And here is the real problem. You are an elitist.
You are the one telling me I have to allow your concept into the game, I am the elitist.
You are the one ordering me to accept your playstyle, and I am elitist.
Because of course, you are the victim.
Says the guy claiming any campaign world that isn't like yours is a half-assed and jumbled mess of excuses and Deus Ex Machina.
Also, I've noticed a trend of when you can't actually answer what I've said, you insult me personally and then say I'm saying things I'm not actually saying (I'm still waiting for your to cite a post by the way)
I just thought I would point it out to you, in case you didn't notice.
Since you do the exact same things, I doubt anyone is going to care at this point whether I cite anything or not.
|
Icy has said in other threads (correct me if I am wrong) that he almost always plays custom races.
Which is cool if that is what he and his GM like.
But what isn't cool is that Icy is now upset because some people don't want to allow that in the games they are running. He seems to think that makes those people elitist.
Context matters, I think.
|
|
Since you do the exact same things, I doubt anyone is going to care at this point whether I cite anything or not.Also, I've noticed a trend of when you can't actually answer what I've said, you insult me personally and then say I'm saying things I'm not actually saying (I'm still waiting for your to cite a post by the way)
I just thought I would point it out to you, in case you didn't notice.
"I know you are but what am I" isn't really that strong a comeback. I guess I could go with "You are rubber..."
If I as a GM say I want to run a game, and players are interested in running that game, it is not any of your buisness what I allow or don't allow in that game.
It is not "spiteful" to say I want to run a certain type or style of game that doesn't include any concept I choose.
You have no right to tell me I have to run what you want to run, and I have no right to tell you that you have to run what I want to run.
Period.
Ciretose, I have said to you, directly, that so far I have played Core and custom races in equal amounts.
My track record so far is Half-Elf, Human, Changeling, Human, Custom Race. Three Core and two custom so far in 3e / PF.
What you said in regards to more "open" campaign worlds reeked of elitism. Nobody else has made such claims, and thus are not accused of anything.
Mind you, this wasn't the only campaign we ever played. This game you play a halfling. Next game you play something else. Maybe the next game is an entirely different game system where you play something that you couldn't play in PF at all. You can't make use of all the options in any one game anyway.
What do you think about published settings that change things or restrict things in the default rules? Dark Sun, Dragonlance, Eberron all restricted various things. Does that make them narrow-minded uncreative settings? Some added things that weren't in the original more generic settings. Is that now an unacceptable restriction?
My former DM seemed to deliberately set his campaigns in a "Core only" direction after that one time I asked to play a custom race, till he almost wanted us to go Human Only. He then proceeded to lower it from normal magic to low magic as well, but I blame his love for Game of Thrones for that.
As for my opinion? No, they are not uncreative. Of course I'd have fun playing a custom race in those settings due to tying their backstory into some of them (in Eberron at least), but if a DM wants me to play something tied to the setting instead I'd be just as happy playing a Warforged or Kalashtar. Now that I think of it, did Aasimar and Tieflings even exist in Eberron? I am pretty sure they don't exist in Dark Sun at the very least.
Actually, I might have missed a few.
3.5e with former DM, switched to Pathfinder. Half-Elf Cleric.
3.5e with houserules, best DM (and campaign) ever. Human Samurai.
Pathfinder with former DM, low fantasy. Human Wizard.
Pathfinder with former DM, Council of Thieves. Changeling Sorcerer.
Pathfinder with current group, Kingmaker. I was the DM.
Pathfinder with current group, Warhammer inspired. Human Paladin.
Pathfinder with current group, Planescape inspired. Custom Race Cleric.
Pathfinder with current group, Kingmaker. Custom Race Monk, DM PC.
That's eight times in total. So, what exactly does this information help you with?
Well at one time in our history somebody invented guns. So how is it far fetched that it could happen in a fantasy setting?
While I don't know this for certain, I'm fairly confident that the guy who invented guns in our history wasn't an adventuring gunslinger at the time.
If you want to play an Expert who stays at home for years, just so your next character can be the world's first gunslinger... well, that's what I call dedication to your character concept. :p
|
|
So you've played in a total of 7 games, two of them with custom races and one with a non-core. Three of them with the GM whom I assume one of them was the one you ragequit?
3 with a GM who you felt hamstrung you included non-custom races, (although he allowed the changeling sorcerer...which makes sense for that AP), and you walked away from that table (followed by other later you say, in your defense)
3 with "Current Group" GM, two of which were custom races and one was a warhammer inspired group with a Paladin (That I'm curious about)
And one with a human samurai in a homebrew.
And with that experience, you want to tell me that my gaming group is elitist because we let the GM decide what is allowed in the game we agreed to let them run.
Because you know better than we do. With your 7 games of experience, 3 of which involving a table you had to leave.
But I am elitist.
Interesting.
EDIT: And I think you added.
And you have GM'ed once. In Kingmaker, which is the sandbox AP.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lack of Gunpowder? guess i will invent it and develop the setting's first functioning firearms.
And here's an example of player entitlement at its worst.
The Game Master just said "no" to my concept? Well, that's all right, then, as I will just try to passive-aggressively sneak it in through in game play, focusing all-to-valuable playing time to be about MeMeMeMeMe and my quest to break the game.
The Game Master said no gunslingers? Well, I'll just invent one and demand he reshape the world.
The Game Master said no antipaladins? No problem, I'll just create a Paladin and then deliberately fall at the first opportunity.
The Game Master said no furries? No problem, I'll just use some of my starting gold for a scroll of Polymorph and of Permanence.
Because I can't simply chance my concept gracefully. No, I have to LIE to the game master and the rest of the group to make it happen.
And with that experience, you want to tell me that my gaming group is elitist because we let the GM decide what is allowed in the game we agreed to let them run.
Because you know better than we do. With your 7 games of experience, 3 of which involving a table you had to leave.
But I am elitist.
Interesting.
My level of experience is not what I draw upon when I said you sounded elitist with your claims.
Again, it is what you specifically claimed about the kind of campaigns I happen to like what provoked this response.
Could you go and read again what you wrote? I am pretty sure you are able to see why I am not amused by it if you think about it.
You call it crammed in to a niche, we call it creating a world that makes sense so that we can all actually play what we created rather than constantly having to throw up deus machina to create excuses and reasons that a random group of PC's would stick together to do things.
What I see here is "Your world is a jumbled and lazily executed mess of excuses and Deus Ex Machina that somehow holds on the rails by a miracle".
Are you saying this is NOT what you said?| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a Kitsune Ninja automatically throws your campaign off the rails you might want to think about getting better rails, just my 2 cents.
If my rock breaks your window, obviously it's your fault for having bad windows.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a Kitsune Ninja automatically throws your campaign off the rails you might want to think about getting better rails, just my 2 cents.If my rock breaks your window, obviously it's your fault for having bad windows.
And if you are ready to use such heavy metaphors for a thing that can be talked out with the players as a justification for heavy-handed smiting, you're probably better off writing down your own story with pre-determined NPCs instead of trying to weave interactive gaming at a table with people who you obviously cannot co-operate with since even one deviation from your perfect blueprints is going to drive you to a murderous rampage.
Again, it is narrow minded to say "I don't want kitsune PC's in this campaign" but it is open-minded to only have one possible concept you are willing to play...Implying this was the only concept a player might have.
Please, quote correctly, and don't misrepresent.
The key phrase above is highlighted. I don't believe that anyone has only one concept, and if they do, ten minutes on YouTube will cure that. ("Here, why don't you play Aragorn instead? Or Gimli? Or Sam?")
The problem we're discussing is when a player is unwilling to play any other concept, to the point (as expressed earlier), that they will invent a game-breaking concept during play just to make sure they can play this special concept.
One DM might see that as bothersome, another might applaud the cleverness of the player.
The DM whom my former DM was playing with was the latter. Seems the former wants to be heard here.
And really, what if the other three players at the table ask the DM to let their friend have his fun as well with the concept?
Highlighting the word ask.
Asking =/= Demanding.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And really, what if the other three players at the table ask the DM to let their friend have his fun as well with the concept?
Are you REALLY going to continue to ignore the multitude of times this has been answered?
The GM can only GM if the players are willing to let him/her. If all of the players feel so strongly about said concept that the GM refuses to entertain, then they have the power to do something about it. Exercise that power, and stop playing the victim.
You call it crammed in to a niche, we call it creating a world that makes sense so that we can all actually play what we created rather than constantly having to throw up deus machina to create excuses and reasons that a random group of PC's would stick together to do things.What I see here is "Your world is a jumbled and lazily executed mess of excuses and Deus Ex Machina that somehow holds on the rails by a miracle".
Are you saying this is NOT what you said?
If he's not saying that, I am. That is not what he said.
One key issue -- TvTropes even lists it -- plaguing many RPG campaigns is the jumbled nature of the adventuring party. I want to play an elf rogue, Steven wants to play a tiefling illusionist, Randy wants to play a ninja catgirl, and Chris doesn't care and is just there for the beer and companionship (and so ends up playing the tank).
Compare that with the Lord of the Rings; the initial adventuring party are three cousins who grew up together, along with the manservant of one of them. They've known each other for years, are practically brothers, and can read each other like books. We know why they're together. We also understand (roughly) what their background is, and we know that it doesn't include space pirate amazon ninja catgirls, because they basically have lived for centuries on the set of Pride and Prejudice. Even "the Big Folk" are strange and scary at first.....
Even look at comic books. Consider the thematic composition of the Fantastic Four; we have fire, air, earth, and water represented in the key players That group didn't just happen to meet in a bar; they were designed as a group to make sure they were an interesting collection of characters and powers. (Thank you, Mr. Lee.)
What holds the average adventuring party together? Well, not a miracle. But essentially a willing suspension of disbelief about the sort of relationships that people have with each other. In the interests of the game, the players are willing to pretend that it makes sense for me to meet with a group of rag-tag losers in a tavern, to take a job from a scary-looking stranger, and to risk life and limb for people that two hours ago wouldn't have gotten a free drink.
That's not lazily-executed; it takes a lot of work to overlook that. But when a game master says that he doesn't want to overlook that and he wants to try a bunch of characters that make sense as a group, with realistic joint background, all of a sudden he's an elitist? All of a sudden he's limiting your creativity?
Huh, thought someone with a green avatar said something to me. Must be my imagination.
@thejeff
Would you say that you might change your mind about things if the player doesn't push the issue, despite really wanting to play that concept at that given part?
Just asking since my former DM always said maybe when he meant to say no.
@Orfamay
I don't remember how Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli met exactly (been ages since I read LotR) just to use your example, but the latter two surely had to take time before they could tolerate each other and later become friends. And just because your characters in a given D&D group differ in race and class doesn't mean their backstories cannot be linked. Hell, the Human and Dwarf in the Kingmaker I ran were two fellow mercenaries. If they had been two custom race people they still would have been battle buddies.
What you have a problem with is lazy players who can't do a proper backstory and work with their DM to do so. However, you seem to direct it at the setting instead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My group must be the odd group out here. We don't create our charcters in a vacuum, then hold the character sheets like we're playing Texas Hold 'Em, daring the GM to find a way to get us to work together.
We share our concepts with each other and the GM, and we work to find a scenario that makes sense we would be adventuring together.
We don;t want to be a burden on our GM, we know that making things a pain for him lessens his fun, and thereby lessens ours.
My group must be the odd group out here. We don't create our charcters in a vacuum, then hold the character sheets like we're playing Texas Hold 'Em, daring the GM to find a way to get us to work together.
We share our concepts with each other and the GM, and we work to find a scenario that makes sense we would be adventuring together.
We don;t want to be a burden on our GM, we know that making things a pain for him lessens his fun, and thereby lessens ours.
Then that makes two of us. How else would we know when a Paladin isn't okay to make?
Maybe we should inform our fellow player that the group is leaning to Chaotic Neutral as a whole!
My group must be the odd group out here. We don't create our charcters in a vacuum, then hold the character sheets like we're playing Texas Hold 'Em, daring the GM to find a way to get us to work together.
We share our concepts with each other and the GM, and we work to find a scenario that makes sense we would be adventuring together.
We don;t want to be a burden on our GM, we know that making things a pain for him lessens his fun, and thereby lessens ours.
Does this "not being a burden" include "trying to invent gunpowder if the GM says that Gunslingers aren't allowed"?
What you have a problem with is lazy players who can't do a proper backstory and work with their DM to do so.
That is it, exactly. I have a problem with players who can't do a proper backstory (including taking into account the backstory elements that the GM has given to them, including things like race and class restrictions) and who can't work with their GM to do so (and insist that the GM must modify the entire campaign to allow for the ramifications of gunpowder in the Shire).
The problem is, as you point out, with the players. The GM is doing nothing wrong by saying "there is no gunpowder in the Shire and hence no gunslingers"; there's no need to to make any further statement.
Actually, the GM was unnecessarily loquatious. All that really needed to be said was "no gunslingers." There might have actually been gunpowder in the Shire; we know that Saruman, an evil supernatural wizard, had access to some explosive devilry. This means that the statement "there is no gunpowder in the Shire" might actually have been false, but you still don't get to play a gunslinger. Once that statement has been made, you have two choices.
* Not play a gunslinger
* Not play
I totally disagree. Samurai and Ninja are classes that evolved the way they did BECAUSE of their cultural and regional histories. That's why Japan had Samurai, Western Europe had Knights, and Eastern Europe developed Cossacks. The fluff of a class is an inherent part of it, not just a wrapper to be taken off and discarded at whim. Simmiarly the word Assassin was originally tied to a specific cult of murder for hire.
It may depend on why you want to play a ninja, and this is where some of the communication issues can come in. Ninja's in some senses a bad example, because, as far as I can tell, there are only really two differences between a ninja and a rogue : the ninja tricks (into which category I lump ki) and the black-pyjama fluff. And since rogues can get the ninja tricks, the only reason to demand a ninja is for the fluff.
Having said that, some of the ninja tricks themselves are more eastern than others; it should not cause any problems if someone wanted to play a character from the Land of the Linnorm Kings that threw poisonous smoke bombs.
But I agree -- a samurai without the social structure of Japan behind him is pretty lame. At best, why aren't you just playing a cavalier?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never knew this concept of 'player entitlement' was such an issue. (I opened this thread today since one of the mods locked a similar one yesterday).
The GM's job is to create the setting. That includes details like places, people, and mood. If the GM says 'this new setting is a shattered universe where all the gods were killed in a godwar - no cleric PCs allowed' - my players would nod and start coming up with ideas.
If the GM says 'the party will consist of elves in the service to the local lord' - the players nod and start rolling dice.
If the GM says 'allowed races in this fantasy setting are humans, elves dwarves, and tabby cats' - NEVER would I expect a player to complain and say 'I demand to play a samsaran gunslinger!!!' The tone of the setting is created by the GM. If a race or a class or a rule isn't compatible with this tone, it simply amazes me that someone would say 'ok, I'll just invent gunpowder!!'
I commonly restrict races, restrict classes, etc because the GM's job is to create that setting, develop that tone, and try to establish that feeling of uniqueness to the game.
Well, usually a player won't demand anything. In fact I've never in my life seen someone demand to play something. Ask for compromise sure, such as "Hey, clerics don't always need a diety. Can I play a cleric of the ideal of matronage and love?" Sometimes that works out pretty well really. If the guy then says "Oh, but I really believe its powers from Shelyn" and the GM says no, the guy needs to accept it. What happens is one side of the argument has thin ice before they have a cut off and they think even asking why and expecting a response is someone being "entitled!" Its a label that gets used as an excuse to mistreat people at a certain point.
Compromise goes a long way. Sometimes you create something really cool out of a simple idea because in compromising you create something that works with everyone with a think tank.
I totally disagree. Samurai and Ninja are classes that evolved the way they did BECAUSE of their cultural and regional histories. That's why Japan had Samurai, Western Europe had Knights, and Eastern Europe developed Cossacks. The fluff of a class is an inherent part of it, not just a wrapper to be taken off and discarded at whim. Simmiarly the word Assassin was originally tied to a specific cult of murder for hire.
Simmiarly mechanics like Ki are absolutely dependent on having a certain world view, outside of Tian, such a viewpoint is only found in very enlightened monasteries.
Unlike many reskinners here, I don't consider "fluff" to be the trivial disposable part of any class. So if my campaign is an Andoran campaign and I say that the PC's are all Andoran natives, that leaves out the Eastern classes, and severely limits access to guns
That's the problem then. You consider the book the only way to live according to what you just said. Sometimes when people think this way you see results like "Monks only come from monastaries" and "barbarians should all be stupid peoples from Germanic like tribes with anger issues". Fluff is so important it becomes a restriction on creativity. That works well with some people, but don't think badly of others for thinking otherwise. Dangerous mojo if you do that. You wouldn't think they were anything eastern if they didn't have those names...
Agree to disagree moment. Your settings are going to be very different than mine, and my characters won't usually fit in yours because I don't usually play the class as is.(My last bard is a very serious knight who puts down riots. No performing of any kind needed.) That's okay though. Just don't enforce your opinion as an absolute.
I totally disagree. Samurai and Ninja are classes that evolved the way they did BECAUSE of their cultural and regional histories. That's why Japan had Samurai, Western Europe had Knights, and Eastern Europe developed Cossacks. The fluff of a class is an...For what it's worth I completely agree with you on this.
[rant=inbound] And therefor everyone who wants to play a samurai or ninja or tries to offer a refluffed version needs to be told no because it has the label "samurai" or "Ninja". English knights are too west to know about this whole resolution thing or know what an "Honorable stand" is. Smoke bombs are too magical, no one could ever do something like that with mundane. What is with all this high jumping in my fantasy!(actually ninja don't jump that high...) [/endrant]
I would agree, but the only thing exceedingly eastern I find in the classes is the Iajutsu which is from an archetype. The use of ki to turn invisible could easily be refluffed as hiding in the battlefield, and its actually one of the few ways to make an in combat stealth so I'm not against doing so. I'd sooner talk about banning certain tricks for being too magical and refluffing ki as a type of focus or utility belt.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The GM's only authority is that the players have agreed to give the GM authority.
When a player agrees to someone being a GM, but refuses to actually give them the authority to do the job of the GM (create the setting and adjudicate the rules) the GM is unable to do what they have been appointed to do.
If as a player you aren't going to accept the GM's ruling, what is the point of submitting a character for approval?
At that point you aren't asking for approval, but rather aquiesence.
At that point the GM has no actual authority. You have cut the legs out from under them.
This is actually where our worldviews dont meet. You say the gms authority is that the players have agreed to give him authority. At our table that presumption is in error. Even authority freely given by the players is still an illusion. Just because we agree to make a guy the gm doesnt mean he gets any authority. They have been appointed to adjucate the outcomes of the rules, but not the rules themselves. They create the setting, but the setting must conform to the classes and races the players have chosen. Their worlds are the result or product of player choices not the prewritten preimagined constraint of player choices. They have not been appointed by our table to approve or disapprove of a race or class. We don't need approval because the players, not the setting or the narrative are the campaign focus. Just happens to be a difference in playstyles, but those different playstyles create huge differences in expectations amongst narrativist gms with their special snowflake worlds and 'entitled players' with their special snowflake character concepts.
By not giving our gm any authority to begin with we mitigate the feeling that we've neutered him. You cant feel the loss of a thing which you have never been given. The presumption that the gm ever has authority over race or class selection to begin with is the illusion at our table. And we're not in a shortage of willing gms for having those policies. In the same way that authoritative gms who treasure their setting and storyline more than the players at their table is excused by the notion that 'if you dont like the way I run things find a different table" we have a table where if you don't like the way we run things you can gm a different table... Thankfully there are more than enough of both players and gms for this to not be a problem.
I wont even begin to say that a gm isnt entitled to run what he wants to run, but if its not what our players want to run then the game doesnt happen. You've agreed in at least one instance before that its more of a table vote than an individual vote, and I agree that if theres only one guy at the table who wants to run something that the rest of the table doesnt like, then the games not a 'go'... We treasure all of our players enough to want to only play the campaigns that everyone's on board with and would rather not run one that anyone at our table would be forced to bow out of, and we've never had a shortage of campaigns to run despite what might be construed as an almost impossible policy of 'not gaming unless everyones happy'... I expect your experience is the same but you view it more as an elected monarchy because your table appears to instill authority in its elected gm where ours does not, so the instance of a single dissenting vote becomes a 'too bad for you'.
Actually it's not even really true that "somebody invented guns".
It was a long slow process from the first invention of gunpowder through rockets and explosives to hand cannon to the Arquebus and finally up to what PF calls Early firearms. Gunpowder traces back to the 7th century.
What we'd call a musket seems to date from the 14th century in China and later in Europe.
That is why I would probably have it be a family goal. Your family have been working on gun powder and such for generations. I still might not allow the Gunslinger class however.
It's pretty far-fetched that some one person could do all that development in his backstory. Especially in secret so that no one else had even more primitive versions by the time he'd finished.
Who said anything about it being a secret? The family could be looked upon as a bunch of crazies. It was not like people threw away their swords and armor the moment guns were invented. It took a very long time(and the invention of rapid shooting, and rifling, and about the same number of invention to get guns in the first place) before it became the primary weapon of people and changed the world.
Now add in magic into the world...and other factors...I don't see guns suddenly becoming the be all and end all.
If the GM wants to run with the game being about the guy who invented guns and changed the world, that's great. Could be a cool game.
The game really does not have to be about that to have that as one of the characters though. It is nice though that you can see that the idea has atleast a little merit.
But using "somebody invented them" as a way to get around the GM's restriction is not a good idea.
No it is not....though asking "can I be the guy who invented them?" is not such attempt...coming to the game with a gunslinger and declaring "I am the guy who invented firearms" is defintly it.
The result of your approach is the inability for the GM to create anything unique.
From my point of view it allows a whole group of players to create something unique, including the GM. Something they all agreed on. I don't have a problem with this at all. The GM is not the only human being capable of creativity, and its very unlikely they'll shoot down all of his ideas. Ever played Fayte or used a system where the group works together in world building? Its actually a lot of fun, so long as no one gets malevolent towards others. In that case why were you playing with him in the first place...
Edit: Obviously its being done and works for Vincent and his friends.
Then what about Monks? They're not just from monasteries, they are and have always been a very Eastern influenced class. Do they get a pass on being okay in other settings because they're in the Core Rulebook?
The ki-magicians are a very Eastern-influenced class, and I'd have no problems banning them if they didn't fit in. The martial artist archetype in particular could very easily be re-skinned as a Marseille (or local equivalent) dock-fighter.
And Barbarians can only come from less civilized areas.
Pretty much by definition. Especially some of the more feral archetypes. I'd have no problem banning them if I wanted to run a Lace-and-Steel style of game.
And Cavaliers need feudal societies.
Not as much; a lot of the knightly orders survived the fall of feudalism and adapted. The Order of the Tome, for example, might very well survive today in Oxford and Cambridge. The Order of the Dragon could be a modern mercenary company.
Druids only come from Northern European pre-Roman analogues.
Nature worship is universal. I could easily re-skin a druid as a Navajo shaman and skinwalker.
Bard is also a very specific cultural tradition, but I'm not sure it has a lot to do with the modern class.
Bard is very culturally specific, but entertainers and orators are universal. A goliard is a bard, as is a cyberpunk Rockerboy.
Why are we putting this much work on the GM, though? If the group wants to do something a little different, based on Navajo legend instead of Celtic high fantasy, why are we turning around and trying to fit Celtic and Oriental archetypes into it? Why not play the Navajo stuff straight up?
And if we're really trying to do Navajo stuff straight up, I'm not just going to ban the Cavalier and the Gunslinger. I'll also ban half of the equipment list as simply inappropriate.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The result of your approach is the inability for the GM to create anything unique.
A gm that cannot create a unique setting based on the freedom of choice of the players doesnt get much footing at our table. Thankfully our table's gms have never failed to be up to the task, but to presume that its impossible is to ignore the existance of our smoothly running table. The smooth running and long lived existance of our table refutes your presumption.
Thats not to say that our tables style doesnt rule out games/settings that authoritative restrictive stalinist special snowflake gms like to create, but our table sees this as a good thing, because no matter what we end up playing, everyone at the table is on board including the gm and all the players. If even one person isnt on board with the idea, it doesnt happen. Thats entitlement at least everyone at our table seems to be able to live with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Consider this example:1) I want to run Dark Sun (or SpellJammer or whatever other oddball campaign comes to mind)
2) your players demand to be able to play any race/class/variantHow can these 2 coexist?
Pretty easily, in my view. As the DM, I'd swap out "core" Dark Sun races for whatever races the players end up choosing, and refluff some of the class descriptives to match the setting, and we all get to play. Or, if the players didn't want to play Dark Sun to begin with, I wouldn't be saying "well, that's all I'm running and refuse to consider modifications or other alternatives, so take it or leave it!"
Now, I understand that many GMs are very rigid in their settings, and refuse to allow anything to "ruin their fun." And they still get players, because a lot of people aren't too choosy, they just want to play the game. Personally, I stay away from those people, as do a lot of others, but whatever -- there's room in the hobby for all of us, as long as we learn to recognize one another and stay clear of each other's games.
Who decides if a concept is a 'special snowflake'?
There are no snowflakes. Either the whole table likes your concept or the campaign doesnt go.
Can I bring my 'special snowflake' snowflake in, no matter how it screws with the setting or even the ongoing campaign, since players are more important than the setting or narrative? I want to play a gunslinger? Poof, there are guns even though there didn't used to be, because setting and narrative consistency aren't important.
Definitely. We dont have people coming into our campaigns in the middle of them though.
How do you avoid the 'special snowflakes'?
Any objection from anyone at the table would shut it down. If one players fun would be ruined by another player playing a gunslinger then that game never gets off the ground. Its funny to me how people thing 'god that would be insane!' but it doesn't come up, at least at our table, enough to cause any problems at all.
The gm plays the world and how it reacts to the players, which includes the npcs... He creates the story, but is restricted in creating a world where every chosen player fits or else it doesnt get off the ground.
In our tables style an entitled player is also a bad thing because if anyone at the table thinks your character concept is no good then its no good. Everyone has to be on board or someone is ruining someone else's fun.
Consider this example:
1) I want to run Dark Sun (or SpellJammer or whatever other oddball campaign comes to mind)
2) your players demand to be able to play any race/class/variantHow can these 2 coexist?
If someone at the table wants to play a race/class/variant that someone else at the table doesnt like, then that campaign wont ever be run. They literally can't coexist, so they don't. If you as a gm cant run dark sun without tieflings well then we won't be running dark sun until the guy who likes playing tieflings can think of something more dark sun appropriate to run. By the opposite token if you're ok with having tieflings in your dark sun campaign and everyone else at the table is cool with it, then the good times roll. By the third token if you like playing tieflings and someone else at the table hates tieflings then your tieflings will never get off the ground no matter what the setting.
I know it sounds like this kind of policy would stop any game from ever getting off the ground and maybe at some tables that would be true. Gaming is a collaborative thing, and if you aren't good at collaborating then you should maybe find a different hobby. Thats our view.
From my point of view it allows a whole group of players to create something unique, including the GM.
Most unique things were not designed by a committee. When everyone comes with a set of campaign elements they want to include, you tend to end up with an unfocused mess, or at worst with something like a tunafish-and-jelly sandwich, forcing completely incompatible elements together. That works well for a world design -- the whole point of Golarion is that it's large enough and varied enough to do anything in -- but it doesn't work well for a specific campaign. Campaigns need focus.
Look, for example, at the Skull and Shackles adventure path. It works well, but a large part of that is because it is very focused on pirate adventures. This makes it very problematic to play piratical paladins. It's very aquatic, which may cause serious issues with your fire-summoning wizard. It's fairly localized (the world isn't going to be saved from the invaders from the dimension of Cheese, because there are no such invaders), and much of the action is political.
And so if we're going to run Skull and Shackles, bring a character that will work in a pirate-themed game. Do not bring a character that would refuse to serve aboard a pirate ship, because it's not fair to expect the GM to throw out and rewrite on the fly 200+ pages of professional written material to accomodate your special uncooperative snowflake.
The Skull and Shackles campaign is about pirates. It's not about the plane-spanning quest to rescue Princess Toadstool that you put into your backstory, and it's not going to work well to try to incorporate that quest into what's a fairly tightly-written adventure. Especially if we have to handle not only the Princess Toadstool quest but four other classic literary themes that all need to somehow be incorporated into this single game. We can run Skull and Shackles, but we can't run four different adventure paths at once....
We're bringing up paladins now. Oh boy...
You can create unique things with a group. Saying you can't is fallacy. Referring to it as a committee instead of a group of friends out to have fun is just insulting. It obviously works, and has worked for a long time for someone. Is that a problem?