A 7 foot tall hairy beast called a Wookie? That'll never catch on. We should use a fish with a funny accent. The kids will love it!
You would be correct that using an example of wackyness thats already proven to be effective and endearing is a bit lazy on my part... Your suggestion is actually kind of a neat thought experiment that illustrates my point... I'm sure you pulled the fish idea out of your @$$ so lets see if I can be flexible and imaginative enough to do the same... so...
How could you work a fish with a funny accent into that? Tear off R2's head, replace it with a fishbowl, and inside is a hyperintelligent fish that speaks in boops and beeps and farts. Its universal translator only works one way so the fish can understand everyone around it but nobody except translation droids and (oddly) the samurai can understand it... Its skills are computer hacking and space fighter weapons and defense systems... It uses its mobile roving fishbowl platform to interface with alien aircraft technology and its even got a built in holorecording device.
One table would see that as what the fu** are you talking about. Y'all have lost your g****mn minds. I'm not running/playing that... Lets pick something else.
The other table sees that as hillarious or odd, but fundamentally not much of a change at all.
I happen to prefer the flexibility of table 2, but table 1 isnt the wrong way to do it either because if someone (player or gm) cant talk themselves into the idea that doing so could be fun for them then the idea shouldnt get off the ground.
Maybe that means the character concept youve been holding onto doesnt get to see the light of day this time around. Maybe that means your cherished long toiled on setting and plot doesnt get to come out this time around.
If hanging on too tight to either one of those ruins the fun of someone else at the table then its either time go get some flexibility, let go, or get gone.
Because the fun of each and every person at the table trumps every unique snowflake idea at the table until the table can learn to tolerate or develop flexibility with unique snowflake players and settings and plots.
A 7 foot tall hairy beast called a Wookie? That'll never catch on. We should use a fish with a funny accent. The kids will love it!Using George Lucas as an example of story-writing really doesn't help your case. He painted himself into a corner with the first movie that was released, and the only way he could work out of it was to hand out Idiot Balls like an automatic pitching machine.
Erm... I was making a joke relating to jar jar that had nothing to do with the conversation at all. Why do you have to be so insulting about it?
|
Maybe in your campaigns, PC's are just things that pop out of the air ex nihilo. But if someone runs a Kitsune in such a campaign if I were running it, that means the Kitsune has to come from somewhere. PC's in my game have a background, and no I won't allow the "dimensional traveler" dodge either.He comes from the Kitsune homeland. He probably traveled by boat.
Now if they don't exist in your world, he's not gonna be there. But I already covered that.
Even if he was the Kitsune With No Name and had no background, how does that derail your ongoing campaign?
Or he doesn't because that creates a suspension of disbelief beyond what I am interested in having for this campaign, so pick something else that is more plausible in this campaign.
You say "compromise" you show "The GM must change not the player"
|
|
Erm... I was making a joke relating to jar jar that had nothing to do with the conversation at all. Why do you have to be so insulting about it?A 7 foot tall hairy beast called a Wookie? That'll never catch on. We should use a fish with a funny accent. The kids will love it!Using George Lucas as an example of story-writing really doesn't help your case. He painted himself into a corner with the first movie that was released, and the only way he could work out of it was to hand out Idiot Balls like an automatic pitching machine.
Because it is a good point.
Some players bring Jar Jar Binks to the table. And someone should have told Lucas "No"
Right. we've used the 'games as movies' or 'games as books' analogy a dozen times before in these entitlement threads. the point is that if you're writing a book there's no room for the freedom a player deserves. If you're writing a movie then its your movie about your plot and theres not enough room for the freedom a player deserves.
You're better off just writing a book or writing a movie or letting me curl up in my blanket and you can read me a bedtime story. If my character isnt what the story is about then Why make a character.
The reason the books and movies analogy breaks down is the strength of gaming is that its not shoehorned in by the story or the setting. Its malleable and collaborative. I wont say it sets gaming above movies and books, but its a different animal and treating a game like a movie or a book is neutering the thing about gaming that makes it unique and wonderful.
A director hiring actors to 'only play the roles he's written' will give him exactly the movie he wants to create, but thats not what gaming is at all.
You have a gm with a story he wants to tell, so he's setting out to hire all the oscar winning actors from all of his favorite movies, but the only people who show up to the casting call are the guys from monty python.
If you cant find the actors you're looking for you gotta stop making the movie. If you cant find the movie you want to be an actor in you arent going to be making movies. Everybody has to be on board or the movie is going to suck. Entitlement is expecting the movie to only go your (entitled gm or entitled player's) way when theres someone else at the table who doesnt want to watch that kind of movie for 10 hours every weekend.
The difference between theatre/movies, novels, and dnd is actually pretty big.
In a threater/movie production you have a producer and your actors don't get to voice their opinion usually. You pay them, and you expect them to do whatever you ask. Your producer then is breathing down your neck and quite possibly making demands that don't fit and are just terrible, but your expected to go with. The roles they play with each other vary, but a director has far more power over the actors and there is a 3rd party. So unless mom and dad are watching your game and telling you what to do... Or GM's girlfriends, I've seen that in action and it can get ugly.
Novels have no actors or human beings beyond you. You can do whatever you want. You have a viewer sure, but all the characters are yours. Do whatever you want! You do however expect someone to see the results, and sometimes you have a publisher who pushes their needs, but hey your writing.
Tabletop gaming has an unwritten social contract going on between several individuals. What that entails varies greatly between parties and people, but the gist of it is that for it to work you all have to like each other and each others ideas at least a little bit. Usually in motion the DM has a bit more say, but its not a totalitarianism by far, nor does anyone have to be there. Sometimes the DM isn't even the host. There usually are just 2 parties, but dynamics vary because this is a social setting rather than a business setting.
What about a Clint Eastwood movie directed by Christopher Nolan?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right. we've used the 'games as movies' or 'games as books' analogy a dozen times before in these entitlement threads. the point is that if you're writing a book there's no room for the freedom a player deserves. If you're writing a movie then its your movie about your plot and theres not enough room for the freedom a player deserves.
You're better off just writing a book or writing a movie or letting me curl up in my blanket and you can read me a bedtime story. If my character isnt what the story is about then Why make a character.
The reason the books and movies analogy breaks down is the strength of gaming is that its not shoehorned in by the story or the setting. Its malleable and collaborative. I wont say it sets gaming above movies and books, but its a different animal and treating a game like a movie or a book is neutering the thing about gaming that makes it unique and wonderful.
This post made me smile, and it makes up for having waded through pages and pages of ciretose and icy taking shots at each other.
Director of a movie or author of a book is an awful analogy for a DM. I don't actually have that much problem with a lot of stuff the GM-snowflake side of this debate advanced here. If humans were wiped out in the Last War and I can't play one, I may not find that ideal, but I can work with it. If the GM says no to something, and I ask about it, and his response is that I'm not entitled to a reason... well, that one might do it, but while that stance may have cropped up disconcertingly frequently, it has still not been universally embraced across the aisle of this debate.
If the GM yells CUT and makes me do a scene over till I give the response he was looking for... that is virtually guaranteed to result in rebellion if not outright secession :p
This post made me smile, and it makes up for having waded through pages and pages of ciretose and icy taking shots at each other.
Hey, I couldn't help but have fun debating this with Ciretose since Ashiel isn't around to keep him company :3
Director of a movie or author of a book is an awful analogy for a DM. I don't actually have that much problem with a lot of stuff the GM-snowflake side of this debate advanced here. If humans were wiped out in the Last War and I can't play one, I may not find that ideal, but I can work with it. If the GM says no to something, and I ask about it, and his response is that I'm not entitled to a reason... well, that one might do it, but while that stance may have cropped up disconcertingly frequently, it has still not been universally embraced across the aisle of this debate.
If the GM yells CUT and makes me do a scene over till I give the response he was looking for... that is virtually guaranteed to result in rebellion if not outright secession :p
+1
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still say the relevant analogy for GM is host of the party.
If the GM throws a crappy party, no one comes.
If the GM has a lot of rules that make people uncomfortable, no one comes.
But the GM decides who comes. They try not to invite people who won't get along with each other, they try to make sure everyone has a good time so they come back next time.
But if the host says someone is not invited, it is rude to insist on bringing them. If you really can't go to the party without that person, no harm no foul.
But it isn't your party. Assuming 4 other people are fine with the rules, a party is going to take place with or without you. And if those people are cool with that party, that party is fine.
But you don't tell the host who they have to invite. You ask.
Please don't.
I'd like today to be a good day.
I'm still not seeing how having a different race "derails your campaign". The fact that a Kitsune is in the party doesn't change your story any.There are no Ewoks in Middle Earth.
There are. They're just shaved and referred to as halflings. Theres also those underground Ewocks called dwarves. And their pointy eared cousins elves. They also have their own cousins the orcs. Theres also those savage brutes who only get by by being related to the gods sometimes, humans.
Fantasy races are fantastic!
There are no Ewoks in Middle Earth.
Ignoring the "Hobbits are shaved Ewoks" line of thinking, how do you think the story would've been altered if Sam was just a bit hairier?
I guess that makes Samwise an astromech droid and Saruman a Sith Lord?There are. They're just shaved and referred to as halflings. Theres also those underground Ewocks called dwarves. And their pointy eared cousins elves. They also have their own cousins the orcs. Theres also those savage brutes who only get by by being related to the gods sometimes, humans.
Fantasy races are fantastic!
Well more of the point was that there are fantasy races in any fantasy. There are a race of wolf men in middle earth for instance, and there are all sorts of beings that just shouldn't be such as the orcs or goblins.
Also, some Sith Lords such as Darth Nihilus cease to be whatever race they were before and may very well be similar to demons or angels, or fallen Mahir, but I feel like that's throwing this conversation WAY too far out of sanity's reach. Also far too much geekery for my standards.
Samwise is of course, not an astromech droid. To my knowledge anyway.
When the GM is trying to create a thematic setting, making the characters fit that setting is important.
A PC saying 'I'm playing a droid, but I'll just throw a cloak on him and no one in the Shire will be the wiser' misses the point of that theme.
You've changed your example again. You seem to do that a lot.
There's quite a large difference between playing another organic race (essentially a furry hobbit, as previously stated) and playing a robot (which haven't exactly been invented in Middle Earth).
And this "again) goes back to the silly comparison of book/movie plots and TRPG session plots.
They're not the same. The latter is flexible.
What... Have I begun. oh god.
And gungans, while annoying, aren't as bad as replacing eagles with space tech.
Does Athas have Halflings?
There's no effective difference between a Kender and a Halfling with kleptomania and an attraction to shiny things.
Which is my point. As long as it could conceivably exist, how does it ruin your plot?
Elves and Vulcans have functional differences, not flavor differences, which is why they wouldn't work.
In my honest opinion if "only humans exist" then you've pretty much taken all of the fantasy elements out of Pathfinder. Which is fine, I guess, but don't be surprised when people start going "So when do we fight something OTHER than a dude with some class levels?"
Elves and Vulcans have functional differences, not flavor differences, which is why they wouldn't work.
So do hobbits and ewoks. Hobbits are in many regards the highest tech and most socially advanced race in Middle Earth. The Shire is a democracy--can you name another one? Ewoks don't even work metal.
So "different society" (aka "different fluff") is "functional difference" now?
I think you guys may want to brush up on what the word "functional" means.
I don't think Aladdin has any tengu (or any ninjas).
But it does have Hashashin, I believe. Hobbits in Arthurian tales are just as easily made dwarfs.
Ya got me on Wizards in Robin Hood.
Not dwarves.
Dwarfs. "Vertically Challenged Individuals". "Little People" (though I hate that term).
Which is basically what hobbits were. Long lived short people.
And the point being that these details AREN'T important to me. Nor should they be.
Limiting mechanical options because you don't like the fluff is being needlessly restrictive. If your player wants a Rogue that doesn't suck quite as much "But it's CALLLED Ninja!" shouldn't be an issue.
|
|
There are no Ewoks in Middle Earth.Ignoring the "Hobbits are shaved Ewoks" line of thinking, how do you think the story would've been altered if Sam was just a bit hairier?
It would have been more difficult to relate to him and the world would have seemed more strange and foreign.
What is forgotten is that many people hated Ewoks as much as many people now hate Jar Jar Binks.
Yet some people (mostly children) love Jar Jar.
What it comes down to is that someone needs to decide what is or is not allow in a given game. For Vince's group, one person vetoing anything means it is out. That is a way to do it, but it wouldn't work for my group as people don't always defer to each other.
But we all agree to defer to the GM.
But we all agree to defer to the GM.
Pretty much. No one said the GM has to do something. Should maybe, but if you run into a problem where a player or GM is refusing to play someone has to go. Its usually the player unless your rotating GMs a lot. Hopefully you all reach a compromise instead. I don't think either side has a right to demand, but does have a right to respect. That's more of a thing about human beings than gaming though.
Ok, I missed what you were saying. But I still don't agree. Hobbits are a culture as well as a race. It's a mindset.
A 'dwarf' (the real life kind) is a human.
Flavor-wise YES.
FUNCTIONALLY, no.