Noble and Sun, there are good points from both of you. Sun, I would tend to agree that it is natural, especially in our society, for most people to have Neutral tendencies. Neutral, when you look at the definition, truly insinuates either selfish or dissasociated viewpoints (For Noble's statement of balance, dissasociation would have to be involved). However, these are accompanied with personal biases, which interfere with the perception, thus good, evil, lawful and chaos would have sway over any action and/or interaction. There is simply not the person that can completely dissociate him/herself to the point of maintaining absolutely no bias, whatsoever. Further, since even trained, celebrity actors/actresses acknowledge that every part played contains aspects of the person playing the role (which adjudicates preferences for certain ones from fans), then it really becomes impossible to achieve true neutrality.No evil, CN or N...I've yet to meet the person who can play a truly N or CN person.I thought most people are Neutral.Some people see N alignment as not being particularly for or against either side of either axis.
Some people see N alignment as being fully dedicated to balance of both axes.
That's why there end up being people that feel like no one can "truly play" the alignment.
As for CN - too many people think that stands for "crazy nuts".
My own experience on Evil characters: intentionally taking things way overboard to make some kind of point, which just spoils it - no need to go straight for in-character murder at the drop of a hat, rape, or full on genocide... but I've seen so many players do that instead of just being selfish, easy to violence, and generally spiteful and hateful.
Ah, different definitions then. :)
(Mine are much less demanding.)
In my world, most creatures from the material plane default to neutral with tendencies toward one or more the other alignments. No one is truly entirely neutral, but most are more so than not. They are simply too involved in day to day survival to fully qualify for any other alignment, even if different individuals and societies will definitely lean towards one or two of them more than they do the others. I'll make exceptions for specific cultures/societies/individuals, but on the whole, everyone and everything starts neutral, and requires environmental and social influences to shift away from that.
In my world, most creatures from the material plane default to neutral with tendencies toward one or more the other alignments. No one is truly entirely neutral, but most are more so than not. They are simply too involved in day to day survival to fully qualify for any other alignment, even if different individuals and societies will definitely lean towards one or two of them more than they do the others. I'll make exceptions for specific cultures/societies/individuals, but on the whole, everyone and everything starts neutral, and requires environmental and social influences to shift away from that.
Yep, this is pretty much how I think of alignments. No mortal, even among paladin-types, fits completely within one alignment category. But that's okay, because alignments are like horseshoes and hand grenades -- 'almost' does count. :)
I don't like swarms, either.
Do you run swarms?
I run swarms, I love them. I invent my own variations like "Plague Zombie Bat Swarm."
I don't allow any non-Pathfinder sources. No Golarion-specific sources either. All sources must be published by Paizo. Everything else is a go!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've given up on running haunts. I read up on them, I study them, I lay them out in advance, then things go "sproing!" in my brain and I panic. Besides, my players seem to hate them, probably because I can't run them right. Blarg.
Instead, I replace them with traps and/or undead and/or animated objects and/or illusions.
I've given up on running haunts. I read up on them, I study them, I lay them out in advance, then things go "sproing!" in my brain and I panic. Besides, my players seem to hate them, probably because I can't run them right. Blarg.
Instead, I replace them with traps and/or undead and/or animated objects and/or illusions.
OMG me too!
I don't use guns in my games - just personal preference. Also I don't run horror, like real gut-churning horror. Not the bucket-o-blood type stuff but the mind-twisting, "you'll have to go home and re-think your life" kind of stuff. I like playing it as a player and I've come up with plenty of ideas for friends but, I don't know; I guess I just can't get into that frame of mind when I'm staring at a bunch of faces as opposed to words on a screen.
For some reason I only include European influence in my games. I don't know why; when I was a kid I had both an Al Qadim and a Kara Tur campaign and then worked these types of lands into my homebrews, but nowadays it's all based around European stuff.
On the other hand I seem to have no problem with the "You-be-you" campaign. My first Marvel campaign ever was me and my friends saying "what would it be like to have super powers?" Then after that it was a natural progression to figuring out ways to stat ourselves in D&D and over time we've had lots of these and enjoyed them a lot. Of course, we've all also endured lots of hours of therapy beyond the gaming table, so I guess we're all both troubled AND centered.
Aside from that I run a pretty open game. I think that's where my players have problems. I homebrew a lot AND I tell them "sky's the limit/try anything" and then they without any limitations or examples they don't know WHAT to base their "anything" off of.
I've given up on running haunts. I read up on them, I study them, I lay them out in advance, then things go "sproing!" in my brain and I panic. Besides, my players seem to hate them, probably because I can't run them right. Blarg.
Instead, I replace them with traps and/or undead and/or animated objects and/or illusions.
I luvs me some haints! Sorry, my Arkansas sorta slipped out there. But seriously, I run two groups; one is a 25+ year veterans who aren't surprised by anything and the other is a bunch of teen and young adult newbies who I've made scared of their own shadows. A haunt will send them fleeing back the way they came in terror.
I want more haunts!! High level ones! Gimme haunts!
|
Hmm, let's se...
Systems: no palladium, no rolemaster, no merp (pretty much simplified rolemaster in middle earth), no 4th edition and no new world of darkness. Also no GURPS but that is because only people in my city willing to play gurps are freaks, and i do not mean to insult them. They are too freaky to spend an evening with.
Pathfinder: no guns, i don't like guns in a fantasy setting, no summoners, no eastern themed pc classes, no anthropomorphic animals, no planetouched, and since i am yet to make it through reading through UC and UM, no rules from there without my specigic approval.
Paladins aren't overpowered. They are pretty well balanced when treated correctly and not as a feat-less fighter with divine powers.
I've given up on running haunts. I read up on them, I study them, I lay them out in advance, then things go "sproing!" in my brain and I panic. Besides, my players seem to hate them, probably because I can't run them right. Blarg.
Instead, I replace them with traps and/or undead and/or animated objects and/or illusions.
I luvs me some haints! Sorry, my Arkansas sorta slipped out there. But seriously, I run two groups; one is a 25+ year veterans who aren't surprised by anything and the other is a bunch of teen and young adult newbies who I've made scared of their own shadows. A haunt will send them fleeing back the way they came in terror.
I want more haunts!! High level ones! Gimme haunts!
I had almost forgotten about haunts. Almost...
Not impressed with what I've seen. I'm not going to use them, even in my horror themed games set in haunted places. They feel cheap and flimsy, like a carnival ride.
Earthdawn and Palladium, I won't touch them.
Interesting settings but the mechanics make the games virtually unplayable.
|
Hmm, let's se...
Systems: no palladium, no rolemaster, no merp (pretty much simplified rolemaster in middle earth), no 4th edition and no new world of darkness. Also no GURPS but that is because only people in my city willing to play gurps are freaks, and i do not mean to insult them. They are too freaky to spend an evening with.
Pathfinder: no guns, i don't like guns in a fantasy setting, no summoners, no eastern themed pc classes, no anthropomorphic animals, no planetouched, and since i am yet to make it through reading through UC and UM, no rules from there without my specigic approval.Paladins aren't overpowered. They are pretty well balanced when treated correctly and not as a feat-less fighter with divine powers.
Out of curiousity, why no new world of darkness?
Firearms and dinosaurs. Not in my fantasy world. Not sure about alchemist as PCs, NPCs yeah but not sold on PCs.
|
|
Out of curiousity, why no new world of darkness?Hmm, let's se...
Systems: no palladium, no rolemaster, no merp (pretty much simplified rolemaster in middle earth), no 4th edition and no new world of darkness. Also no GURPS but that is because only people in my city willing to play gurps are freaks, and i do not mean to insult them. They are too freaky to spend an evening with.
Pathfinder: no guns, i don't like guns in a fantasy setting, no summoners, no eastern themed pc classes, no anthropomorphic animals, no planetouched, and since i am yet to make it through reading through UC and UM, no rules from there without my specigic approval.Paladins aren't overpowered. They are pretty well balanced when treated correctly and not as a feat-less fighter with divine powers.
Been playing the old one for 10 years...the new fluff is soooo wimpy IMO...i mean just look at vampire the requiem...oh noes...we are vampires...we suffer...we are so dark and gothy...oh noes...
Yeah in the old vampire you also had angst and gothy moments, but it felt different, more manly so to speak. Vampires weren't wimps. They were mfing vampires...some reveled in the beast, some fought to keep their humanity (i actually had a character achieve golconda in one of the games i ran). There was lots of room for brooding angst, but it wasn't the point...
Don't get me wrong, i played new world of darkness, i play werewolf right now, but i would never run it, ever.
Been playing the old one for 10 years...the new fluff is soooo wimpy IMO...i mean just look at vampire the requiem...oh noes...we are vampires...we suffer...we are so dark and gothy...oh noes...
Uh? OWoD vampires were much more angsty and whimpy.
Yeah in the old vampire you also had angst and gothy moments, but it felt different, more manly so to speak.
Manly? OWoD Vampires more manly than nWoDs?! Rather not...
Vampires weren't wimps. They were mfing vampires...some reveled in the beast, some fought to keep their humanity (i actually had a character achieve golconda in one of the games i ran). There was lots of room for brooding angst, but it wasn't the point...
Nor is it more in nWoD. In anything, it is less emo-angsty than old one.
We are allowed edition flame wars as long as they are unconnected in any way to D&D, Pathfinder and d20, right?
The only major differences I've found between oWoD and nWoD are the lore and some minor mechanics tweeks. If you don't like the lore of nWoD, couldn't you simply adjust it if you ran it?
I have yet to run any World of Darkness myself, but I'm putting together a game for some friends, all mid-30's, married with kids. So, angst and rebelliousness isn't really a concern of ours.
I settled on getting nWoD because I've heard they did away with the overbearing political mumbo-jumbo of oWoD, and I got a killer deal buying the core books from a friend who wasn't playing anymore.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I won't run games for people who can't/won't follow plot hooks and can't/won't work in a team. Not because sandboxy homebrew stuff isn't fun, but because such players tend to not really "get" my campaigns — they're not about the PCs, they're not a chance to show off.
You want to do the nameless amnesiac ranger bit? Fine. But when you meet the party and you're like "Why should I care? Why would I help these people?" you may as well pack up your dice, because that was your job. I bring the adventure, you bring the character.
Firearms and dinosaurs. Not in my fantasy world.
For the specific world I run out of, yes! I don't like the "Land of the Lost" feel for dinosaurs, always replace them with other things.
Not sure about alchemist as PCs, NPCs yeah but not sold on PCs.
I always wish the alchemist base class had been named something else ("chymist" or "bomber" or let's see... the highest alchemist's seek the Philosopher's Stone but per Erik Mona decree all classes must be a single word that is neither a portmanteau (e.g., "stabcadabrist") nor a compound word (e.g., "spellblade" or "pathfinder"), so I decree that the class should be called "Stoners"... anyway.). To me, an alchemist is anyone who makes a living primarily through making alchemical items (like alchemist's fire, not "bombs" or "extracts"), and they are usually NPCs who make and sell stuff from shops.
In a world where you have the alchemist PCs ("Stoners"), what do you call them versus what do you call the soothe syrup and smoke pellet brewers, when there is a clear difference? If I say, "in the distance, you see the alchemist's guild" I don't want to hear, "wait, you said we couldn't use the alchemist class..." when all I meant was it was a bunch of dudes with ranks in the Craft (Alchemy) skill.
Anyway, I don't like the Alchemist PC base class for my current world because the bombs get too close to firearms/gunpowder tech, but I'd like to use it for a steampunk game sometime.
|
|
Been playing the old one for 10 years...the new fluff is soooo wimpy IMO...i mean just look at vampire the requiem...oh noes...we are vampires...we suffer...we are so dark and gothy...oh noes...Uh? OWoD vampires were much more angsty and whimpy.
Yeah in the old vampire you also had angst and gothy moments, but it felt different, more manly so to speak.Manly? OWoD Vampires more manly than nWoDs?! Rather not...
Vampires weren't wimps. They were mfing vampires...some reveled in the beast, some fought to keep their humanity (i actually had a character achieve golconda in one of the games i ran). There was lots of room for brooding angst, but it wasn't the point...Nor is it more in nWoD. In anything, it is less emo-angsty than old one.
We are allowed edition flame wars as long as they are unconnected in any way to D&D, Pathfinder and d20, right?
Well, then you played with a completely different group of people than i. All that guys who played new vampire wanted to do was lounge in bars and seduce girls to drink blood...yeah, i see where i made the mistake now.
And, yes, we loved the politics and intrigue in the owod. And how our troupe meshed with it and stuff.And as for the rules, the new rules for some reason do not sit well with me. As for fluff, there is not any need to adapt. Fluff is fluff.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
WoD is WoD, the amount of emo and angst present is dependent upon who is playing.
From what I have seen, those who prefer oWoD prefer the richly detailed history and the massive numbers of already fleshed out areas and npcs of the world, whereas those who prefer nWoD prefer the unknown and the mystery that the nWoD presents.
System-wise, I won't run Burning Wheel. I like to play it, but can't run it.
I don't do long games either. I prefer running short games, 3-4 sessions at most. I like running one shots. I'm too scatter brained to GM a long campaign, I'd get bored and try to talk them into running something else. I can play in long games though just fine.
Well, then you played with a completely different group of people than i. All that guys who played new vampire wanted to do was lounge in bars and seduce girls to drink blood...yeah, i see where i made the mistake now.
Yeah, I seen people doing exactly that in oWoD.
And, yes, we loved the politics and intrigue in the owod. And how our troupe meshed with it and stuff.
NWoD is as good for politics and intrigue as old, but offers no metaplot and there is no default global super conspiracies. Which IMO is good because I was put off by number of players that insisted on using parts of old WoD I specifcally stated that don't exist in the described form.
And as for the rules, the new rules for some reason do not sit well with me. As for fluff, there is not any need to adapt. Fluff is fluff.
My primary reason for favoring nwod over old one are the rules - I used the fluff very sparingly - in case of WoD I am more interested in having game mechanic for games that draw upon various modern fantasy/horror sources, such like X-files, Millenium, Hellboy, Kult, In Nomine, Sandman, Dark Matter, Nephilim, amongst the others, instead of slavishly following the fluff and metaplot (which I grew to mildly dislike in case of oWoD and never seriously bothered with nWoD).
It might see, like blasphemy on these forums, but I don't run adventure paths or story driven games. I might make an exception and run one or more of Paizo's adventure paths one of these days, but in general my games are all sandboxes.
It might see, like blasphemy on these forums, but I don't run adventure paths or story driven games. I might make an exception and run one or more of Paizo's adventure paths one of these days, but in general my games are all sandboxes.
It's not blasphemy, it's perfectly normal. Having just finished a third AP, I kind of don't want to play in one for a while.
|
|
Wow, most of the restrictions in this thread sound really not fun. To the point where I'm considering opening up everything d20 ever in my next game just to balance out the universe.What restrictions?
Stuff like: no dwarves, no guns, no magic item creation, race restrictions, class restrictions, picking and choosing bits of books to allow, no summoners, bans on particular feats, etc.
What a buzzkill.
|
|
Not everything should be used in every game. There is such a thing as too much options.
What if your setting is a setting a'la skyrim? No dwarves, no half-elves, no halflings and gnomes. No guns. Buzzkill? I don't think so. Instead of focusing on what is.not allowed, focus on what is.
GM wants to run an urban campaign? Let's play a nature fueled swarm summoning witch doctor of.nature and wildness. No? Not allowed? Buzzkill!
Most GMs have very valid reasons for dissalowing certain parts of the rules. Least of all being that they are not comfortably familiar with them yet.
Sometimes restrictiveness can work. Honestly, my favorite setting to run as a DM is Ravenloft, and it's restrictive as hell. It's pretty much it's own separate game, that happens to use d20 rules. It's closer in spirit to something like Call of Cthulhu than anything resembling D&D. But, I guess that would depend greatly on the group playing it.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No magic weapon, magic armor, or wondrous item creation in my game; the items that exists were made in a way no one can fathom at this time.
NPCs in my campaign cannot have PC classes, so they are limited to 6th level spells, which means no true resurrection until a PC reaches a level that lets him cast it.
Who taught your PC wizards to be wizards?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't run games for players who don't have at least a decent grasp of optimization or refuse to optimize for whatever reason. Exceptions for players just learning, I don't mind helping new players develop. I like rolling dice, I like letting them fall where they may, and I roll out in the open*, so players who intentionally nerf their characters, or take a bunch of basketweaving type stuff (I don't think I've ever run a game where stitching a sampler saved the multiverse) aren't going to live long or have fun, and I want people to have fun. I don't care how people play, but I prefer running games for people who play like I do.
Other than that, I'm pretty open. Some character concepts and races don't fit my homebrew, but if I'm running something else, I don't limit anything.
|
|
Not everything should be used in every game. There is such a thing as too much options.
What if your setting is a setting a'la skyrim? No dwarves, no half-elves, no halflings and gnomes. No guns. Buzzkill? I don't think so. Instead of focusing on what is.not allowed, focus on what is.
GM wants to run an urban campaign? Let's play a nature fueled swarm summoning witch doctor of.nature and wildness. No? Not allowed? Buzzkill!
Most GMs have very valid reasons for dissalowing certain parts of the rules. Least of all being that they are not comfortably familiar with them yet.
Skyrim: Dwemer are dwarves, Bretons could easily be half-elves. Use halfling or gnome stats for the juveniles of various races, or just have them be alternate stats for short people.
A fish out of water scenario with the nature witch in the city could be very interesting. Cernd in BG2, for example, or Morrigan walking around Denerim in Dragon Age.
So yes, I think categorically rejecting things that are part of the available rules is usually no fun. If your players lack the capacity or creativity to smoothly handle some of the odder elements, that's different, but you can handle it on a case by case basis.
My preferred way to handle it as GM: "What's that? You want to play a Mysterious Stranger Gunslinger in my stone age game? Great! Advanced technology will attract a lot of *attention* from the locals. Hope your dice are warmed up."
I always kinda compared Bretons to Gnomes. There's a few mentions of them enjoying tinkering with things. And they're weird affinity for magic, with their racial Magic Resistance.
|
|
...not just because its firearms in fantasy.I will likely never understand why people think that firearms haven't been in fantasy just as long as firearms have existed.
Stories mentioned in Gary Gygax's Appendix N in the 1e AD&D DMG had firearms... and aliens... airships... and pretty much everything else I have ever heard someone pull a "get your chocolate out of my peanut butter," argument about.
Edit to Add: I'm not saying start liking what I like - I'm just advocating statements of preference similar to "I do not like firearms in my fantasy games," replace the statements people usually make that imply their idea of fantasy is somehow more "pure" or "correct" because it doesn't include certain elements that the fantasy genre has, classically speaking, always included.
I actually don't mind firearms in fantasy
However, I do understand people who do and I think there is something which, if you consider it, might help you to understand that perspective.
- Modern fantasy was not produced from a vacuum. It is a product of innumerable influences and the majority of them pre-date western firearms.
Gilgamesh, The Oddysey, Beowulf, Brothers Grimm, Macbeth... these stories do not contain any firearms. Their cultural heft and significance in what feels like fantasy to a lot of people far, far outweighs any sword'n'spell'n'gun content in Appendix N.
So, that seems 'correct' and 'pure' to them. And they are no more or less correct than people like you and I who enjoy a little gun-fu in their fantasy fights. The concept of fantasy is entirely subjective. They are not having badwrongstupidfun, and neither are you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, most of the restrictions in this thread sound really not fun. To the point where I'm considering opening up everything d20 ever in my next game just to balance out the universe.
This is close to how I run. PF/3.5 hybrid, other than distinct cheese (divine metamagic/nightstick spam, etc.) everything allowed, full-on kitchen sink.
Of course this is a setting where one continent contains a Teslapunk-age meritocratic monarchic USA analogue, a semi-modernized Arabian Nights, a mishmash Asianic archipelago, and The Mountains of Madness; and the other has Steampunk Camelot, Girl Genius-style France as if populated mostly by gypsy descendants, Viking-age Scandanavia, Necromantic Egypt, and a sister continent that is essentially Darkest Africa blended with the Isle of Dread, dinosaurs and all. With all governed by a blend of the Olympian, Asgardian, Sumerian, Pharaohnic, Hindu and Shintou pantheons.
|
|
Not everything should be used in every game. There is such a thing as too much options.
What if your setting is a setting a'la skyrim? No dwarves, no half-elves, no halflings and gnomes. No guns. Buzzkill? I don't think so. Instead of focusing on what is.not allowed, focus on what is.
GM wants to run an urban campaign? Let's play a nature fueled swarm summoning witch doctor of.nature and wildness. No? Not allowed? Buzzkill!
Most GMs have very valid reasons for dissalowing certain parts of the rules. Least of all being that they are not comfortably familiar with them yet.Skyrim: Dwemer are dwarves, Bretons could easily be half-elves. Use halfling or gnome stats for the juveniles of various races, or just have them be alternate stats for short people.
A fish out of water scenario with the nature witch in the city could be very interesting. Cernd in BG2, for example, or Morrigan walking around Denerim in Dragon Age.
So yes, I think categorically rejecting things that are part of the available rules is usually no fun. If your players lack the capacity or creativity to smoothly handle some of the odder elements, that's different, but you can handle it on a case by case basis.
My preferred way to handle it as GM: "What's that? You want to play a Mysterious Stranger Gunslinger in my stone age game? Great! Advanced technology will attract a lot of *attention* from the locals. Hope yippee dice are warmed up."
Dwemer are extinct , and were actually a subrace of elves, and of normal height. They were called dwarves because giants called them dwarves.
Bretons are human.
I don't like the fish out of water approach. It rarely works, and when it works it rarely works well.