I use Google Sites to setup a campaign specific site. I use some 'borrowed' art to spruce it up and set the tone. I put a few paragraphs about that tone (maybe a short story) and have a specific section for any kind of setting-specific rules.
I'll then post sections on kingdoms, races, cultures, etc. My players 'demand' that of me before genning up PCs. (yes, I used demand)
They ask me 'what's this setting about?' Once the game starts we use the site as a 'journal' of sorts. I also post a 'news of the day' section when the group can't meet in person. To keep the juices flowing...
Nice.
If I say "Hey guys, I want to run a campaign without elves" and 4 people say "Cool" are they all having wrongbadfun or is it just the GM who is evil?
The GM is on a twisted power trip if he kicks you out of the game for proposing a human ranger. And before you call that ridiculous:
You know that elves have a lot of "nature-y stuff" and you also know that they share these attributes that they share with "druids, rangers, and verdant bloodline sorcerers and so on.
Yes, how can you possibly tell a story without elves. Shakespeare was a moron...So you hear "no elves" and ride the slippery slope into Ridiculous-Ville?DMs like that exist. Amazing, isn't it?
Actually, I believe you can't tell a good story without at least a few kinds of elves. I have 4 PC races in my campaign that have subtype "elf". Not counting NPC races or Dakaselesti (Half-Elves).
|
If I say "Hey guys, I want to run a campaign without elves" and 4 people say "Cool" are they all having wrongbadfun or is it just the GM who is evil?The GM is on a twisted power trip if he kicks you out of the game for proposing a human ranger. And before you call that ridiculous:
You know that elves have a lot of "nature-y stuff" and you also know that they share these attributes that they share with "druids, rangers, and verdant bloodline sorcerers and so on.
If the GM wasn't clear about not wanting elves and nature based classed, you are correct.
If they were, he is correct.
Because again, this was a concept run by a group and selected as what they will be running next.
Hamlet, Casablanca, The Godfather, Shawshank Redemption, War and Peace, Aliens...
Actually, I believe you can't tell a good story without at least a few kinds of elves.
All horrible due to lack of elves.
(In all honesty I've never seen Shawshank Redemption, I know I know. The roommate is trying to get me to watch it.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you have reason to believe that the GM will kick you out for anything vaguely elf-ly, and you also know that in your opinion "druids, rangers, and verdant bloodline sorcerors" are vaguely elf-ly, why are you trying to get the GM to throw you out?
Why do you want to play badly enough to create a character, but not one that you yourself believe you will be permitted to play?
The "twisted power trip" is yours, I'm afraid. You're are deliberately proposing to play a character that by your own explicit acknowledgement will annoy the GM.
The problem is "No elves" doesn't say anything about all that nature stuff. Its not a connection that people are likely to make, and you'd probably want a good reason to ban so many things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The GM is on a twisted power trip if he kicks you out of the game for proposing a human ranger.I'm not entirely sure if the intent was sarcasm, but I'm assuming it was not.
Suppose my theme is 'urban intrigue in a fantasy city'. And I feel that rangers are a poor choice because many of the powers simply won't be applicable/used and I think the player will be unhappy with the results.
Twisted power trip?
Do you know about urban rangers? They are kind of awesome.
Suppose my theme is 'urban intrigue in a fantasy city'. And I feel that rangers are a poor choice because many of the powers simply won't be applicable/used and I think the player will be unhappy with the results. Twisted power trip?
I was posting based on the "no elves" desert-themed game we were discussing. But if I pick a human ranger, you all the sudden change it to an urban game just to "prove" I'm being disruptive?
NOTE: I'm going to assume that you missed the earlier references, and that you're not really going to change the entire setting just to spite one player. In fact, I know you won't, because you've got your wiki thing going on. But this unerlines where clear communication is needed. I'm operating under the "no elves" rule we'd discussed, and also the "aquatic races inappropriate" clause that you added. So if I show up and now all the sudden it's an urban game, I'm going to be confused.
Suppose my theme is 'urban intrigue in a fantasy city'. And I feel that rangers are a poor choice because many of the powers simply won't be applicable/used and I think the player will be unhappy with the results.Twisted power trip?
Depends on your patience level, and how much information you feel you need to conceal from the group.
if that's an initial proposal, a simple "no, that's not campaign-appropriate" should suffice. If you feel that you won't be spoiling a big reveal, you can even tell them why. A mature and cooperative player will understand, though, that you don't want to reveal too many of the campaign secrets.
If that's the sixth nature-themed character idea you've shot down in rapid succession, I can understand if your patience is wearing a bit thin.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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...
I'm going to assume you are being facetious. Or that you didn't read the entire post. I have absolutely no problem with playing in a no-elf campaign. What I was saying is that if a GM verbally attacks a player for asking why no elves (to get an idea of what would be acceptable), that GM is probably unbalanced enough that I wouldn't play with them regardless.
The problem is "No elves" doesn't say anything about all that nature stuff. Its not a connection that people are likely to make, and you'd probably want a good reason to ban so many things.
No, but it's explicitly a connection that some people on this thread have made (spontaneously), and I find it somewhat surprising that they'd be simultaneously so insightful as to make it, and so dull as not to realize that it suggests a reason why their nature-themed characters keep getting banned.....
Do you know about urban rangers? They are kind of awesome.It was an example. Is there an urban druid?
There is.
As far as your fashion quip - I didn't say a ninja was forced to wear the PJs. I did say
1) that's the first mental image most people have when you say the word (do a google images search for 'ninja')
2) that ninjas may not be appropriate for every settingI got the feeling that the people who had issues with #2 were trying to play a 'better' rogue, or a more 'combaty' rogue or something.
Its easy to mix it up when your constantly calling my bandit example ninjas and putting them in PJs when I say they aren't wearing any. If you describe them as bandits in leather they can still be the ninja class, but not be a ninja. If that makes sense to you. This leads back to the arguments about a world with nothing but stereotypes.
Could you elaborate on that last statement?
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...
If it isn't obvious its probably not D20 modern. If it were shadowrun or pathfinder you'd probably be wondering "wait what, no elves?" and be likely to ask "Why not elves?". Saying it was already stated that it was a setting without elves doesn't give any details. Its not even being told "Its a setting without elves" according to the example. Just... no.
Do you know about urban rangers? They are kind of awesome.It was an example. Is there an urban druid?
Yes, and it's o.k., but urban rangers are way cooler (in my opinion, obviously).
1. I had suggested upthread that one rational response to the injunction not to play an elf was,.... wait for it,.... not to play an elf.
2. Kirth's response, quite reasonably, is that "don't play an elf" leaves lots of room for interpretation, and that it may not be telling the whole story. Which is true.
3. Kirth suggested several things that it could mean,
4. and didn't seem happy with the idea that if you think there's an underlying subtext to his "no elf" message, you should cooperate and play something that supports the subtext as well as the text.
1. And I agreed.
2. So far so good.3. Things that a normal person would definetely not assume, but that the DM might be thinking, since he's chosen not to communicate, and will not answer questions. However, the DM could just as easily be thinking "no spellcasters," or "no demi-humans," for that matter. And since he won't tell me, I have no way of knowing. I have to keep making guesses.
4. Insofar as there's no way to guess what sort of random subtext there might be, I suggested that your attempts to cooperate will still likely fail. In the case of "no elves," I would assume that to mean "no elves." If Bob then proposes a human ranger and the DM decides Bob is disruptive and wants to kick him out of the game, Bob is going to be confused. As I would be. And annoyed, too. As I was.
|
|
I'm going to assume you are being facetious. Or that you didn't read the entire post. I have absolutely no problem with playing in a no-elf campaign. What I was saying is that if a GM verbally attacks a player for asking why no elves (to get an idea of what would be acceptable), that GM is probably unbalanced enough that I wouldn't play with them regardless.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...
Because at the point the player is asking for concept approval, the GM already got approval to run a no elf campaign setting. Otherwise, what are you submitting a concept for?
So when you agree to play in a no elf campaign and then ask why no elves, facepalm is in order.
[
3. Things that a normal person wouldn't assume, but that the DM might be thinking, since he's chosen not to communicate, and will not answer questions.
Well, they're your lines of thinking. You're the one who decided that rangers were elf-y. If you want to cooperate with your game master, you will attempt to do what he wants to do, in the joint interest of having a good game that you both enjoy, you should attempt to figure out what he wants. This isn't mind-reading, it's simply part of ordinary conversation.
I simply pointed out that if, in your line of reasoning, you think that rangers are elf-y, and that if you think the game master has banned "things that are elf-y," then you shouldn't propose a ranger. To do so is uncooperative and rude.
Insofar as there's no way to guess what sort of random subtext there might be, I suggested that your attempts to cooperate will still likely fail.
Except that this is pretty blatantly not how communications works. Communications is not about elimination of uncertainty, it's about cooperatively constructed view of reality. (If you want the technical stuff, look up the so-called Gricean maxims.) We guess at random subtexts all the time and we're generally very good at it.
We also established fairly early on that you consider a dwarven barbarian to be nothing at all like an elf. I pointed out, and again point out, that if you acknowledge that the GM will have nothing to complain about if you propose a dwarven barbarian, why not be cooperative and propose that instead of something that you yourself have argued is potentially too elflike?
|
|
If a GM says "I want to run a game" and you don't ask them what the game is about before you say yes...facepalm.
If the GM is making up the setting as they go along, and you agree to play in that setting without completely trusting the GM...facepalm.
If you send a concept to the GM without having been given, or asking any questions about the setting...facepalm.
We have to make a lot of facepalm assumptions to get to a point where a player is agreeing to play in a game they know nothing about and have reached the character submission point, don't we?
I had part of this discussion with Rijan (I think was his name, apologies) who essentially said 'give them setting appropriate clothing and a ninja fits great'. Which I didn't/don't agree with.
I don't think a ninja fits in my 'Camelot' example. I can dress him like a peasant and replace his shuriken with a knife - and I still don't think it fits. I'm not willing to simply interchange this with that. That's within my GM prerogative.
The ninja class has a variety of powers/proficiencies which I don't feel are theme appropriate. And you'd have to work hard to 'tweak' the class to make it appropriate to me. That's not to say you couldn't have a campaign with knights and ninjas, and it's not to say that another GM might not be happy to allow those 'tweaks'. I am saying that if I'm GMing my setting, and that class is contrary to my vision, I may disallow it. Same goes with a race or a concept. I may consider it. But I am under no obligation to allow it or alter the setting to fit the character.
You don't change the setting at all to allow the ninja class. Just don't let anyone play a far eastern man who wears a Shinobi Shozoku and uses crazy eastern weapons. That definitely doesn't fit. A guy with a knife and leather armor does however.
How does he not fit even if he has a knife and no PJs? I guess I'm failing to understand that. What powers are out of place. He has smoke bombs that are absolutely mundane and some good acrobatics, but the acrobatics aren't actually that big of a bonus if you look at jump DCs.
Some posts in this thread have said that's unacceptable. I think you were perceived to be on 'that side' even though you don't seem to be completely of that thinking.
No, I've tried to be clear that the DM can ban stuff. However, I've been a strong advocate that he should provide reasons for doing so, and that asking why something is banned should be accepted, not presecuted. I've also stated that I think, in a lot of cases, a ban might be an easy solution, but not anywhere near necessary.
Somehow that makes me on "the other side," and that I'm a "wilfully disruptive player." In fact, I almost never get to play; I'm almost always the DM. And I don't see "sides" here, I see some people whose opinions are different in various ways. And I'll admit that some of those stances, such as demanding obedience, I find fetishistic or outright repellent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to assume you are being facetious. Or that you didn't read the entire post. I have absolutely no problem with playing in a no-elf campaign. What I was saying is that if a GM verbally attacks a player for asking why no elves (to get an idea of what would be acceptable), that GM is probably unbalanced enough that I wouldn't play with them regardless.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...
Because at the point the player is asking for concept approval, the GM already got approval to run a no elf campaign setting. Otherwise, what are you submitting a concept for?
So when you agree to play in a no elf campaign and then ask why no elves, facepalm is in order.
Nesariel: Let's play a new game. I have a great idea.
Me: Can I play a solonesti (a type of elf) witch?Nesariel: No.
Me: Why not?
Nesariel: Let me explain. The campaign is going to take place in the Varnarian Jungle. So no, you can't play a Mountain Elf.
Me: O.k.
The time between "let's start a new campaign" and "here's a character concept" in our group is usually 2 to 3 seconds. Actually, we rarely let the GM finish saying what their idea is before we start pelting them with character concepts. Which is crazy-making when I am the GM.
We guess at random subtexts all the time and we're generally very good at it.
In person, to be sure. On the boards, not so much. This thread should be ample proof of that. When I specifically try to pick a non-uncooperative example, I'm told I'm being wilfully uncooperative. When I pick a premise specifically to illustrate one that makes no sense, you immediately latched onto it as "insightful" and valid. I'd say that overall the communication has been woeful.
We also established fairly early on that you consider a dwarven barbarian to be nothing at all like an elf. I pointed out, and again point out, that if you acknowledge that the GM will have nothing to complain about if you propose a dwarven barbarian, why not be cooperative and propose that instead of something that you yourself have argued is potentially too elflike?
(A) I argued no such thing; you were the one who decided it was "insightful" and valid. My point was, if the DM says nothing but "no elves," and that means you should play a dwarven barbarian in the interest of being cooperative, then maybe the DM should have just told you that you have to play a dwarven barbarian, instead of putting you through a lot of hoops in order to get there. I also strongly believe that if I am required to play one specific combination only -- a dwarven barbarian -- and nothing else -- to avoid offending the DM, then he/she is far too eager to look for offense.
|
|
Nesariel: Let's play a new game. I have a great idea.
Me: Can I play a solonesti (a type of elf) witch?
Nesariel: No.
Me: Why not?
Nesariel: Let me explain. The campaign is going to take place in the Varnarian Jungle. So no, you can't play a Mountain Elf.
Me: O.k.The time between "let's start a new campaign" and "here's a character concept" in our group is usually 2 to 3 seconds.
At least you said ok.
If you are agreeing to play before you hear the setting concept, and you aren't asking questions before you offer your concept without asking any questions, of course you are going to need questions answered. The ones you should have asked before you started coming up with concepts.
But if the GM asked and was given permission by the group to run a setting they described to the group...
If you are agreeing to play before you hear the setting concept, and you aren't asking questions before you offer your concept without asking any questions, of course you are going to need questions answered. The ones you should have asked before you started coming up with concepts.
Yeah. We are REALLY bad about that. We pretty much pelt the GM with concepts before they finish explaining the campaign concept. Which is really disconcerting when I am GMing. But I just take it as a sign of EXTREME ENTHUSIASM.
Since I keep having to delete posts about people being in bad faith, being liars, etc., thread locked.