|
Personally, my take would be that as long as you didn't pick an elf, or ask if you could build a custom race and then used the ARG to build a elf-in-everything-but-name race, you'd be fine.
If you're unsure if any of the other concepts would be too elf-y, why not just ask instead of instantly deciding that the GM is a horrible person?
"Hey, what about a half-elf?"
leads to
"Nah, elves don't exist at all"
or
"Sure, but we'll say he was raised by humans and is pretty ignorant of elven culture"
Was that hard?
A lot of this goes back to hypotheticals that probably never happen...
"No Elves"
"But wh-"
"CUZIAMTHELAW"A lot of this goes less into the "role of the DM" and people having poor social skills and lacking normal etiquette. I'd like to hear a real life story of a DM being so socially awkward that asking a simple question led to being cut off and screamed at and personally attacked.
Again, people wouldn't play with this person not because of his DMing but because he lacks normal social skills.
Why does there have to be screaming or personal attacks for the GM to be an unreasonable? Isn't that taking an extreme?
I have had a GM shout "No!" and slam the table before at something if that counts.
Personally, my take would be that as long as you didn't pick an elf, or ask if you could build a custom race and then used the ARG to build a elf-in-everything-but-name race, you'd be fine.
If you're unsure if any of the other concepts would be too elf-y, why not just ask instead of instantly deciding that the GM is a horrible person?
"Hey, what about a half-elf?"
leads to
"Nah, elves don't exist at all"
or
"Sure, but we'll say he was raised by humans and is pretty ignorant of elven culture"Was that hard?
Not hard at all -- and exactly what I was advocating.
Contrast that approach with Orfamay's "no elves" "obviously" means "no druids or rangers."
A lot of this goes less into the "role of the DM" and people having poor social skills and lacking normal etiquette. I'd like to hear a real life story of a DM being so socially awkward that asking a simple question led to being cut off and screamed at and personally attacked.
I've seen something like that happen, but it was (IMHO) more or less justified.
A player insisted that any game he played had elements of anime in it; in particular he had some strange obsession with naive robot catgirls seeking out the meaning of life. This player wasn't a bad game master, as long as you accepted that any female NPC you met had a fair chance of being a furry, a construct, and/or a furry construct -- and of course naive and seeking out the meaning of life.
But that character doesn't work well in all settings or for all stories and the player's attempt to introduce such characters into the last several games had resulted in their untimely demise as he kept trying to drag them off the rails. The next game proposed was, IIRC, a Lace-and-Steel style historical fantasy with some light elements of ritual magic. The only race allowed was humans, but different nationalities had different game stats. PC magicians were allowed but were incredibly expensive in terms of point buy; there were faerie folk but they were all NPC only (and very strange, in keeping with European fantasy, not Tolkien). Much of the campaign involved moving in a rather intricate social web and set of tangled backgrounds.
He asked to play, in order:
* A catgirl
* A kitsune
* A kitsune "who came from an undiscovered continent" and so didn't follow the rules of this one.
* An elf
* A shapeshifting wizard.
Now, ordinarily, the shapeshifting wizard would actually have been a playable character, well within the rules. In this context, the entire group basically said "right, that's it, go home," and cancelled the game. (And, no, I was not the game master for this.) As I recall, they threw the player himself out of the group less than a month later.
So, yeah, "can I play a shapeshifting wizard" is a perfectly normal, simple question. Except when it isn't. Similarly, "can I play a half-elf druid" is a perfectly normal, simple question, except when it's obviously an attempt to poke the GM into giving you a loophole and get around his restrictions.
Was he pushed to this by an annoying player? Was he having a bad day? Or was this his normal M.O.?Why does there have to be screaming or personal attacks for the GM to be an unreasonable? Isn't that taking an extreme?
I have had a GM shout "No!" and slam the table before at something if that counts.
He wasn't pushed at all, but I can't remember for the life of me what it was about. He was our usual GM and he usually took all the player's ideas as okay. Guess he just put his foot down a little harder for once.
Regardless, not the question at all, and most likely more personal than related to this conversation.
I don't see how this contradicts what I said if that was the intent. An orc could start out as an ordinary orc destined to be a warrior like the rest of his tribe..then decide he's "fancy" and becoming extraordinary and different and become a Bard.
It doesn't. But if this is supposed to be a Lord of the Rings game starting in the Shire, there's nothing ordinary about an orc. Or about an arcane casting bard, for that matter.
Isn't it also possible for the player to accommodate and just decide to play something which fits?
I would love to! But I have to actually be told in advance what "fits," then. The point of the last 16 or so pages is that the DM really has to be clear and honest with you, for that kind of stuff. Telling you nothing except "yes" or "no," for everything you ask, and then assuming you're trying to be a jerk when no clear pattern emerges, doesn't help anyone. And it might be that no pattern emerges because the DM hasn't bothered to actually think about that stuff (doing so was dismissively termed "navel-gazing" earlier); he/she just bans or approves stuff off the cuff, as whim takes him/her.
Most of the people on the thread, no matter which side of the DM/player entitlement divide, recognize the need for communication -- at least a banned list that the DM and players actually stick to. At least two people, however, are claiming that they issue no such list (on the basis of it being "obvious") and refuse to allow questions. In short, they demand that the players read their minds. And if they misread? "That's just as chance you'll have to take," I was told.
Personally, my take would be that as long as you didn't pick an elf, or ask if you could build a custom race and then used the ARG to build a elf-in-everything-but-name race, you'd be fine.
My take would be slightly different; using the ARG to build a reskinned elf would not be permitted. (On the other hand, if I meant "no half-elves" I would almost certainly have said that, so in some regards I'm more lenient).
If you're unsure if any of the other concepts would be too elf-y, why not just ask instead of instantly deciding that the GM is a horrible person?"Hey, what about a half-elf?"
leads to
"Nah, elves don't exist at all"
or
"Sure, but we'll say he was raised by humans and is pretty ignorant of elven culture"Was that hard?
It can be.
* Why not an elf?
* Elves are an NPC-only race.
* Well, how about if I'm an elf who doesn't hang out with other elves?
* No, elves are an NPC-only race.
* Well, how about an aquatic elf?
* No.
* Well, how about a drow?
* No, elves are an NPC-only race.
* Well, how about a half-elf?
* No. They don't interact with humans in that way.
* How about a human with the Adopted trait, so he was raised by elves?
At what point do you decide that you're wasting too much of the other players' time with this nonsense?
|
|
He wasn't pushed at all, but I can't remember for the life of me what it was about. He was our usual GM and he usually took all the player's ideas as okay. Guess he just put his foot down a little harder for once.
Regardless, not the question at all, and most likely more personal than related to this conversation.
Actually, that brings up another question. Let's say that there is a GM with an completely irrational hatred of, oh...catfolk. No rational reason, he just hates them.
Now, he's been your GM for the last couple of years, and he's a great GM. You didn't even know about the catfolk thing, because it's managed not to ever come up.
But you decide that for the campaign that's about to start up that you want to play a catfolk. You ask the GM if that's cool, and he says "No." He doesn't go into a rage or anything, he just says no, and that there will be no debating this.
Do you instantly stop gaming with this horrible tyrant, or do you take into account the fact that he's been a great GM for the past two years, and just work around this one quirk that he seeming has?
In short, they demand that the players read their minds.
No, I demand that you be cooperative.
Any time you interact with people, there is always the chance that you will be misunderstood. You will never be able to communicate so clearly that a willfully uncooperative player can't deliberately misinterpret you.
The solution is not to communicate better. The solution is to cooperate more.
Actually, that brings up another question. Let's say that there is a GM with an completely irrational hatred of, oh...catfolk. No rational reason, he just hates them.Now, he's been your GM for the last couple of years, and he's a great GM. You didn't even know about the catfolk thing, because it's managed not to ever come up.
But you decide that for the campaign that's about to start up that you want to play a catfolk. You ask the GM if that's cool, and he says "No." He doesn't go into a rage or anything, he just says no, and that there will be no debating this.
Do you instantly stop gaming with this horrible tyrant, or do you take into account the fact that he's been a great GM for the past two years, and just work around this one quirk that he seeming has?
I would suggest not playing a catfolk. I would further suggest not asking the GM "pretty please, can I play a catfolk," because that would just tick him off.
I would also take a step even further and suggest not playing a weretiger, or a kitsune, or a changeling-who-transforms-into-catfolk.
|
|
Personally, my take would be that as long as you didn't pick an elf, or ask if you could build a custom race and then used the ARG to build a elf-in-everything-but-name race, you'd be fine.My take would be slightly different; using the ARG to build a reskinned elf would not be permitted.
That's what I was saying, it just came out awkwardly.
elf - no
ARG "elf" - no
anything else - fine!
Any time you interact with people, there is always the chance that you will be misunderstood. You will never be able to communicate so clearly that a willfully uncooperative player can't deliberately misinterpret you. The solution is not to communicate better. The solution is to cooperate more.
OK, new player you've never met. He has no idea what you ban or don't, because you don't tell him. Likewise, you have no reason at all to assume he's "wilfilly uncooperative," because he's new to your game and presumably you wouldn't have invited him in the first place if he was a dick. Therefore, you have every reason in the world to assume that he very much wants to cooperate.
The "chance you'll be misunderstood" in this scenario starts at 100%, because you've told him nothing. You can reduce this chance by communicating more -- maybe you say "no elves" and reduce it to 50%, or maybe you say "no elves, half-elves, or rangers, and core only," and you've reduced it to near 0%. Or you can just leave it at 100% and assume he's being uncooperative when he accidently triggers one of your various red buttons. The fact that you can't get it to 0.0000000% doesn't mean you should be happy with 99% or 100%.
The stricter the cooperation you require, the clearer the guidelines need to be. If there are clear guidelines, then lack of cooperation is very clearly that -- you don't have to assume it, and you can go forward with that knowledge. Conversely, having very strong punishments for non-compliance, but then leaving the requirements for compliance unknown (or, even worse, completely arbitrary), is cruel and tyrannical no matter how you look at it.
If you're unsure if any of the other concepts would be too elf-y, why not just ask instead of instantly deciding that the GM is a horrible person?
"Hey, what about a half-elf?"
leads to
"Nah, elves don't exist at all"
or
"Sure, but we'll say he was raised by humans and is pretty ignorant of elven culture"Was that hard?
It can be.
* Why not an elf?
* Elves are an NPC-only race.
* Well, how about if I'm an elf who doesn't hang out with other elves?
* No, elves are an NPC-only race.
* Well, how about an aquatic elf?
* No.
* Well, how about a drow?
* No, elves are an NPC-only race.
* Well, how about a half-elf?
* No. They don't interact with humans in that way.
* How about a human with the Adopted trait, so he was raised by elves?
At what point do you decide that you're wasting too much of the other players' time with this nonsense?
Alternatively, with a question that actually leads somewhere, such as "Why are elves NPC only?" The questions you propose do nothing to help figure out why no elves. Half elf I'd see as meeting halfway, but if he says no its out.
In short, they demand that the players read their minds.No, I demand that you be cooperative.
Any time you interact with people, there is always the chance that you will be misunderstood. You will never be able to communicate so clearly that a willfully uncooperative player can't deliberately misinterpret you.
The solution is not to communicate better. The solution is to cooperate more.
Communication helps cooperation. How do I know what you want if we don't talk? That's why he says its mind reading. I can't just know exactly what someone wants.
But I have heard same many dumb reasons to the question of 'why you don't like x?'
-Well because some guy that was in my game once played x and he destroyed my game. Long details usualy follow that has nothing to to do with x...
-Because I allowed x in my 1st/2nd/another game system entirely and it was broken. (Usualy I get the with psionics...atleast have a educated opinion)
- Because I did not like x in some seris of novels( usualy have nothing to do with what x is in the game)
So lets say the GM gaved you one of these reasons...what would you think?
Saying 'no' and ending it there isn't necessarily 'out of line', from my view, for the GM. I probably wouldn't do it simply because it doesn't help the player create the character that DOES fit.
Well, sometimes you have to say "no" and nothing else because there's a campaign secret you need to keep. If someone wants to know why they can't play a dhampir and the answer is because your major campaign villain (and party patron) is a secret vampire but they won't find out until 8th level, you're answer does not help the overall campaign. Or if you're planning that the first encounter drops them into the elemental plane of Fire for the rest of the campaign, maybe an undine isn't the right choice, but you don't want to explain exactly why.
And sometimes "no" is the only answer they're entitled to, because they've asked variants of the same question four times and it's not going to change from the last three.
In particular, if you've asked me for an undine, an aquatic elf, a merman, a gillman, a wereshark, and a tiefling with water-related mutations,.... at some point I'm going to label you as "uncooperative." And perhaps "really clueless."
No, I demand that you be cooperative.
You know what, never mind if you communicate nothing else. This right here is a full-stop.
When you start "demanding" things of your peers in a social setting, they need to walk out. Players have no absolutely no right to demand to play certain things. They can ask, but that's all. DMs have no right to demand obedience. They can expect it, but that's all. If you can't figure out why absolute obedience from your so-called "friends" -- in either direction -- is an unreasonable expectation, then no one here can help.
Sometimes you have a twist that the group doesn't know about yet (I had a GM one time have all the world's water flow away - and suddenly we were in a desert world). The guy playing the hypothetical aquatic ranger sahagin is going to be pretty peeved at that point.
So Approach 1: Tell him that, for campaign reasons, water-based or aquatic races, bloodlines, etc. are not appropriate. He comes back with a halfling fighter and is hopefully OK, unless he's accidentally stumbled onto another secret ban.
Approach 2: Tell him nothing until he asks to play an aquatic ranger. Then say "no," and keep a poker face. When he asks to play an undine sorcerer, kick him out of the game. What fun!
Actually, that brings up another question. Let's say that there is a GM with an completely irrational hatred of, oh...catfolk. No rational reason, he just hates them.
Now, he's been your GM for the last couple of years, and he's a great GM. You didn't even know about the catfolk thing, because it's managed not to ever come up.
But you decide that for the campaign that's about to start up that you want to play a catfolk. You ask the GM if that's cool, and he says "No." He doesn't go into a rage or anything, he just says no, and that there will be no debating this.
Do you instantly stop gaming with this horrible tyrant, or do you take into account the fact that he's been a great GM for the past two years, and just work around this one quirk that he seeming has?
Oddly enough this GM has many werewolf and catfolk NPCs and doesn't like furries as far as I know, so this doesn't come up. As an example one time I wanted to play a goliath warblade for a pirate adventure who jumped from ship to ship smashing things. He wasn't a big fan of it, so I asked why and he said he wanted it to be more normal because most of his campaigns lately felt too crazy. I didn't say he was a tyrant, I just asked him why and moved onto to make a human barbarian pirate for the time. He gave me a reason.
If he just says no I'm going to ask why. If he says there is no debating I'm going to still be curious. Its not debating to ask why. Its wondering what's wrong and how to help it.
we went over this pages ago. you not agreeing with the DM doesn't mean your opinion is so amazing that you should argue with him for 3 hours. He's the arbitrator that was chosen so his opinions carry more weight regardless of whether you love all of them or not.
No one said anything about arguing for 3 hours or that their opinion was so amazing they had to argue it.
No, I demand that you be cooperative.You know what, never mind if you communicate nothing else. This right here is a full-stop.
When you start "demanding" things of your peers in a social setting, they need to walk out. Players have no absolutely no right to demand to play certain things. They can ask, but that's all. DMs have no right to demand obedience. They can expect it, but that's all. If you can't figure out why absolute obedience from your so-called "friends" -- in either direction -- is an unreasonable expectation, then no one here can help.
Not true. I demand a piece of 6-cheese pizza (especially since I and roommate paid for it.) I demand you not bring your niece (our apartment is no place for children.) The point is I demand things from my players all the time, and it's not "an unreasonable expectation".
(Edited for spelling because my keyboard sucks. Totally not user error)
I demand a piece of 6-sheese pizza (especially since I and roommate paid for it.) I demand you not bring your niece (our apartment is no place for children.) The point is I demand things from my players all the time, and it's not "an unreasonable expectation".
(Big smile) Host-guest interaction was the subject of a different thread some time ago. IIRC, everyone agreed, "the host gets to set the rules in his/her own home." But let's not mix that topic in with this one!
A DM may cut off a player with a "No." because of personal knowledge of that player. If the Player is very argumentative and tries to turn everything into a full out debate then it's like dealing with a child...
And we're back to my earlier question of "why did you invite him, then?"
Every post I make is starting with the standpoint that if you already know the player is a jerk, then you didn't invite him to your game. Therefore, I'm assuming the plater is not a jerk, but maybe just doesn't know yet what things happen to set you off your nerdrage. Any response starting with the assumption that all players are jerks is therefore confusing to me.
I usually define what classes/races ARE allowed (as opposed to what's not). The players are informed from the beginning of the theme, any house rules, etc.
As long as you tell them that (and whatever fashion requirements you're also imposing, as I know you're a stickler for PCs dressing "correctly") -- then I don't see how anyone could possibly accuse you of lack of communication. In short, I'd be impressed, as a player.
Example: A while back, Mundane emailed me that she was wanting to run a challenging underwater campaign. I said "yes!" because she's awesome to game with, and started thinking up an underwater cleric, because "challenging" to me tells me not to play a monk.
She followed up with a link to a PDF of all the allowable races, changes to classes, and underwater house rules. There was absolutely no ambiguity there, and no guesswork. The chance for misunderstanding was 0%. My race wasn't in the guide, but I found one that I liked even better, changed to that, and switched out my deity and cleric domains to ones from the PDF. I had a great time!
If she had instead made me present the original idea, rejected it, made me come up with another guess, rejected that, and eventually called me uncooperative and kicked me out? But she wouldn't have done that. And she didn't. What if I had insisted on an inappropriate race? She wouldn't have invited me if she thought I would have. And I didn't. She sent everyone a PDF instead, and we worked with it. Clearer communication = better cooperation.
But I have heard same many dumb reasons to the question of 'why you don't like x?'
-Well because some guy that was in my game once played x and he destroyed my game. Long details usualy follow that has nothing to to do with x...
-Because I allowed x in my 1st/2nd/another game system entirely and it was broken. (Usualy I get the with psionics...atleast have a educated opinion)
- Because I did not like x in some seris of novels( usualy have nothing to do with what x is in the game)
So lets say the GM gaved you one of these reasons...what would you think?
.
we went over this pages ago. you not agreeing with the DM doesn't mean your opinion is so amazing that you should argue with him for 3 hours. He's the arbitrator that was chosen so his opinions carry more weight regardless of whether you love all of them or not.
So you are saying that the above reasons are Good solid reasons to disallow something? You would ok that make sense?
And who says anything about argueing? I am usualy too busy laughing to argue.
I don't think that was directed at me, but I don't have nerd rage nor do I assume all players are jerks.
No, it was not, and yes, I realize you don't.
Heh: Regarding weird DM traits you sometimes have to handle, I have a tendency to be easily drawn into discussion of movies, music, etc. -- so Jess Door, playing in my game, derived a signal that meant "DM! Return your attention to the game!" It was needed, and appreciated.
|
Honestly, If the GM says "no elves", and it isn't obvious, or they won't tell you why there are no elves, the best option is not to play.
Or...don't play an elf. D20 Modern has no elves. Most stories ever written have no elves, actually.
What if it is just a setting that doesn't have elves? And you know, they said that upfront and you agreed to play in it...
What madness...