As GM how do you RP unusual characters and abilities in game?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 198 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

When it comes to world creation, I do think some give and take is inevitable.

As to the guy who wants to play the 'half-fiend-drow-noble-gunslinger' in your home game. It really comes down to finding out why.

Examples

Spoiler:

  • For the bonuses! Just say 'no' politely and firmly. Explain how you feel that combination will not fit into the world.
  • For the Roleplay! Find out why he wants to play such an odd character, and offer alternatives. He wants to play the 'noble son sent into exile?' carve that out. He wants to play 'trying to rise above his demonic heritage' schtick? Suggest a tiefling that looks elven. Basically find the root cause and build from that.
  • Normal races are boring! work on a middle ground. Make him human, but let him take elven traits. Use half-orc stats, but say he's half ogre, etc.
  • Because I can't do the concept w/o it! Work with them on the above. His 'concept' is a half fiend dark elf outcast? suggest a Devilspawn tiefling. He's planetouched, the mortal parent doesn't matter and thus he can be an 'outcast fiendish dark elf' and on paper he's a tiefling.
  • Now in PFS, you just have to roll with it. You might have a Table of Tieflings, an Assembly of Assimar or a Flock of Aasimar. Of course in the case of karma at work, if they're all trying to be independent and special, then they should split up and die quicker. :-)


    Personally, I don't tire of playing humans. Most of my characters end up being human. More often, I tire of playing things other than human, as the racial aspects end up being thought of as stereotypical regardless of how I play the character.

    When I want someone to remember a character, I don't want race to be the first thing they think of. Rather, I'd hope race would be one of the last.


    @Umbral Reaver

    I get to play a "human" every morning when I get up. ;-P

    I enjoy playing that aloof elf or that pranking gnome or that tinkering dwarf or that cleptomaniac halfling. And when I'm done with that, I'll try an uncatchable/unfathomable sylph...


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    I may get to be human every day, but I don't get to be a healthy, adventurous human with magical powers, living in a fantastic world.


    I share Kyoni's sentiment. If I have the option of playing something else than human, I'd rather take it.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
    Icyshadow wrote:
    What exactly did you mean with the phrase "truly non-human intelligence" there? I'm not a native speaker of English, and that just comes off as vague to me. Then again, said vagueness is probably why I'm so curious about the meaning.

    Most aliens in fiction (including various races in fantasy) are just humans under a different physical guise. The problem is that in real life we have very very little experience with non-human sentience. (The reason I say little as opposed to none is that juries are still out as to the sentience, or whether we can even answer the question of sentience of certain gorillas, dolphins, and whales)

    Liberty's Edge

    LazarX wrote:
    Icyshadow wrote:
    What exactly did you mean with the phrase "truly non-human intelligence" there? I'm not a native speaker of English, and that just comes off as vague to me. Then again, said vagueness is probably why I'm so curious about the meaning.
    Most aliens in fiction (including various races in fantasy) are just humans under a different physical guise. The problem is that in real life we have very very little experience with non-human sentience. (The reason I say little as opposed to none is that juries are still out as to the sentience, or whether we can even answer the question of sentience of certain gorillas, dolphins, and whales)

    Have some interaction with horses and you will understand really quickly that non-human intelligence (and even more : emotions and communication) abound around us IRL.

    We are not so far evolved from our animal cousins as we would like to believe ;-)


    blue_the_wolf wrote:
    while most GMs want to allow their players to have fun playing what ever character combination they want... do any of you force the players to deal with the role play consequences of their decisions?

    How it works for our group:

    Upon agreeing upon the setting/campaign, a Character Guide is made available that notes (among other things) appropriate races for the setting/campaign. Players are expected to follow the parameters laid out in the Character Guide (received long before the campaign is to begin to provide ample time, if needed, to create a character).

    We use more races than core, but not too much more.

    On very rare (long past) occasions, some douche wants to ignore the guide and come up with some freaky thing because he/she thinks they're a special snowflake. They are greatly mistaken, and no one in the group really tolerates this. (This doesn't really happen anymore.)

    It works for us, as we all tend to like the same relative things as well... sort of: closer to 'traditional' = yes; Mos Eisley cantina = NO.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
    The black raven wrote:
    LazarX wrote:
    Icyshadow wrote:
    What exactly did you mean with the phrase "truly non-human intelligence" there? I'm not a native speaker of English, and that just comes off as vague to me. Then again, said vagueness is probably why I'm so curious about the meaning.
    Most aliens in fiction (including various races in fantasy) are just humans under a different physical guise. The problem is that in real life we have very very little experience with non-human sentience. (The reason I say little as opposed to none is that juries are still out as to the sentience, or whether we can even answer the question of sentience of certain gorillas, dolphins, and whales)

    Have some interaction with horses and you will understand really quickly that non-human intelligence (and even more : emotions and communication) abound around us IRL.

    We are not so far evolved from our animal cousins as we would like to believe ;-)

    There's a major amount of difference between clever animal tricks (like Clever Hans) and true self awareness and sentience. Outside of Humans, only two or three animals can conceive of an image of a mirror as being something other than another animal.


    Is Clever Hans a rogue?

    Grand Lodge

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
    3.5 Loyalist wrote:
    Is Clever Hans a rogue?

    You can read about him here.


    I haven't had a problem with tieflings and aasimar when allowed in my games.
    Also when gming sometimes you don't realize there are things you do not really like. In play by post I choose players by which backstories and fluff I like the most. For me some of the sterotypical builds from the forums leave a bad taste in my mouth. I want the character to be a little unique but not too unique and not fit in like taking undeath subdomain in Lastwall. Sometimes I think the non core stuff can get less weird than zon kuothon as well in certain areas.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I have set up a rule when I DM that everything in regards to race and class are possible, but anything outside the core books (and certain books other books that I specify at the beginning of the campaign) has to be ran by me so that together me and the player can decide if the race / class is broken and if we can fit it into the campaign world. Most of the time it is possible to do, but sometimes we have to tweak a few things to make it either not be overpowered or to fit in with the setting that is being run.


    the easy way to play a special snowflake with Weekly William is to play a human nonmartial.


    Ed Wiscombe wrote:
    I have set up a rule when I DM that everything in regards to race and class are possible, but anything outside the core books (and certain books other books that I specify at the beginning of the campaign) has to be ran by me so that together me and the player can decide if the race / class is broken and if we can fit it into the campaign world. Most of the time it is possible to do, but sometimes we have to tweak a few things to make it either not be overpowered or to fit in with the setting that is being run.

    Sounds fair to me.


    It's subject to the GM's authority -- if he thinks he can handle it and it's not 'special snowflake syndrome' out of control, by all means the players can have fun being what they want to be.

    ...but the players may not know (and maybe shouldn't know) all of the reasons a GM rejects a character concept even when it seems perfectly acceptable.

    ...perhaps unbeknownst to the players that character concept is anathematic to one or several major plot points in the GM's story as he envisions it; it is one thing for a GM to railroad players and force them to conform to a story progression he expects, it is another thing for all his prep and story-arcs to be shot to hell from the get-go because one of the players is perpetually on fire and the middle %30 of the adventure is in a forest filled with flammable spiderwebs... and the latter %20 is underwater to enlist the help of a wizard who spends all eternity fighting demons and trusts none of them. the (extreme) concept above would make the GM's story require giant edits before even starting, and it's not unfair for a GM to simply refuse a headache when we both know the player and the GM can BOTH still have fun with a less special (or absurd) character.

    The key is to always talk it out. In a campaign that's coming up my GM said "NO EVIL CHARACTERS." ...I really really really wanted to make a Separatist priest of Zon-Khulton (who is a Lawful Evil deity)... the GM initially rejected my character concept out of hand. It was only after I explained how it would not be a complexity to a good party (I was LN in alignment and had some GREAT justifications for my associations with more good-aligned party) that I got the GM to come around. Complex and interesting characters make for great stories... over the top characters though can put a bad taste in people's mouths.

    ...and DEFINITELY if a guy wants to walk down the street with an undead dragon, the law is going to drop a HAMMER on him.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Vicon wrote:

    It's subject to the GM's authority -- if he thinks he can handle it and it's not 'special snowflake syndrome' out of control, by all means the players can have fun being what they want to be.

    ...but the players may not know (and maybe shouldn't know) all of the reasons a GM rejects a character concept even when it seems perfectly acceptable.

    ...perhaps unbeknownst to the players that character concept is anathematic to one or several major plot points in the GM's story as he envisions it; it is one thing for a GM to railroad players and force them to conform to a story progression he expects, it is another thing for all his prep and story-arcs to be shot to hell from the get-go because one of the players is perpetually on fire and the middle %30 of the adventure is in a forest filled with flammable spiderwebs... and the latter %20 is underwater to enlist the help of a wizard who spends all eternity fighting demons and trusts none of them. the (extreme) concept above would make the GM's story require giant edits before even starting, and it's not unfair for a GM to simply refuse a headache when we both know the player and the GM can BOTH still have fun with a less special (or absurd) character.

    The key is to always talk it out. In a campaign that's coming up my GM said "NO EVIL CHARACTERS." ...I really really really wanted to make a Separatist priest of Zon-Khulton (who is a Lawful Evil deity)... the GM initially rejected my character concept out of hand. It was only after I explained how it would not be a complexity to a good party (I was LN in alignment and had some GREAT justifications for my associations with more good-aligned party) that I got the GM to come around. Complex and interesting characters make for great stories... over the top characters though can put a bad taste in people's mouths.

    ...and DEFINITELY if a guy wants to walk down the street with an undead dragon, the law is going to drop a HAMMER on him.

    Evil clerics are so much fun! Right with you there buddy. For jade regent I would want to have an evil char.

    Hammer time for adventurers disturbing the peace.


    Vicon wrote:
    ...perhaps unbeknownst to the players that character concept is anathematic to one or several major plot points in the GM's story as he envisions it

    Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? It's assumed that the setting is at least partly known to the players, because their characters FREAKING LIVE IN IT. How can one plot point, or even a few, affect the ESTABLISHED setting? If the GM has to pull stuff out of his arse just to justify banning concepts, then the players should probably have a psychiatrist drop by and check how bad of a control freak said GM is.

    3.5 Loyalist wrote:
    Evil clerics are so much fun! Right with you there...

    Evil Cleric of which deity? My reaction will probably depend on your answer. I once played a LN Cleric of Zon-Kuthon. It was fun.

    The Exchange

    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Icyshadow wrote:
    Vicon wrote:
    ...perhaps unbeknownst to the players that character concept is anathematic to one or several major plot points in the GM's story as he envisions it

    Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? It's assumed that the setting is at least partly known to the players, because their characters FREAKING LIVE IN IT. How can one plot point, or even a few, affect the ESTABLISHED setting? If the GM has to pull stuff out of his arse just to justify banning concepts, then the players should probably have a psychiatrist drop by and check how bad of a control freak said GM is.

    3.5 Loyalist wrote:
    Evil clerics are so much fun! Right with you there...
    Evil Cleric of which deity? My reaction will probably depend on your answer. I once played a LN Cleric of Zon-Kuthon. It was fun.

    No he is spot on, playing a necromancer in Carrion Crown WILL screw the party, demanding to play something demonic in a mendev crusade/worldwound based campaign will do likewise. Some race/class choices just don't work


    And some races are just horrible options for a campaign based on what the players will have to endure. How much fun would it be to play a Strix in a cramped Darklands campaign, or a Merfolk in a desert setting?

    I wouldn't allow a player to homebrew there own race either. Mostly because I know people who would just use it to justify races with ridiculous stats so they could build uber characters. At this point, There are 37 races available, + the example races in the Race builder section, plus 5 more coming in the Inner Sea bestiary, plus who knows what that will be introduced in the next year. There are not exactly a dearth of options available for a player to experiment with if he has a lenient DM.


    Icyshadow, maybe you've had bad experiences with control freak GMs... or maybe you're not giving enough credence to the fact that there are people out there who would play characters that are far more square pegs than you. In any case, no intention to offend.

    I stand firm on the point though -- the characters players create may live in a "freaking" established setting, but whether they fit in it is still for the GM to ultimately decide, and to be as cavalier as to say any character concept at all will fit in with what a GM has planned for a campaign. I'd go further to say that they don't 'freaking' live in it if the GM doesn't allow it, so I don't think that point is particularly persuasive either.

    If the campaign like Andrew says, is all about killing undead -- the necro is a square peg. If the campaign is about freeing angels or slaughtering demons, a demonic character doesn't fit in with all the paladins and clerics and goodie-folk. GMs have to work hard to make everything flow and be enjoyable and the task is hard enough as it is capitulating to the wanton whims of certain players who "need" to be an oddball or contrarian. SOMETIMES these concepts can be negotiated as I explained above... but a GM is neither required, nor expected to make any concept a player can conceive of work.

    Just as there are 'tyrannical' GMs... there are no shortage of players who don't care enough about story continuity or believable party symmetry, and GMs are empowered to deny that if said concepts cannot be negotiated or justified to fit - Even innocently.

    It's not the players job to make everything work and everything flow, but it should be a priority not to make it any harder for the GM than it needs to be!


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Beliefs make a character unique and resonant. Not Race/Class/Feat combos.

    And I say this as a player who's running a Paladin of Pharasma, who's got 5 levels of Paladin and 1 level of Shadowdancer at the moment...and it makes sense given her backstory and her adventuring career so far.


    Icyshadow wrote:

    Which setting was that? The drow are rather exotic in Golarion and Eberron, so the open hostility thing wouldn't work in those.

    Also, didn't the party speak out for their ally, try to convince people that the drow is indeed not evil, that he/she is an exception to the norm?

    In a 4th edition (very causal group of players) group I wanted to play a drow, in Ebberon.

    If I remember correctly they are savage, lives "upstairs' with the rest of the folks and are basically demon b#%$#es?

    Anyways, I convinced the GM a way that would let me play a drow, and not get frowny faces whenever we are around.
    LG paladin, raised at an orphanage. My masters turned out to be demons, so I had to kill them, and now I am trying to build and run my own orphanage.

    That is my expeRience with the dRow as a player.
    In my home brew game however,t he drows are a superpower underground a threat to everyone on the sunny side of the world. So the only way one can play a drow in my world is as if they are either related to a very rich merchant (some cities allow drow trade routes) or be the diplomats son/daughter.

    But most people won't respect diplomatic immunity. So it is very hard to survive in the real world..


    Vicon wrote:

    Icyshadow, maybe you've had bad experiences with control freak GMs... or maybe you're not giving enough credence to the fact that there are people out there who would play characters that are far more square pegs than you. In any case, no intention to offend.

    I stand firm on the point though -- the characters players create may live in a "freaking" established setting, but whether they fit in it is still for the GM to ultimately decide, and to be as cavalier as to say any character concept at all will fit in with what a GM has planned for a campaign. I'd go further to say that they don't 'freaking' live in it if the GM doesn't allow it, so I don't think that point is particularly persuasive either.

    If the campaign like Andrew says, is all about killing undead -- the necro is a square peg. If the campaign is about freeing angels or slaughtering demons, a demonic character doesn't fit in with all the paladins and clerics and goodie-folk. GMs have to work hard to make everything flow and be enjoyable and the task is hard enough as it is capitulating to the wanton whims of certain players who "need" to be an oddball or contrarian. SOMETIMES these concepts can be negotiated as I explained above... but a GM is neither required, nor expected to make any concept a player can conceive of work.

    Just as there are 'tyrannical' GMs... there are no shortage of players who don't care enough about story continuity or believable party symmetry, and GMs are empowered to deny that if said concepts cannot be negotiated or justified to fit - Even innocently.

    It's not the players job to make everything work and everything flow, but it should be a priority not to make it any harder for the GM than it needs to be!

    ...excuse me for a moment, but were you just comparing the fact that I've made homebrew races that were arbitrarily banned to the idiocy of playing a necromancer in Carrion Crown or something similar? There's a really big difference between the people who are creative and want to work with the DM to incorporate something new to the campaign without causing problems, and the people who are being deliberately distruptive. I hope the bolding helps you see my point.

    Silver Crusade

    It's not nessisarilly deliberately disruptive. When my group started carrion crown, I wanted to play an undead raising necromancer, not becasue it was CC, but becasue that was the next character concept I had that I wanted to play. After learning about the AP, I put that one away for later.

    Yes there's a difference between powergaming/special snowflake and having an interesting character concept you want to play. The problem is that it's the GM who puts in 90% of the work of running a game, and if they don't want the extra work of figuring out how to include your non-automatic fit, the player should respect that. When I GM I personally like the extra ideas spawned by character concepts, and don't have an issue with the extra work to incorporate them. However, it is extra work, and might be more work than the GM wants, especially if they are working 40+ hours, raising a family, and still trying to run a game.


    Icyshadow wrote:
    I don't even know what a Squashling is.

    Tasty in corn meal batter and flash fried.


    I see the main argument being "The DM worked 'oh so hard~' to please you, so you should cut him some slack", though people seem to forget that not all players remain exclusively as players in the same group. I have been a DM myself, and I still find most people overestimating the amount of work a DM has to put in a given game, and I seem to have done a better job than at least some of the DMs I've played with, even on my first time running a campaign. And given the only justification that one DM had for banning my homebrews was "I don't want them" instead of "they are overpowered" or "they don't fit Golarion", I still find myself throwing the occasional jab at the man for it instead of bending over backwards just for his sake.


    I don't. Generally speaking I talk to the players ahead of time and we hash out what works for the campaign in question and what doesn't. If a player wants something so outside the norm that it would require excessive focus on my part just to incorporate it, I say no, and they do something else.

    The other dimension to this that I haven't seen brought up yet is not only can an oddball concept sometimes require extra work from the GM (not in itself bad if the GM doesn't mind) but sometimes that work necessitates an unfair amount of story focus on one character over the rest of the group. If incorporating a PC into the campaign requires that, odds are I'll say "no."

    I don't want your character getting twice the screen time of everyone else just because of your concept. We agree on parameters before we start. You accept the parameters and make something that fits, or you don't. Simple.


    Icyshadow wrote:
    And given the only justification that one DM had for banning my homebrews was "I don't want them" instead of "they are overpowered" or "they don't fit Golarion", I still find myself throwing the occasional jab at the man for it instead of bending over backwards just for his sake.

    I'm genuinely curious: Why is "because I don't want them" less valid than "because I want them?"

    I mean, I don't know the personal history here, so I won't presume, but it seems like it boils down to "what I want is more valid than what you don't want."

    If my GM doesn't want to deal with something, I try to take the attitude of "okay, what can I do that wont give you trouble, so that we can both have fun with less stress?"

    Why is the default assumption "The GM's job is to accommodate whatever I want to do," rather than "the GM's job is to balance the desires and playstyles of the group so that everyone has fun?"


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    And there's the other problem, which I have been confused over as well. What is this obsession with "screen time" DMs around here seem to have? I've never seen it come up, either because I SOMEHOW manage to give everyone equal screen time, or then because nobody around the tables where I play is a manchild hungry for attention.

    TheWarriorPoet519 wrote:
    Why is the default assumption "The GM's job is to accommodate whatever I want to do," rather than "the GM's job is to balance the desires and playstyles of the group so that everyone has fun?"

    What I want is in no way negatively affecting the rest of the group. D&D (and Pathfinder by extension) is a group game, and this should be taken into account. What should the DM do if suddenly all the other players decide to take my side and say "let him play the character concept he's been wanting to play for so long, or we all leave" to him? Should he still have his way, or should he be able to compromise a bit like I think he should? If I really were of that "accomodate whatever I want to do" mindset, I'd demand he start using every houserule I've had in mind along with other things, which I refuse to do because I am NOT a control freak.


    Umbral Reaver: "I should not have to feel obligated to make space for them. Nevertheless, they are left in out of apathy rather than a want to include them. After a while, I just didn't care enough to say they didn't exist." I love this line and philosophy!

    LazarX: "The problem is that in real life we have very very little experience with non-human sentience." You should meet some of our supervisors at work...(rimshot)

    Now to the meat: I use a variant of Umbral Reaver's suggestion during ARG beta of charging Character points for races. Rarer or 'broken' races get n 'upcharge'. Dwarves are a tad powerful, and cost 2 extra points to play. Elves are heavily customized and "Mary Sue'd", and run 10 Character points. Tieflings are treated like dirt (IN THEIR DESCRIPTION!) and face constant ridicule in my game's mechanics. It is a part of the role playing world. The more common races are accepted and interactions are fairly well known to the characters. As GM, it is my job to make sure the players aren't caught in tiffs their characters would naturally avoid. It would be MY fault if I allowed a semi-demonic, pyromaniac lizard's player to just wander into a town unaware of it's effect on the locals.

    All that said, the original header was: "As GM how do you RP unusual characters and abilities in game?" Ultimately, D&D is a Role Playing game, and I award exp for 'role playing'. The Drow (which I do not have) would gain exp from properly reacting to his being discriminated against. I will give Barbarians points for going out and carousing the town. In the last incarnation of my game, the Cleric of a peasant god wouldn't minister to the needy and could not figure out (despite prompting) why she was lagging in the EXP race. The dang Changling went through a dozen forms each day and bought multi-look clothing to boost her disguise skill, learned new languages, etc. and was always near the lead in level advancement.


    Icyshadow wrote:
    And there's the other problem, which I have been confused over as well. What is this obsession with "screen time" DMs around here seem to have? I've never seen it come up, either because I SOMEHOW manage to give everyone equal screen time, or then because nobody around the tables where I play is a manchild hungry for attention.

    Not every game is a complete kitchen sink in which everything goes.


    TheWarriorPoet519 wrote:
    Icyshadow wrote:
    And there's the other problem, which I have been confused over as well. What is this obsession with "screen time" DMs around here seem to have? I've never seen it come up, either because I SOMEHOW manage to give everyone equal screen time, or then because nobody around the tables where I play is a manchild hungry for attention.
    Not every game is a complete kitchen sink in which everything goes.

    Did I ever claim otherwise?


    The way I play is at the beginning of a new campaign I'm running I give the player's a choice of Talora (My Homebrew) and Golarion, In Talora there is a limited number of races and classes available, because of the history and background, though if one of my players really wants to play something I will try to figure out a way to make it work, within reason. As for Golarion everything in any Paizo book is allowed, with the exception of summoners and the race creation rules in the ARG. Summoners because I personally don't like them, and the race creation rules, because I also don't like them.


    Icyshadow wrote:
    TheWarriorPoet519 wrote:
    Icyshadow wrote:
    And there's the other problem, which I have been confused over as well. What is this obsession with "screen time" DMs around here seem to have? I've never seen it come up, either because I SOMEHOW manage to give everyone equal screen time, or then because nobody around the tables where I play is a manchild hungry for attention.
    Not every game is a complete kitchen sink in which everything goes.
    Did I ever claim otherwise?

    I've gotten the impression from your posts that the job of the GM is to shoehorn whatever the player wants to play into the campaign, and that his/her preferences for how the game should work or flow should not enter into it at all. I object to the implication that the GM's own desires are invalid where all this is concerned, and that the onus is on him to make the changes. It's given me the impression that you feel that the job of the GM is never to take those preferences into account when saying "no."

    I could, of course, be mistaken in this assumption. If I am, feel free to correct me and by all means explain otherwise. That is, however, the impression your comments have left me with.

    For me personally, the paradigm sounds more exhausting than fun. As a GM, I prefer having players liking me enough that they're willing to try something else if their idea wont jive well with me, and the result will only be me getting stressed and irritated at having to work with something I don't want to work with.


    Perhaps I just am more open to outlandish ideas than you are as a DM (and willing to accomodate the players more since none of them are trying to break my game or hog all the attention), WarriorPoet. That's not meant as an offense by any means (and I apologize if I sounded arrogant), since I know next to nothing of your DM style (or your players) aside from what you have told me so far.

    And yeah, I'd have to say the assumption you were making is inaccurate. To quote myself here on the subject.

    Icyshadow wrote:
    If I really were of that "accomodate whatever I want to do" mindset, I'd demand he* start using every houserule I've had in mind along with other things, which I refuse to do because I am NOT a control freak.

    * = The DM I have mentioned earlier


    Icyshadow wrote:

    Perhaps I just am more open to outlandish ideas than you are as a DM (and willing to accomodate the players more since none of them are trying to break my game or hog all the attention), WarriorPoet. That's not meant as an offense by any means (and I apologize if I sounded arrogant), since I know next to nothing of your DM style (or your players) aside from what you have told me so far.

    And yeah, I'd have to say the assumption you were making is inaccurate. To quote myself here on the subject.

    Icyshadow wrote:
    If I really were of that "accomodate whatever I want to do" mindset, I'd demand he* start using every houserule I've had in mind along with other things, which I refuse to do because I am NOT a control freak.
    * = The DM I have mentioned earlier

    I can respect that. I missed your earlier post, sorry.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Icyshadow wrote:

    And there's the other problem, which I have been confused over as well. What is this obsession with "screen time" DMs around here seem to have? I've never seen it come up, either because I SOMEHOW manage to give everyone equal screen time, or then because nobody around the tables where I play is a manchild hungry for attention.

    TheWarriorPoet519 wrote:
    Why is the default assumption "The GM's job is to accommodate whatever I want to do," rather than "the GM's job is to balance the desires and playstyles of the group so that everyone has fun?"
    What I want is in no way negatively affecting the rest of the group. D&D (and Pathfinder by extension) is a group game, and this should be taken into account. What should the DM do if suddenly all the other players decide to take my side and say "let him play the character concept he's been wanting to play for so long, or we all leave" to him? Should he still have his way, or should he be able to compromise a bit like I think he should? If I really were of that "accomodate whatever I want to do" mindset, I'd demand he start using every houserule I've had in mind along with other things, which I refuse to do because I am NOT a control freak.

    To be fair, if any player or group of players said "I/they play this concept or I/walk," I would seriously reconsider the maturity levels of the players I had and let them run their own game. I'm very accommodating and I will work with a player and compromise to allow their concept to come to life. I respect my player's want to play a cool character and I'm blessed that my players respect when I either say no or give options that are similar and would fit with the setting better. But I do not like being strong-armed into allowing anything nor would I do that to a GM. It just isn't right.


    Many of my group share the same tastes for gritty low-magic high-consequence fantasy. Their fun is impacted when their weirdness-threshold is hit, as they can't take anything seriously that also includes stuff like common or PC high level spell casters, or any sort of anthropomorphic animals.

    We let fellow players know if they want to do that sort of stuff, they should run the game and/or find players that want to do that. When they want to run or play games in our style, we're happy to game with them.

    Some people are good at improvising, which can make GM'ing much easier. For those that are not, we have to substitute with much more prep work. Also, I've found that what little respect most GM's gain is due more to the fact that they're GM'ing at all than for any actual appreciation of their work or talent.


    @Odraude

    I don't think one should go for the ad hominem approach of "you're just childish" in that case*. From my point of view, the DM was the one strong-arming me, and completely unwilling to compromise. And like I said, this is a group game. If I were the DM and the three other players at the table got mad at me for singling a guy out, I would definitely apologize and try to reach a compromise rather than whine at them. It's not about being strong-armed, it's about accepting the fact that you were an uncompromising and arbitrary dictator, and just happened to be called out on it.

    Then again, a majority of people hate to admit they were ever wrong about anything...

    * = A lot of times when someone has tried to use calling the opposing side childish as an argument, it's only proven the one doing so is the more childish one in the room.


    Icyshadow wrote:

    @Odraude

    I don't think one should go for the ad hominem approach of "you're just childish" in that case. From my point of view, the DM was the one strong-arming me, and completely unwilling to compromise. And like I said, this is a group game. If I were the DM and the three other players at the table got mad at me for singling a guy out, I would definitely apologize and try to reach a compromise. It's not about being strong-armed, it's about accepting the fact that you were an uncompromising and arbitrary dictator, and just happened to be called out on it.

    In my years of GMing, I have allowed and disallowed many concepts and almost everyone has be alright with it. I never singled out anyone. I always tried to fit a concept in and compromise between myself and the player equally. I try to be polite and encouraging and do my damndest to be the anti-thesis of a tyrannical GM that I myself have encountered often in my youth. Recent example is a player that wanted to play a more Dwarf Fortress-inspired Dwarf. We talked and I was cool with the majority of it, but I simply asked him to tone down the blind xenophobia a bit for the game. We came to an accord and we are both having fun.

    I would also let every player know ahead of time (before character creation) what was allowed and what wasn't and include the reason. When I said that there would be no firearms and Gunslinger, people were okay with it. When I didn't allow Drow a couple of years back, no one complained and we all had a great time in that game. When I played in a Rome/Gaul-inspired Pathfinder setting that was humans and half orcs only, I was okay with not being able to play an elf concept I had and simply made a really cool human druid. I had fun, even if I wasn't an elf.

    I'm okay with making compromises as a player and as a GM and feel that one side should have to sacrifice more than the other. It's a mutual system that has both sides working together to make sure everyone has fun. That's why I have never had an entire group of people turn around and threaten to walk out on me because I did not allow one person's concept. I do my best to compromise with players and allow quite a bit, and if (big if) that kind of action happened, I would feel flat out insulted and fairly mad. I am no dictator GM and for someone to call me that and threaten me is something I don't suffer.

    The only time someone has ever threatened to walk was when I first got into 3.5. I was only allowing core stuff because I was still new to the game and very new to GMing. My handle on the rules at the time was minimal so I just wanted it to be easier on myself instead of memorizing all the splat books. I made sure everyone knew that before hand. One player decided instead that he would bring a drow soulknife into the group. I didn't even have the book on psionics nor did I understand the rules for monsters as characters (at the time, I didn't even know what the f&!* drow were), so I emailed him and politely asked him to reconsider a new character. When game day came, he came in and slammed his notebook near me, saying his drow soulknife is in there and he's playing it. I told him that I was just allowing core and to please reconsider the character. Finally, he came out and said that if I didn't allow it, he'd leave the game and make me walk home. He was my ride home since I was a teenager and if you know the distance from Summerville to Charleston, you'll understand that walking was out of the question. I allowed it and did the best I could, but the entire game he was disruptive, treating NPCs and the other players terribly in the stereotypical "Chaotic Stupid" fashion. At the end of the game, nobody had fun and my first game fell apart quickly.

    This is why I am very careful at what kind of person I allow in my game and I do my best to show respect both to players and to GMs. It is also why I will not suffer tyrannical GMs nor petulant players.


    Odraude wrote:
    In my years of GMing, I have allowed and disallowed many concepts and almost everyone has be alright with it. I never singled out anyone. I always tried to fit a concept in and compromise between myself and the player equally. I try to be polite and encouraging and do my damnest to be the anti-thesis of a tyrannical GM that I myself have encountered often in my youth...

    ...and for that, you get my respect. Though out of curiosity, if you managed to read up on that race idea of mine that seems so controversial when it comes to that one DM, would you allow it in your gaming table? I ask out of mere curiosity.

    Odraude wrote:
    I told him that I was just allowing core and to please reconsider the character. Finally, he came out and said that if I didn't allow it, he'd leave the game and make me walk home. He was my ride home since I was a teenager and if you know the distance from Summerville to Charleston, you'll understand that walking was out of the question. I allowed it and did the best I could, but the entire game he was disruptive, treating NPCs and the other players terribly in the stereotypical "Chaotic Stupid" fashion. At the end of the game, nobody had fun and my first game fell apart quickly.

    I'm really sorry to hear about that. Though I'd have to say this guy went to more than just being a self-entitled arse. He basically blackmailed you to accepting his terms, and that's crossing the line twice, if not thrice. And if I had been you, I would have gotten my revenge on him for such, one way or another. >_>


    Then theres just beoing high level, which should under most circumstances be atleast as bad as that flaming half-demon lizardman.

    Just being a xmastree of magical items gathers both beggars and the village toughs with 2 levels of warrior that want to duel you to death. You either beat them to pulp, and take the consequences, allow them to beat you up (and probly get looted in the process). But even a severe beating will still just gather more of them, as they will brag about losing to this uber-godling who can slay dragons.

    On top of that expect more difficult cases of being asked to ressurrect a mom, heal a horse, remove big rocks from the farmland and find lost objects. Oh and please give all of us a gold piece a day, look how poor we are! You can sell that intelligent vorpal greatsword of thundering+5, just imagine how many orphans youll save, and you are still better than me with a regular sword!

    Wizards are smart living in towers far away from "civilization" :D


    Quote:
    ...and for that, you get my respect. Though out of curiosity, if you managed to read up on that race idea of mine that seems so controversial when it comes to that one DM, would you allow it in your gaming table? I ask out of mere curiosity.

    I get the impression the player wants the race to matter greatly. I believe I read back there that the race was just a concept skin over a standard races stats. in that case there is no real mechanical reason to disallow the race. however if the player insists on this race i would assume that the player wants the race itself and the back story created for the race to be important to the story line and plot of the game and not simply a meaningless word on the character sheet.

    Ultimately my yes or no would come down to this. Can I incorporate the character back story into the game in a way that adds to the over all experience and does not lessen the fun for other players.

    to be honest this would mostly depend on the player and not the race.

    The Exchange

    blue_the_wolf wrote:
    Quote:
    ...and for that, you get my respect. Though out of curiosity, if you managed to read up on that race idea of mine that seems so controversial when it comes to that one DM, would you allow it in your gaming table? I ask out of mere curiosity.

    I get the impression the player wants the race to matter greatly. I believe I read back there that the race was just a concept skin over a standard races stats. in that case there is no real mechanical reason to disallow the race. however if the player insists on this race i would assume that the player wants the race itself and the back story created for the race to be important to the story line and plot of the game and not simply a meaningless word on the character sheet.

    Ultimately my yes or no would come down to this. Can I incorporate the character back story into the game in a way that adds to the over all experience and does not lessen the fun for other players.

    to be honest this would mostly depend on the player and not the race.

    good answer, and i would add that even if i allowed one of a homemade race does not mean that they are going to be fully integrated and something you will see many or any more of and you will be seen as an oddity at best.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    blue_the_wolf wrote:


    Ultimately my yes or no would come down to this. Can I incorporate the character back story into the game in a way that adds to the over all experience and does not lessen the fun for other players.

    This is pretty close to my own feelings on the matter as well.

    So much of this discussion seems to be a matter of a GM not knowing how to constructively redirect a character to something that works for his campaign as opposed just saying outright saying "no".

    Generally "no" is usually the wrong answer for any GM in my opinion, but a good GM when confronted with the situation will try to redirect the player to a more suited path while still salvaging the character's core concepts(I don't mean anything mechanical, just finding the heart of what the player is actually after). Then both sides have to compromise, compromise, compromise!

    I've found that more often than not, sticking points like these are able to be walked away from with both sides getting what they wanted(Girl with Horns!/Unaltered Setting!) with only a few changes required of both parties to facilitate it. Certain settings come with certain expectations so I won't speak for all of them, but since this is a Pathfinder/D&D esque setting we are most likely discussing here, that is my thoughts on that.

    Now for the on topic discussion:

    As a GM I feel like my responsibility is to portray a consistent setting for my players to RP in. Societies tend to reject things that break away from the established status quo, so I tend to think it is best to portray that as best as possible in my games.

    'Acceptance' as a is something fringe elements need to work for, often times only gained at the individual level. Looking like an giant undead unicorn that shoots spiders from the bloody stump of a horn you once had, is probably not ever going to earn the hand of the Mayors daughter or be given the keys to the city. Could it happen, yes? Is it likely, probably not unless Zombarachnocorns are a particularly common thing in your setting.

    As long as you are consistent in your reactions and warn any players in advance that are playing their 'exotic' concept of what they should expect when they walk into town you are probably on the right track.

    Silver Crusade

    Asurasan wrote:
    'Acceptance' as a is something fringe elements need to work for, often times only gained at the individual level. Looking like an giant undead unicorn that shoots spiders from the bloody stump of a horn you once had, is probably not ever going to earn the hand of the Mayors daughter or be given the keys to the city. Could it happen, yes? Is it likely, probably not unless Zombarachnocorns are a particularly...

    These are statted up and available as mounts further down the line in Jade Regent, right?


    Icyshadow wrote:
    Your statement is elitist in nature, and I hope you take it back.

    Don't understand how favouring the good over the bad is considered a bad thing.

    Back to the original point - the campaign theme comes first. All viking campaign with no "out-there" classes? Okidoki... constraint begets creativity.


    Special Snowflake Syndrome isn't really confined to races (though that seems to be the most common example).

    It tends to involve a player, who for whatever reason, just isn't on board with the concept of the game. Usually this is because the right conversations have not been had and the GM hasnt clearly explained their creative agendas or themes.

    An example from my own experience-

    Picture a gritty game set on the border of two warring countries, a sort of no-man's land where the party ended up precisely because they were untrustworthy people with hidden agendas.

    Enter a player who had recently discovered that "performance" was (in the 3.0 days) so loosely defined as to include nearly any artistic expression.

    So, in a group of outcasts, misfits and net-do-wells, where a Drow might have fit in perfectly, the human bard who's performance medium was Painting was a simply terrible fit.

    It wasn't that the concept was uncreative or "bad".

    It was that it just didn't fit the game.

    And when the bard had an easel strapped to the back of a Kobold slave so he could paint mid-fight to give us all bonuses, the game completely fell apart.

    The bottom line is, if your character requires a shoehorn to fit into the game, maybe you're better off picking something else. Save the oddball for the games where they fit.

    Silver Crusade

    Doomed Hero wrote:

    Enter a player who had recently discovered that "performance" was (in the 3.0 days) so loosely defined as to include nearly any artistic expression.

    So, in a group of outcasts, misfits and net-do-wells, where a Drow might have fit in perfectly, the human bard who's performance medium was Painting was a simply terrible fit.

    It wasn't that the concept was uncreative or "bad".

    It was that it just didn't fit the game.

    And when the bard had an easel strapped to the back of a Kobold slave so he could paint mid-fight to give us all bonuses, the game completely fell apart.

    Please tell me that he looked like Bob Ross and had a supernaturally compelling soothing voice.

    101 to 150 of 198 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / As GM how do you RP unusual characters and abilities in game? All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.