| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Big Lemon, the OP and his player already talked it out.
The solution you presented was not used, and that is a good thing.
As to why, Dire Elf's post on page 4 should be able to explain it quite well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FTFYCute, but the setting is still the DM's. Any number of suggestions have been given on how to easily fit the character into it.
I've said it before, though -- if someone's vision is too narrow to allow other players to play in it, then they should be alone writing a book, instead of pretending to run a game.
Just so I'm clear, your position is that the guy who will allow any race but 1 has a narrower view than the guy that will only play 1 race?
Okay, counterpoint o'clock 'cause I hate having any agreement with people who take my sarcasm and run with it into SeriousTown™.
Just because someone wants to play a kitsune doesn't mean things are immediately on the Express Rail to 'YIFFYIFFYIFF'. Granted, there's a high proclivity, but no guarantee. And if the player can come up with a valid defense of the character concept, then they should be given a probationary window, with the implicit warning that if they act up, they are getting the Big Red Shiny Smite button.
For example, I could see a druid played, if using some traditional folklore for reference/inspiration/shameless cribbing, as being a shameless flirt who genuinely doesn't know what to do if their actions led to opportunity; an especially camp(-ish) transvestite, possibly even up to the full-bore trangenderism in human guise; or even something of a very non-sexual mischief maker of nearly fey-like nature.
Then again, I'd put up with it only if there was someone who assumed that such was the default setting with a kitsune or catfolk. Spite is more appealing than indulging the Two Minute Hate of the Moment courtesy of the Internet.
Really, it comes down to the player.
Is there a history of them turning things and steering them straight down Fetish Avenue?
If yes, then they can't have a kitsune.
If no, then why not give it a go and be potentially pleasantly surprised.
Besides, it could be worse - they could want to play a pony.
I have a guy in our group who makes really weird characters. There's an element that is him always wanting some ability that the other PC's aren't aware of. There's also an element where he plays a lot of games and the "old stand by" characters are boring to him. I initially bristled every time he wanted to play "a Chiss reformed dark Jedi that can use force lightning" or "half demon spellfire infused fallen lord on a quest for vengeance" because of the sheer ridiculousness of it all.
He actually is a pretty good gamer and his characters rarely caused a problem, if you can believe that. He's also got a lot of ideas so I just put my foot down on something if it's too powerful and he can come up with something else. Ask yourself this.
1. Are you sure it's going to be a problem? Maybe this is something you just need to get over. Many times things I thought would cause friction didn't. In fact more times than not, the two characters that didn't get along were more traditional and it was the players themselves always causing the problem regardless of what they were playing.
2. Is what they're doing going to get them killed? I've had characters do really stupid stuff and really start to screw with a party. Finally I let the town guards kill him. He wasn't thrilled but he didn't take it personally and his next character was less contentious. If he is someone that is going to take it really personal, ask yourself question number 3...
2. Do you really need this person to game with? Do you even like him? Is he any good at gaming? Why is he being invited? We basically stopped inviting someone over because all he did was fight with whoever was GM'ing and inevitably attacked or caused another party member to attack him. Most guys that are causing problems I just talk to out of game and ask what they want out of the experience. Some have never thought to ask themselves that and realized they don't like gaming. One person I play with realized he just doesn't care for certain styles of games. So when we play more...
This! This in every way.
I can't think of any time I've put my foot down and said "no!" to cat-folk characters and that sort of thing, and ended up glad I did by the end of the game - quite the opposite: it always seemed to take the steam out of the players' enthusiasm. If allowing characters that don't fit your original concept of the game world is the little bit it takes to encourage players to buy into your campaign and make it work, then, by all means, let it slide, embrace it, and find a way to work it into your campaign world or adjust your game world to fit the characters. (At least, as long as it isn't a game balance thing, or as long as the other players generally have no serious objections to it, at least... I'm sure there are some gaming groups that would rather break up than allow a character that's outside the box, and, in that case, you might have to weigh the consequences of a group that objects to one player's choice of character race or class.)
Oddball, offbeat characters are not, in and of themselves, problems.
Players griefing the game with unbalanced characters, or playing Chaotic Stupid with the party's loot or other character's possessions, or killing other PCs, or otherwise disrupting the game for the other players and for you by acting in an antisocial and uncooperative way, however, are out-of-game problems. Out-of-game problems demand out-of-game solutions, and that is the time to close the books, put the character sheets aside, put the dice down, turn on the lights, and re-evaluate as a group of adult friends sharing a hobby where you are as groups and individual participants in a cooperative activity, and decide whether your differences in playing style are so great that cooperation is impossible and one or more troublemakers has to go.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've never understood Ciretose's elliptical logic (it's not QUITE circular) on this whole thing and I've pretty much given up trying.
I'll explain again, and I'll use small words.
The GM says "I want to run this setting".
At that point the player can either agree to play or not. They can say "No" by not playing.
If a player says "You must include my concept!", the GM can say "No" by not letting the player play that concept.
Not. Complicated.
|
|
@Ciretose: I don't follow your train of logic because it's going on rails I fail to see. Out of those 6 years that I gamed, 3 went with the former DM, and I didn't find any other ones until high school where I met my current group. My former DM knows another DM, but I never associated with the guy cuz the first impression he gave was of an internet troll who somehow got out of the internet. As for online games, I was in one until time zones got in the way too much. They are a serious detriment.
Since the last one was deleted, for reasons I don't understand.
You aren't even 21 years old and you've been able to game regularly for 6 years. You have access to the internet and through it all of Europe.
You aren't haven't trouble finding games because of access.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's try and stay on topic and not derail the thread into a discussion about the ethics and consequences of atomic warfare.
@Ciretose: There are plenty of people that have a hard time getting into games that are not in person. They need that face-to-face interaction in order to really get into it. One of my players is. She's in all of my games during the school semester, but she never plays in my summer campaigns. Not because she doesn't have a good time (as a matter of fact, she probably the most intensive roleplaying at the table), but running the game over text chat, skype, or google+ just kills it for her. One cannot blame them for their inability to enjoy something.
Is it helpful to them to not point out that part of the reason they may be having trouble finding games is that they are engaging in behavior that is rude by demanding the GM allow whatever they want into the game, rather than being polite and trying to find a way to fit into the game.
Because people who do that don't seem to have any trouble finding a game.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just so I'm clear, your position is that the guy who will allow any race but 1 has a narrower view than the guy that will only play 1 race?FTFYCute, but the setting is still the DM's. Any number of suggestions have been given on how to easily fit the character into it.
I've said it before, though -- if someone's vision is too narrow to allow other players to play in it, then they should be alone writing a book, instead of pretending to run a game.
If you are only capable of being happy with a single concept, I don't think you are going to add much to any gaming group I'd be interested in playing with.
If you are only willing to play one option, and if you are told no that doesn't fit you then think that I am a mean GM, I doubt I am going to miss you much when you leave.
I've never understood Ciretose's elliptical logic (it's not QUITE circular) on this whole thing and I've pretty much given up trying.I'll explain again, and I'll use small words.
The GM says "I want to run this setting".
At that point the player can either agree to play or not. They can say "No" by not playing.
If a player says "You must include my concept!", the GM can say "No" by not letting the player play that concept.
Not. Complicated.
Not that part.
You say the GM has power because he's the GM.
But he's only the GM because the other players let him be the GM.
But the players have no say in the matter other than that he should be the GM or they should leave.
Meaning he has all the power because he's the GM.
Not quite circular, but darn close.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not that part.
You say the GM has power because he's the GM.
But he's only the GM because the other players let him be the GM.
But the players have no say in the matter other than that he should be the GM or they should leave.
Meaning he has all the power because he's the GM.
Not quite circular, but darn close.
The GM is given power by the players. The GM has no power, except the power he is given by the people who decide they like how they run enough to a) Put them in charge and b) keep coming back each week rather than starting a new game, finding a new GM, going to the movies, etc...
If the GM sucks, people do other things with other people, including other GMs. It is not considered particularly rude to bail out of a game when life gets in the way, but that is functionally a player rejecting a GM.
But apparently it is rude to tell a player "No, you can't play that in this game."
Your logic means the GM is obligated to accommodate and serve the player. Mine is no one is obligated to anyone.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've never understood Ciretose's elliptical logic (it's not QUITE circular) on this whole thing and I've pretty much given up trying.
Suffice it to say I disagree. I think anyone on either side of the table that refuses to compromise is being an a+%#+#+, unless there's a damn good reason for it.
If it was something like
"I want to play a Kitsune"
"Sorry, this campaign's kinda about a Kitsune army invading this country, it wouldn't really fit very well."
"I'll be an expatriate who is welcomed because he can provide valuable information to the opposing army!"
or "In my world none of the animal races (gnolls, serpentfolk/vishkanya, catfolk, all of 'em) were hunted and killed to almost extinction a few centuries back. If you came in with one hunters'd come from all over to kill you and make a coat of your luxurious fur."
"I'll work that into my backstory!"
or anything like that it'd be a good reason.
But "I don't think they fit, even though there's no real reason they shouldn't" or more often "I just don't like them" isn't fine. At that point both sides need to look over why they have the stance they do.
For the player, it's likely to be simple: I have a really cool idea I want to try, and Kitsune works best (or only Kitsune works for it). If it's just "I kinda just wanna play a fox guy, no real concept in mind that couldn't work with anything else", maybe he should be the first to bend.
For the GM, it could be anything he's already established. The aformentioned examples and more. But again, if it's simply "I don't like it" I really think he should be the one to cave on it.
Player's and GM's can go back and forth with this and sometimes the GM just needs to say, "Sorry man, I'm just not feeling it"
I've found in most cases the player's only motivation is to be "the special snowflake" or they're optimizing and "that race gives me the bestest stats!".
GM's saying no is ok with me. He's the guy who is being the storyteller and the referee, and he undertakes that willingly and if he asks me to make a small concession I'll move on to my next concept and go from there.
How often do these scenarios really play out how everyone describes them anyways? I was on the phone with my DM today and he didn't really like the idea of Ki Powers being rogue talents, they didn't really fit what he wanted to do and he felt they were overpowered. He didn't ban anything but asked me to take that into consideration. I was easily able to move stuff around and find something cool I liked. No. Big. Deal.
-Vaz
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wile on the other hand the counter argument seems to be that the gm should be required to bend to accommodate every desire of the player, while the player shouldn't have to bend at all to accommodate the gms world.We must not be reading the same arguments.
It keeps circling back to this. Literally up thread someone said a GM must allow a player to play a furry or they were wrong.
Literally, that is what they said.
That happened.
And before someone says "Well that was just one person" THAT IS EXACTLY THE POINT!
One person doesn't get to tell anyone what to do or play. The GM doesn't get to tell the player "You must play this" but he can say "I don't want to run a game with that concept."
The Player doesn't have to play in the setting the GM is running, they can decide not to play.
They are both doing the exact same thing. Only some seem to be arguing the player has some inherent right to be in the game the GM is running.
They don't. In the same way the GM has no inherent right to the players showing up to play in the game they are running.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I said he has the right to ban a race, but I don't think we should ignore that 1.) there is no special dramatic plot reason to do so, because he's running an AP that specifically allows for it and 2.) he specifically stated that he doesn't want to allow it *because he doesn't like furries*.
Yes, he 'literally' said that you must allow furries. It's right there for everyone to see.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is absolutely wrong to think that it is ok to make a GM run anything in the same way it is wrong to think it is ok for a GM to make a player run anything.
If I say "No one can play a furry in this setting" that is perfectly fine.
If a player says "I only play furries" that is perfectly fine.
Those people don't have to game with each other.
Yeah, I realized that snip was not enough after the fact. You just beat my edit. :)This also happened..
Is this a bad thing? If its based off prejudice and being close minded its not okay.(Out of context. There was a whole lot more to that series of statements.)
The DM does have a right to say no. Its just preferred he have a good reason. Good being a really subjective word.
|
|
I did, and unless firefly comes back and says I'm wrong I stand by my statement. Besides, it still is not a literal statement.
I asked for confirmation, and that was the post confirming it. I asked, directly, if it was wrong bad fun to say no if a player wanted to play a furry and the answer was that it was.
I don't know how that can be any clearer, Toz.
|
|
Yeah, I realized that snip was not enough after the fact. You just beat my edit. :)This also happened..Is this a bad thing? If its based off prejudice and being close minded its not okay.(Out of context. There was a whole lot more to that series of statements.)
The DM does have a right to say no. Its just preferred he have a good reason. Good being a really subjective word.
What was said was that if the GM said no, they were wrong and bad.
That is what was said, and further clarified.
That is the entire problem with entitled players. They feel like the GM exists to serve them the game they want, how they want to play it, and if it isn't delivered they have been wronged in some way.
The GM does not exist to serve the player, any more than the player exists to serve the GM.
No one is obligated to provide you exactly what you want, how you want it.
On either side of the table.
A GM has every right to say no to any concept they choose, and a player has every right to not sit in on that particular game, for any reason they choose.
This isn't co-dependency.
No, that's not what was said. It was said that if the GM did it because it was "Yes, if your fun means acting in a close-minded, prejudicial way towards other people, that is wrong and bad."
I don't know how you get "You always have to accept furries" out of that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I did, and unless firefly comes back and says I'm wrong I stand by my statement. Besides, it still is not a literal statement.
How about the original quote from Firefly.
"A lot of the people I've played Pathfinder with are furries, so honestly I don't like the idea of saying "NO FURRIES IN MY GAME" It's like saying "NO GAY PEOPLE IN MY GAME"
Any lack of clarity in that statement. Clearly I have to allow furries in my game.
I know you want to believe the stories are all hyperbole, but they really aren't. There are people posting on here who actually think if you don't allow a player to play a furry in your game, you are oppressing them.
This is, in a nutshell, why you will never see me at a Con or in a public game where I can't screen the GM and fellow players.
Not because someone wants to play a furries. I could give a crap about that. But because they honestly believe if you don't let them play any concept they can come up with, if you don't spend your time and energy making what they want to happen, happen, then you are cruel.
Because they are "entitled" to have you serve them, and they have no reciprocal responsibility to anyone else at the table.
It isn't a large number of people, but it is the vocal minority who give gaming a bad reputation.
|
|
No, that's not what was said. It was said that if the GM did it because it was "Yes, if your fun means acting in a close-minded, prejudicial way towards other people, that is wrong and bad."
I don't know how you get "You always have to accept furries" out of that.
Because it came out of the original post which said
"A lot of the people I've played Pathfinder with are furries, so honestly I don't like the idea of saying "NO FURRIES IN MY GAME" It's like saying "NO GAY PEOPLE IN MY GAME""
To which I asked the follow up question of "Are you really saying if I don't allow furries that is wrongbadfun"
To which the answer was "Yes".
|
Any lack of clarity in that statement. Clearly I have to allow furries in my game.
No you don't. Firefly just doesn't like the idea of you banning them. Nothing was said about what you must do. You added that in yourself.
To which the answer was "Yes".
No, the answer was 'acting close-minded and prejudiced to have your fun is wrong and bad".
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just for those who don't know: The OP has peacefully solved his issue.
Moving on.
Disallowing races is something a DM can, and should do.
If he is setting up a certain flavor, and the said race doesn't fit, then it's disallowed.
It's that simple. No different than say, disallowing Firearms.
|
|
Any lack of clarity in that statement. Clearly I have to allow furries in my game.No you don't. Firefly just doesn't like the idea of you banning them. Nothing was said about what you must do. You added that in yourself.
Firefly equated it with homophobia and said it was wrong and bad to do it.
Was firefly adding that commentary because she was all in favor of GM's being able to restrict as they wish, or was Firefly saying that saying no to furries is wrongbadfun.
I asked, Firefly answered.
If as a GM I say "No guys named Bob" I don't have to justify it. I don't have to explain it. It is part of whatever criteria I am laying out for a game you can decide to play in or not to play in. If I just think your concept is stupid, I can reject it for that reason alone if I can find 4 other players with ideas I don't think are stupid.
You as a player can decide not to play in my setting, and I as a GM can decide not to run your character.
If I don't want furries, because I think they would be a stupid concept, that is more than enough reason.
|
|
Firefly equated it with homophobia and said it was wrong and bad to do it.Well, if you were banning the PLAYER for being a furry, without giving them a chance to play without using those themes, I would say that was wrong and bad too.
And if we were talking about people in real life rather than concepts for players in the you might have a point.
But we aren't and weren't.
Equating not allowing a player to play a furry in a game because you hate that concept, for whatever years, to being homophobic is not saying "You can ban it if you want to"
It is saying "You are a bad person and you are wrong if you don't allow this concept".
If someone came to me and said "I want to play a German who says 'Sieg Heil' all the time" and I said no, it isn't me being racist against germans. It is me thinking that concept is stupid and I don't want it in my game.
What the OP said was basically "Dude came to me with a concept that I thought was dumb and disruptive, I tried to talk to him about ways to make it work, and he wasn't interested"
Then followed up with "Player came back and realized he was being a problem player, we talked and we worked something out that wouldn't be as annoying."
Key part in all that discussion was, GM made the call, not the player.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Firefly equated it with homophobia and said it was wrong and bad to do it.Well, if you were banning the PLAYER for being a furry, without giving them a chance to play without using those themes, I would say that was wrong and bad too.
This is a different scenario.
Any player is (or should be) welcome at the table. If that player becomes disruptive, or is unwilling to play in the system the DM/group is using, then that is a different story.
Being a furry is not the same as playing a furry. And neither of those equates to, requires, or justifies, being a Kitsune. The DM is under no obligation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't believe how explosive this thread has become. Hilariously, the op resolved his issue with the player on page two. Iron he!
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
How in the hell does disallowing races/classes or whatever equate to some sort of discrimination?
Those things are as far apart as Peanut Butter and the Moon Landing.
You have to go out of your way to make it an issue about discrimination.
This implies something much deeper, and unrelated to the game at hand.
Seriously, no logical path leads to this absurd conclusion.
If a player says "I want to play a Vampire" in a Pathfinder game, and the DM says "This is not an Evil or Monstrous campaign, so no."
Is the DM an Antisemitic?
No.
That is the exact same maddening nonsensical conclusion being brought here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How in the hell does disallowing races/classes or whatever equate to some sort of discrimination?
Those things are as far apart as Peanut Butter and the Moon Landing.
You have to go out of your way to make it an issue about discrimination.
This implies something much deeper, and unrelated to the game at hand.
Seriously, no logical path leads to this absurd conclusion.
If a player says "I want to play a Vampire" in a Pathfinder game, and the DM says "This is not an Evil or Monstrous campaign, so no."
Is the DM an Antisemitic?
No.
That is the exact same maddening nonsensical conclusion being brought here.
This. Thank you, bbt.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are you saying it's not insensitive to exclude those of us who are Hemovorous or rely on a prosthetic body suit to function as normal adventurers?
For shame, BBT.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I ban the Synthesist Summoner from my campaigns but I allow Catfolk and Kitsune.
I feel so torn.
|
I ban the Synthesist Summoner from my campaigns but I allow Catfolk and Kitsune.
I feel so torn.
I talked it over with my players and decided I wouldn't allow summoners at all... then I asked my new GM of Skull & Shackles if we were allowed to play them in his game... I think I must be deeply repressed :(