| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We all know "those" players that always insist on some out of place character.
Isn't it your job to make the character fit?
For me, it's someone wanting to play a Kitsune Druid or Oracle in Shattered Star. I really don't want to let him play it, but I can't come up with a good enough justification for him.
Um, that's incredibly easy to do, actually.
In Tian Xia, one of the places that the kitsune have a strong presence is in Goka, also called the Gate to the West. There is a faction in the Pathfinder Society that is entirely made up of people from Tian Xia (I think its the Lantern Lodge, but I don't remember 100%). Therefore, its probably pretty likely that kitsune who move to the Inner Sea Region join up with the Pathfinders. Doubly so considering that they are able to easily pose as humans.
So, now you're a Pathfinder. And Shattered Star is 99% treasure hunting for ancient artifacts of unimaginable power. Do I honestly need to justify this choice any more?
I've tried "Um, you do realize no one in Magnimar here has probably ever seen a kitsune right? They would see a fox person and say 'zomg animal person must be lamashtu kill it with fire!!!!!!!1!!!!11!!!!' and round up a mob to kill you."
That's why I play my kitsune. Its half the point of the character; you play a character with a secret.
I've tried just a flat "No, I don't want this to become some silly furry game. Shattered Star is grim."
I'm going to offend you now. "No kitsune because furries are silly," is by far the worst response I have ever heard. The gnolls, lycanthropes, and about half a dozen other anthropomorphic humanoids scattered through several decades of gaming history would look a word with you.
I've even said "Sure, just disguise often using your racial ability (see first point" and he said "Why would I play a kitsune if I would just look like a human?"
Now, that doesn't make sense to me. It sounds like he wants to be anthropomorphic without actually being a kitsune. Because they're all about the shapeshifting. I spend almost equal amounts of time in both my forms on my kitsune; I even have a miniature made up for it.
He's not taking any of it. I would like to ask for some help, and some affirmation that I'm not being one of the infamous super-strict GMs.
From what you've posted here, it sounds like you are to me.
Maybe my own experience will help you. When my friend told me he wanted me to play in his game, I told him that the only race I really wanted to play was the kitsune. I've spend about five years in 3.5. I've played halflings, dwarves, elves, humans, you name it and I was bored of it. I wanted something new and I love the kistune background information, so I told him I wanted to play a kitsune.
His first response was, "They don't exist in my world."
Now, personally, I don't like that response. When I GM, I try to accommodate whatever my players want to play as long as they know what they're getting into. I was prepared to have people act biased against me. I was prepared for being accused of being a lycanthrope. And my GM wasn't going to give me the chance to try my hand at roleplaying something like that.
So what did we do? Well, some people would say, "Find a new GM," but this guy is my friend so I sat down and talked with him about his world and I found a place where my character could fit in perfectly. Now, several months and four levels later, my GM absolutely adores my character and he's been the most fun I've had roleplaying in a long time. Its been fun to meet people who are like, "Ah! What the heck are you?!" and use mad Diplomacy skills to win them over. We're kingdom building, and you've gotta hail to King Foxboy, baby!
So, here's my advice to you. First, while you may not like it you need to accept that your players have control over one person in the entire world of Golarion, and you should be doing everything you can to make your players enjoy playing that one person. If you don't, there's a good chance you're going to lose that player in your game. Once you've accepted that, the second thing you need to do is sit down with your player and be blunt with him. Tell him or her that you're not entirely comfortable with the idea of the PC he or she is crafting, and then ask the player for a background. Set it at a page, maybe two. The reason you do this is so that you can see what kind of character your player is brewing; give your player the chance to win you over with his or her ideas. If you still don't like it, talk about what you don't like about the backstory and work from there. With good evidence, maybe your player will change their mind. Maybe they'll thank you for it later. But if you say now just because you said so (which it sounds like you're leaning towards), then you'll be happy, but your player won't.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone knows having furry animal characters ruins the serious tone of heroic fantasy stories. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go with my kids to watch a nice light-hearted animated comedy about bunnies called Watership Down.
Also, if the player is a problem, banning one race is going to have zero effect. I recommend talking things out like mature human beings who aren't awkward nerds terrified of confrontation instead of trying to solve your problems through petty in-game retribution.
I recommend talking things out like mature human beings who aren't awkward nerds terrified of confrontation instead of trying to solve your problems through petty in-game retribution.
This. One million times this.
In game retribution ends up coming across as passive aggressive behavior at worst and at best it ends up being a waste of people's time. Just cut to the chase and handle it out of game properly before you end up with a mess.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I go away for a few hours and I come back to this. >.>
A few points, just to end this, and it will look rather silly of me and I apologize.
He approached me since I've made this thread. Following is a rough version of the conversation.
He: So, I sense you really don't want me to play a kitsune, and I think I figured out why. I noticed I tend to be a problem player. This campaign I'm going to actually try to play the game and not cause problems. I still really want to play a kitsune, though. If I promise to play it in a non-overbearing way, can I?
((This is totally out of character for him, and I was a bit taken aback))
Me: Uh, sure. Um, yeah that would be awesome. I'll even point you to a few kitsune-related things. (I had been researching them to see what the "real-world" lore was, just to check them out)
So, all in all, this thread is now pointless. I thank you all for your advice and honest criticisms. Moral of the story: let it all work out, and it will most likely be fine.
Everyone knows having furry animal characters ruins the serious tone of heroic fantasy stories. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go with my kids to watch a nice light-hearted animated comedy about bunnies called Watership Down.
I detect sarcasm. Ugh. I'm stunned. Spell ends.
*Opens mouth to speak*
...
*Shakes head and walks away*
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's more amazing, somebody created a popular thread that only lasted two pages, or somebody put up a thread on the Paizo forums and walked away with a completely logical, humane, and overall happy solution?
If you were to run a light-hearted adventure, and someone insisted on playing a angsty and somber half-orc barbarian who laments the gods for killing everyone he knows, would you say that this adds or subtracts from the game that you have crafted to be light-hearted?So what's so inherently silly and non-serious about playing an anthropomorphic animal versus a pointy eared hippy or a hobbit?
Ok, so looking at this thread, I've made up my mind. I'll let him play a kitsune, but will play out society's reactions /exactly/ as I have said I would.
However, feel free to continue the discussion.
Did you ever think about just...NOT being a dick?
Why is it so much a problem to you that he's playing a Kitsune that you're going to make every NPC go, and I quote "zomg animal person must be lamashtu kill it with fire!!!!!!!1!!!!11!!!!" and round up a mob to kill him.
His past actions are irrelevant to this case. The Kitsune race is not inherently disruptive and spitefully deciding to "punish" him in-game because he's made trouble in the past and wants to play a non-standard race just makes you the bad guy in this scenario.
If he's troublesome, boot him. That's well within your rights. But being a passive aggressive doucheweasel about letting him play his character but NOT REALLY won't help matters.
Oh absolutely, I mean every GM should absolutely allow EVERYTHING a player wants, and if they don't they are completely a doucheweasel. I mean sure the GM does the L I O N's share of the work and has to make sure that every person has fun, but he should totally change his world view and the way he wants to run the game to accommodate someone who isn't even willing to come up with a backstory to explain his odd choice.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I go away for a few hours and I come back to this. >.>
A few points, just to end this, and it will look rather silly of me and I apologize.
He approached me since I've made this thread. Following is a rough version of the conversation.
He: So, I sense you really don't want me to play a kitsune, and I think I figured out why. I noticed I tend to be a problem player. This campaign I'm going to actually try to play the game and not cause problems. I still really want to play a kitsune, though. If I promise to play it in a non-overbearing way, can I?
((This is totally out of character for him, and I was a bit taken aback))
Me: Uh, sure. Um, yeah that would be awesome. I'll even point you to a few kitsune-related things. (I had been researching them to see what the "real-world" lore was, just to check them out)
So, all in all, this thread is now pointless. I thank you all for your advice and honest criticisms. Moral of the story: let it all work out, and it will most likely be fine.
I have never seen a problem player police themselves. This is a first for me. You are lucky to have a player that is trying to come around. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have never seen a problem player police themselves. This is a first for me. You are lucky to have a player that is trying to come around. :)
This problem player's playgroup handled her by making her GM. And everybody was happier.
So what's so inherently silly and non-serious about playing an anthropomorphic animal versus a pointy eared hippy or a hobbit?
For me personally it's an aesthetic choice. I don't like anthropomorphic animal races in my fantay games, so they don't exist. Since I run in my own game world, that's not a problem. I tell my players what races are available, and they have to abide by those constraints if they want to play in my game.
Oh absolutely, I mean every GM should absolutely allow EVERYTHING a player wants, and if they don't they are completely a doucheweasel. I mean sure the GM does the L I O N's share of the work and has to make sure that every person has fun, but he should totally change his world view and the way he wants to run the game to accommodate someone who isn't even willing to come up with a backstory to explain his odd choice.
This.
Player entitlement... Sigh...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On kitsune - just say
Oh absolutely, I mean every GM should absolutely allow EVERYTHING a player wants, and if they don't they are completely a doucheweasel. I mean sure the GM does the L I O N's share of the work and has to make sure that every person has fun, but he should totally change his world view and the way he wants to run the game to accommodate someone who isn't even willing to come up with a backstory to explain his odd choice.
Or he could have flat just said no.
He gave his reasons, as silly as I think the reasons are.
But there's a HUUUUUGE difference between "No, I dun like it" (and especially "No, and here's a good reason why") and "Sure, I'll just secretly make your life miserable while we play".
A lot of people on either side of this "player entitlement" argument seem to think it's always one way or the other. It's either "My way or the highway" or "Allow everything".
Of course, in my experience most people IRL aren't like that. It's "I don't like these things for these reasons, everything else is fair game".
The only reasons that really pisses me off is "I don't like the fluff" or "It wouldn't make sense to me for some unexplained reason, even when it's explained in detail".
In addition (and this goes out to some other people as well. You know who you are) not everything is about your petty little "ZOMG mah playerz are entitled wat do guyz" train, stop trying to make it about that.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh absolutely, I mean every GM should absolutely allow EVERYTHING a player wants, and if they don't they are completely a doucheweasel. I mean sure the GM does the L I O N's share of the work and has to make sure that every person has fun, but he should totally change his world view and the way he wants to run the game to accommodate someone who isn't even willing to come up with a backstory to explain his odd choice.This.
Player entitlement... Sigh...
Thus, it shall be forcibly inserted, rectally, as is the will of the Master.
A collision, most bloodied, shall occur, as penetration comes to completion.
Who has defiled who, is the question though. Once allies, with a mutual goal, the war begins with each side.
A contract of friends, now sodomized by greed, pride, envy, and wrath.
To whom lies this entitlement?
It is the violated, and violator, who are entitled to their just desserts, as they are one, and the same.
A lot of people on either side of this "player entitlement" argument seem to think it's always one way or the other. It's either "My way or the highway" or "Allow everything".
That's because on the internet, "people" is code for semi-sentient program. We can only think in 0 or 1, or derivations thereof.
The only reasons that really pisses me off is "I don't like the fluff" or "It wouldn't make sense to me for some unexplained reason, even when it's explained in detail".
Where did you see it explained in detail? From what I read, the player wants to play a Kitsune. Period. End statement.
Maybe there is a great backstory that fully explains why a Kitsune is in Magnimar and is a member of the Pathfinder story and is going on this quest. Can you point me to it?
I should also note I initially tried "Ok, but you better have a pretty good reason to be in Magnimar." His response? "But I'm a player character, I don't have to worry about why I'm there because it's just where we start, and we'll be heroes before something like that would come up."
Player Entitlement.
I didn't say in this case it was explained in detail.
But there are plenty of people who get their forum boner going when anything that could conceivably start a flamewar is called out as player entitlement.
And again, I don't see why "I want to play a Kitsune" "Well I don't think they'd be here because....well I just don't" followed by "Well it shouldn't be a problem" is such a big deal.
Yes. Player had no reason the Kitsune was there.
But the GM had no real reason it wouldn't be. And others have even pointed out why it's not so unlikely.
But there are plenty of people to get their forum boner going when anything that could conceivably start a flamewar is called out as player entitlement.
This is a gross and disturbing image.
Or he could have flat just said no.
He gave his reasons, as silly as I think the reasons are.
But there's a HUUUUUGE difference between "No, I dun like it" (and especially "No, and here's a good reason why")
It doesn't matter what his reasons are. He's the GM, abide by his rules or don't play. It really is that simple.
and "Sure, I'll just secretly make your life miserable while we play".
I think we have different definitions of a secret. If I say "If you do X, Y will happen" and you do X, when why happens, I didn't really do it secretly did I?
A lot of people on either side of this "player entitlement" argument seem to think it's always one way or the other. It's either "My way or the highway" or "Allow everything".
Of course, in my experience most people IRL aren't like that. It's "I don't like these things for these reasons, everything else is fair game".
Which is exactly what the GM said, and you've made disparaging comments to him throughout this entire thread.
The only reasons that really pisses me off is "I don't like the fluff" or "It wouldn't make sense to me for some unexplained reason, even when it's explained in detail".
You can hate it all you want, the GM has the right to run his game anyway he pleases. As players, you either trust the GM makes his decision based on the enjoyment of all, or find a different game. I know I said a naughty phrase "Trust the GM", these boards feel that trusting the GM is the same as cutting out their own eyes for some reason.
In addition (and this goes out to some other people as well. You know who you are) not everything is about your petty little "ZOMG mah playerz are entitled wat do guyz" train, stop trying to make it about that.
How is this thread not about player entitlement? A player wanted something the GM said no, and you call him a douchweasle. Pretty clear cut if you ask me.
|
How does it get ridiculous?Let's see... (These are another GM's game which I have no control over, but I do play in)
Attempting to seduce every female NPC.
Trying to steal from the party and complaining when his character is punished.
Stabbing someone we are trying to interrogate. This one I'll have to explain. The party (LG Paladin, LG Cleric, CG Ranger, and his CN Rogue) is interrogating a terrorist type character. We are all using fairly humane methods of interrogation, when he suddenly takes a dagger and delivers a coup-de-grace to him before we get any information out of him. Then complaining when we basically lock his character up in the most secure prison we can find.
Generally being a problem player.
It's not the race, it's the player. Find another player.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A declaration of peace and understanding now lies between the OP and his player.
This has not stopped posters from fervently debating a hypothetical argument between these two.
No one even thinks to go to the General Discussion Forum to discuss this "Player Entitlement" thing?
There happens to be a thread on this topic, if my memory serves correctly.
Note, I didn't call him a doucheweasel. I said he WOULD be one if he allowed someone to play a character and then said every NPC would, for no reason, grab the torches and pitchforks and come after him.
Which would also have been an extremely stupid move, since he was afraid the player would be disruptive.
I don't think there's anything more disruptive than having NPCs randomly go nuts and try to kill a PC. Seems kinda counter-productive.
And why should I trust his judgement when there's no reasoning behind it?
Decisions without reasoning behind them are worthless. If you don't have a logical reason for doing something you should carefully consider finding one before making a decision.
A declaration of peace and understanding now lies between the OP and his player.
This has not stopped posters from fervently debating a hypothetical argument between these two.
No one even thinks to go to the General Discussion Forum to discuss this "Player Entitlement" thing?
There happens to be a thread on this topic, if my memory serves correctly.
Quite a few of them, in fact, but they're currently being hijacked by Kmalt2's "The GM has ultimate power because he does all the work. Also, the GM shouldn't have to expend any effort to accommodate his players or read anything besides the CRB because that would be work." argument.
So what's so inherently silly and non-serious about playing an anthropomorphic animal versus a pointy eared hippy or a hobbit?For me personally it's an aesthetic choice. I don't like anthropomorphic animal races in my fantay games, so they don't exist. Since I run in my own game world, that's not a problem. I tell my players what races are available, and they have to abide by those constraints if they want to play in my game.
I'm curious if there are Gnolls or Lizardmen on your world.
We all know "those" players that always insist on some out of place character.
For me, it's someone wanting to play a Kitsune Druid or Oracle in Shattered Star. I really don't want to let him play it, but I can't come up with a good enough justification for him.
I've tried "Um, you do realize no one in Magnimar here has probably ever seen a kitsune right? They would see a fox person and say 'zomg animal person must be lamashtu kill it with fire!!!!!!!1!!!!11!!!!' and round up a mob to kill you."
I've tried just a flat "No, I don't want this to become some silly furry game. Shattered Star is grim."
I've even said "Sure, just disguise often using your racial ability (see first point" and he said "Why would I play a kitsune if I would just look like a human?"
He's not taking any of it. I would like to ask for some help, and some affirmation that I'm not being one of the infamous super-strict GMs.
One, I make it clear that certain things are banned from the start. I don't surprise my players with that knowledge, as they become stubborn. Two, let's be honest, Pathfinder is not exactly the most plot/story orientated game on the planet. I prefer DAV for that kind of thing. I personally couldn't care less, but I would also state that NPC's will behave logically when they encounter a fox shen.
I'm not really sure what the setting entails but if its grim then maybe racism can play into account. If they're weary of strange things you may want to coax him into supressing what he is.
give him a chance with the character, but make sure he learns early on (And before the first session starts) that if people don't accept juju oracles for having non-evil undead, they'll feel just the same and will possibly mistake him for a lycan or gnoll at time based on their ignorance (seeing a humanoid canine-like creature and not knowing what to make of it will get the wrong gears turning and the town guard may think "Oh noez a werefox!")
If the player is disruptive he can be disruptive without being a fox person. Deal with that problem directly, not by indirectly trying to manipulate him into not being disruptive. If he is not disruptive, Kitsune dont have to be any more silly then an elf, or gnome. Its all about the character. I personally love playing the more exotic races because it leaves me with more room to explore and be creative. For instance I am playing a wayang witch right now, and no one in my group had ever played a wayang before. It has been alot of fun to invent weird and creepy things about wayang culture and manerisms that I couldn't do with elves, or halflings which are already well defined in most gamer's minds.
Ne'ermind. Spoke too soon.
If the player is disruptive he can be disruptive without being a fox person. Deal with that problem directly, not by indirectly trying to manipulate him into not being disruptive. If he is not disruptive, Kitsune dont have to be any more silly then an elf, or gnome. Its all about the character. I personally love playing the more exotic races because it leaves me with more room to explore and be creative. For instance I am playing a wayang witch right now, and no one in my group had ever played a wayang before. It has been alot of fun to invent weird and creepy things about wayang culture and manerisms that I couldn't do with elves, or halflings which are already well defined in most gamer's minds.
The only core rulebook race I actually enjoy would be Half-orc,
As far as the underhanded manuevers, they don't need to seem disciplinary in nature, just calmly explain that you're also a roleplayer, put some areas where he'd be more accepted and other areas where he wouldn't (Druidic societies, anthropomorphic villages, scientific communities)
This is something that helps to gently encourage players to think before they act.
Honestly I've seen horrible players, they can improve. the worst threat to any campaign is a good player with a horrible character... Like a lawful stupid pali or a must-smash barbarian.
*edit*
I was a problem player at first with my first character "Ogyr" he was a 4e gnoll who had a pretty 1dimentional persona, I had revamped him later for pathfinder play and made him a bit more extensive.
He was the child of uncertain prophecy, he came from a large metropolis that had laid hidden for a thousand years filled with gnolls who had shaken their pure evil vows and lived more like civilized beasts.
it was never revealed if the prophecy was a real sign from the gods or local supersticious belief, but he wound up as a traveling gnoll with a pet gorilla running around the world dealing with issues on entering towns. His moral structure was alien, he viewed killing as an act of nature, and believed in the predator and prey mentality to aid his friends, and would slay innocents or give his own life to save his companions. so he wasn't really good in the spectrum, as he would commit atrocities, he wasn't evil because he served a cause he deemed just and rightous, he wasn't chaotic because he held his own personal philosophy to a t, but he wasn't lawful because he had been the perpetrator if robberies and the like.
I wrote three pages on his belief structure which really made him hard to play when I was a newbie,
The usual problem with "Problem Players" is that they often have issues seeing their characters as a piece of the game world, with real world repurcussions for actions
Get this kid in a game of call of C'thulu, it'll fix him up good
Just say "No" and be done with it.
When the player asks "Why?" you can say "There are things I don't allow in my game. This is one of them."
End of discussion.
I'm curious if there are Gnolls or Lizardmen on your world.
So what's so inherently silly and non-serious about playing an anthropomorphic animal versus a pointy eared hippy or a hobbit?For me personally it's an aesthetic choice. I don't like anthropomorphic animal races in my fantay games, so they don't exist. Since I run in my own game world, that's not a problem. I tell my players what races are available, and they have to abide by those constraints if they want to play in my game.
I have not yet found a place for them.
Just say "No" and be done with it.
When the player asks "Why?" you can say "There are things I don't allow in my game. This is one of them."End of discussion.
This would be a solution if the other players were also displeased with the kitsune.
If only the DM has a problem with it, this is not an option, unless you wanna be like my former DM.
I'm not seeing the problem.
Let him play the damn Kitsune. It breaks nothing.
I've tried just a flat "No, I don't want this to become some silly furry game. Shattered Star is grim."Look if your first thoughts are:
A.) Animal people are always silly.
and
B.) "Kitsune means he likes teh furry pr0nz lol"
Perhaps the problem is on your end?
+1
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not seeing the problem.
Because it doesn't fit the setting.
If I replaced Tom Hanks with a person who looks like a fox, Saving Private Ryan is a very different movie, no matter how skilled a thespian the fox person is.
The person isn't rude for asking to play a Kitsune, the person is rude for insisting to play one when they are told "no" by the GM.
If the GM didn't say no, and wants to say no, they need to do so.
|
|
Just say "No" and be done with it.
When the player asks "Why?" you can say "There are things I don't allow in my game. This is one of them."End of discussion.
This would be a solution if the other players were also displeased with the kitsune.
If only the DM has a problem with it, this is not an option, unless you wanna be like my former DM.
It is very much an option. The GM was selected by the group, it is the GMs call.
Once the game starts, the GM can't tell players what to do, but the GM very much controls what will be allowed in the game.
|
|
Which would also have been an extremely stupid move, since he was afraid the player would be disruptive.
The player is being disruptive, currently, in the present sense, by no taking "no" for an answer, or at minimum taking the GM's suggestion he use the disguise option.
Deciding who can be in the game is GM purview. What the people in the game do from that point forward is player purview.
What part of Pathfinder (and D&D by extension) being a group game isn't going through to you, Ciretose? I doubt you'd support your own view if you were in the shoes of that player. Again, from what I see, the DM is being distruptive if the rest of the players see nothing wrong with the guy playing a kitsune.
And if it is such a problem, why not say they all have to be human because all the other races are silly?
I go away for a few hours and I come back to this. >.>
A few points, just to end this, and it will look rather silly of me and I apologize.
He approached me since I've made this thread. Following is a rough version of the conversation.
He: So, I sense you really don't want me to play a kitsune, and I think I figured out why. I noticed I tend to be a problem player. This campaign I'm going to actually try to play the game and not cause problems. I still really want to play a kitsune, though. If I promise to play it in a non-overbearing way, can I?
((This is totally out of character for him, and I was a bit taken aback))
Me: Uh, sure. Um, yeah that would be awesome. I'll even point you to a few kitsune-related things. (I had been researching them to see what the "real-world" lore was, just to check them out)
So, all in all, this thread is now pointless. I thank you all for your advice and honest criticisms. Moral of the story: let it all work out, and it will most likely be fine.
Ah, so it all worked out. Glad to hear there were no needless race bans!!
|
|
What part of Pathfinder being a group game isn't going through to you, Ciretose? I doubt you'd support your own view if you were in the shoes of that player. Again, from what I see, the DM is being distruptive if the rest of the players see nothing wrong with the guy playing a kitsune.
And if it is such a problem, why not say they all have to be human because all the other races are silly?
What part of "The group picks the GM" is unclear to you?
I would never be in the shoes of a player who is so selfish as to demand to play something the GM doesn't think fits the setting the GM is running.
If the players want to run a kitsune campaign, they can pick a GM who will allow it. I have played in a kitsune campaign and I've played in a "no kitsune allowed" campaign.
It is the GM's job to decide which one the current game is.
|
|
I go away for a few hours and I come back to this. >.>
A few points, just to end this, and it will look rather silly of me and I apologize.
He approached me since I've made this thread. Following is a rough version of the conversation.
He: So, I sense you really don't want me to play a kitsune, and I think I figured out why. I noticed I tend to be a problem player. This campaign I'm going to actually try to play the game and not cause problems. I still really want to play a kitsune, though. If I promise to play it in a non-overbearing way, can I?
((This is totally out of character for him, and I was a bit taken aback))
Me: Uh, sure. Um, yeah that would be awesome. I'll even point you to a few kitsune-related things. (I had been researching them to see what the "real-world" lore was, just to check them out)
Key point bolded.
Doing it right.
What part of Pathfinder being a group game isn't going through to you, Ciretose? I doubt you'd support your own view if you were in the shoes of that player. Again, from what I see, the DM is being distruptive if the rest of the players see nothing wrong with the guy playing a kitsune.
And if it is such a problem, why not say they all have to be human because all the other races are silly?
What part of "The group picks the GM" is unclear to you?
I would never be in the shoes of a player who is so selfish as to demand to play something the GM doesn't think fits the setting the GM is running.
If the players want to run a kitsune campaign, they can pick a GM who will allow it. I have played in a kitsune campaign and I've played in a "no kitsune allowed" campaign.
It is the GM's job to decide which one the current game is.
And if the GM decides to run in a way the players don't enjoy, they can't discuss it civilly because the GM can just whack them in the face for choosing him/her as that GM? Yeah, I don't know how that makes sense in your mind, especially after we just saw how a civil conversation worked far better than "punishing the insolent player" which was the modus operandi of my former GM.
What part of Pathfinder (and D&D by extension) being a group game isn't going through to you, Ciretose? I doubt you'd support your own view if you were in the shoes of that player. Again, from what I see, the DM is being distruptive if the rest of the players see nothing wrong with the guy playing a kitsune.
And if it is such a problem, why not say they all have to be human because all the other races are silly?
Because like it or not the GM is the most important player. The GM is pretty much the one player that, if missing, the game doesn't happen. The GM is also doing the most work in game preparation, especially if it's a custom game or game world. It's absolutely within reason for the GM to make these kinds of determinations. If the player doesn't like it, he's free to find a different game.
(I will admit that I approach the issue as someone who only runs in a homebrew world, which is why I feel strongly about it. If I were running a module or adventure path, I probably wouldn't make such a big deal out of it.)
Because like it or not the GM is the most important player. The GM is pretty much the one player that, if missing, the game doesn't happen. The GM is also doing the most work in game preparation, especially if it's a custom game or game world. It's absolutely within reason for the GM to make these kinds of determinations.What part of Pathfinder (and D&D by extension) being a group game isn't going through to you, Ciretose? I doubt you'd support your own view if you were in the shoes of that player. Again, from what I see, the DM is being distruptive if the rest of the players see nothing wrong with the guy playing a kitsune.
And if it is such a problem, why not say they all have to be human because all the other races are silly?
If such determinations remove the key component of the game (fun), then he/she has failed as DM.
And I bet most groups have players who could do well at the DM's side of the table, but are just too shy to try it.
|
|
And if the GM decides to run in a way the players don't enjoy, they can't discuss it civilly because the GM can just whack them in the face for choosing him/her as that GM?...yeah, I don't know how that makes sense in your mind.
It isn't possible for a GM to decide to run anything the players aren't willing to play, unless he is using stuffed animals instead of players.
The GM doesn't exist to facilitate exactly what each individual player wants, at all times, just ask if I go to McDonalds and as for a Taco, I will not get one.
...yeah, I don't know how that makes sense in your mind.
EDIT: And since you apparently play custom races in all your games, no may be a strange concept for you...
If such determinations remove the key component of the game (fun), then he/she has failed as DM.
That's not something that needs to be taken into consideration. If the game's not fun, people will stop playing.
But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about your belief that the GM has an obligation to sacrifice her/his fun to accomodate a single player. That's ridiculous and the very definition of player entitlement. And like I said before, like it or not, the GM is the most important player at the table. If a player isn't having fun he'll quit, but the game will likely go on. If the GM isn't having fun, then the game itself comes to an abrupt halt.
And if the GM decides to run in a way the players don't enjoy, they can't discuss it civilly because the GM can just whack them in the face for choosing him/her as that GM?...yeah, I don't know how that makes sense in your mind.
It isn't possible for a GM to decide to run anything the players aren't willing to play, unless he is using stuffed animals instead of players.
The GM doesn't exist to facilitate exactly what each individual player wants, at all times, just ask if I go to McDonalds and as for a Taco, I will not get one.
...yeah, I don't know how that makes sense in your mind.
EDIT: And since you apparently play custom races in all your games, no may be a strange concept for you...
Putting words in my mouth doesn't make your argument any more valid than it might have been.
So even asking for compromise (such as not wanting your cheeseburger with pickles in it) is deplorable then?
Oh, and nice to see you even got your facts wrong. My first character was a half-elf, my second a human and the third a changeling.