Check the edited part, though. You can always mold something into a good story, unless your world is full of racists who's mind and opinion on individuals is permanent like they're some readily programmed collective of robots instead of sentient beings. Though if that were the case, why aren't the players raving speciest genocide supporters as well then? Why would anyone be GOOD in such a world?
|
I know that's not true in all cases, but it can be in some. What is the issue here, then? Because I suspect simple miscommunication at work...
You misunderstand.
Some here are putting the existence of a race, and the allowance of a race as a PC, as if they were the same thing.
So, for some, disallowing a race to be played by a player, means that they do not exist. That's not true.
There is no issue.
I am only responding to those who were making it a point to correlate the two.
The imagined discrimination is something that boggles my mind.
I am more on your side than you seem to know.
I need to learn to add the sarcasm tag more often it seems.
I know you're on my side in some manner from past discussions, I'm not questioning that.
Though I have to once again question why this thread has been allowed to go on, considering the original issue was resolved.
|
You can always mold something into a good story, unless your world is full of racists who's mind and opinion on individuals is permanent like they're some readily programmed collective of robots instead of sentient beings.
And here we go back to "The GM must figure out a way to make my concept work!" rather than "I should make a concept that works for the table in the game I agreed to play."
I'm going to assume "Not doing so is racist" is just sarcasm.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can always mold something into a good story, unless your world is full of racists who's mind and opinion on individuals is permanent like they're some readily programmed collective of robots instead of sentient beings.And here we go back to "The GM must figure out a way to make my concept work!" rather than "I should make a concept that works for the table in the game I agreed to play."
I'm going to assume "Not doing so is racist" is just sarcasm.
Thank you! Why does one insist on playing one of the handful of disallowed races or race/class combinations when there is so much else (including, in my campaign, a lot of custom material) to choose from?
Edit: Simply wearing an "I'm a PC, ask me how" shirt doesn't prevent the townsfolk from viewing you as a monster.
|
|
Edit: Simply wearing an "I'm a PC, ask me how" shirt doesn't prevent the townsfolk from viewing you as a monster.
So much this. A large part of why you play a table top game with a GM is because you expect the GM to have a setting where people act like people would act. You want the GM to pass the Turing test.
When people playing aren't even making a half-assed effort to fit the setting, for many of us the game becomes silly naval gazing.
That isn't wrongbadfun, but I should be able to run a game that doesn't include that if I want to, in the same way a GM who wants to run that style should be able to do so.
But requiring me to allow a concept into the game I am running that I think is disruptive to the game is like saying "You have to let him come to the party, even if he always poops in the punchbowl"
You can always mold something into a good story, unless your world is full of racists who's mind and opinion on individuals is permanent like they're some readily programmed collective of robots instead of sentient beings.And here we go back to "The GM must figure out a way to make my concept work!" rather than "I should make a concept that works for the table in the game I agreed to play."
I'm going to assume "Not doing so is racist" is just sarcasm.
Thank you! Why does one insist on playing one of the handful of disallowed races or race/class combinations when there is so much else (including, in my campaign, a lot of custom material) to choose from?
Edit: Simply wearing an "I'm a PC, ask me how" shirt doesn't prevent the townsfolk from viewing you as a monster.
So is it correct to say that if a given race was not mentioned, it is automatically disallowed?
And a player should never ask if said thing that was left unmentioned is an option since that is some kind of heresy?
I get that if the DM says "X is not allowed" that X is indeed not allowed. But does Y have to be banned because it was not mentioned?
Also, what if the DM has made a setting and thinks X doesn't fit in it, but all the players disagree and find that X fits in the established setting?
|
|
So is it correct to say that if a given race was not mentioned, it is automatically disallowed?
And a player should never ask if said thing that was left unmentioned is an option since that is some kind of heresy?
No that is not correct. That is wrong.
A player can ask for any concept they wish.
And if the GM says no, the player can ask why and the GM should explain why.
If the explanation is "I don't want 'X' in this campaign" that is a good enough answer that the player should either come up with another concept or not play in that particular game.
A player is not entitled to play any concept they want in a game they aren't running.
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.
OK. What if a gay guy wants to play a female character in a game, and the GM says "No, I don't want you to do that, it will make the other guys uncomfortable. You can be in my game, but you can't play a female. Also never mention your boyfriend. Just sit around here while we talk about Kate Upton for the first hour and never say a thing because gay people are icky." That's what I hear when I see kitsune banned because "furries are silly".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK. What if a gay guy wants to play a female character in a game, and the GM says "No, I don't want you to do that, it will make the other guys uncomfortable. You can be in my game, but you can't play a female. Also never mention your boyfriend. Just sit around here while we talk about Kate Upton for the first hour and never say a thing because gay people are icky." That's what I hear when I see kitsune banned because "furries are silly".
Of course I would prohibit that, the same way I ban Humans from playing Elves. (<-- sarcasm)
But comparing the two is like comparing trans* gender people with those who say they are trans species. It is appropriative, and mocks those who are actually oppressed, hurt, and killed for being the way they are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, my take on this whole issue is pretty much as follows:
"Okay, I'm not sure about you playing race/class in this campaign. Can you justify this character's presence? Make me want this character in the game. Tell me why you think this character - not just a race/class, but the character you're intending to play - should be a PC in this game. I'm not setting a high bar to reach, I just want to feel up front that you can make it work. I've got adventures to write, plot to plan, NPCs to craft, I don't have time to fit the character you want into the campaign. But if I know you've got it covered, you can go ahead."
At this point the player has two options: they can either do what I've asked, or they can not do what I've asked. If they choose not to, but moan in an entitled way about their "right" to play their character and that I should put more effort into their character's inclusion than they have, they're SOL.
It isn't the GM's job to accede to every player whim, nor is it a player's job to meekly submit to the GM's decisions. As reasonable people it is their joint job to work together to find the place those whims and decisions can mesh to make the experience better for everyone.
|
|
OK. What if a gay guy wants to play a female character in a game, and the GM says "No, I don't want you to do that, it will make the other guys uncomfortable. You can be in my game, but you can't play a female. Also never mention your boyfriend. Just sit around here while we talk about Kate Upton for the first hour and never say a thing because gay people are icky." That's what I hear when I see kitsune banned because "furries are silly".
I'm not even sure where to start...
First, I don't know how your group goes, but we don't spend a lot of time talking about Kate Upton while we are playing. Our sexual lives and fantasies aren't a big part of killing dragons and such...YMMV.
So I guess the second question is, "Is the gay guy planning to sexualize the game is the gay guy just asking to play a character who is planning to be a woman?" and if he is planning to sexualize...uh...I don't care what he is playing, I'm not personally interested in people playing out sexual fantasies on the board. It's plexiglass and all, but even still the clean up...
If you are planning to sexualize the game, I may or may not want you to participate regardless of what gender you pick, because I don't want the game I am running sexualized. I don't want you to try to do all the tavernmaids or houseboys or whatever, because that isn't the game I want to run.
I have effectively banned people for that kind of behavior (as in, forget to tell them about the next game...) specifically because they made the game not fun for everyone playing by being overtly sexual throughout the game.
What you do in your non-game time does not give you access to doing things in someone elses game.
Also, just to be clear, you are saying I am wrong if I say "No furries" as a setting criteria.
|
|
OK. What if a gay guy wants to play a female character in a game, and the GM says "No, I don't want you to do that, it will make the other guys uncomfortable. You can be in my game, but you can't play a female. Also never mention your boyfriend. Just sit around here while we talk about Kate Upton for the first hour and never say a thing because gay people are icky." That's what I hear when I see kitsune banned because "furries are silly".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.
That is not wwhat is happening, or comparable. That is a choice made off of who is playing, and not what.
You are twisting it to make it a discrimination issue.
This makes you racist.
This makes you sexist.
This makes you guilty of every form of discrimination in existance, because that's what I want it to be about.
Right?!?
If a gay guy wants to play a female in my game and he does it in a way that doesn't make everyone else at the table uncomfortable, he's fine with me. If a straight guy wants to play a female and does it in a way that doesn't make everyone at the table uncomfortable, fine with me. If a lesbian wants to play a male and does it in a way that doesn't make everyone at the table uncomfortable, fine with me. If a Smurf wants to play a human at my table and does it in a way that doesn't make everyone at the table uncomfortable, fine with me ..
You might notice a common theme here that is not specifically linked to race, gender, social class, ethnicity or any of the various -isms or -ists out there?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But...but...if it isn't a discrimination issue than I am just selfishly trying to force the GM to support me doing whatever I want to do, exactly as I want to do it, rather than being a victim...
I AM A VICTIM!
Nope.
Old mother Hubbard, went to her cupboard, and looked dead into the eyes of a chicken, but the moon was waxing, not waning, so you are a racist.
This puts you only 3 steps above Hitler, because there was a guy who loves Adidas, that saw a double rainbow.
|
|
If a gay guy wants to play a female in my game and he does it in a way that doesn't make everyone else at the table, he's fine with me. If a straight guy wants to play a female and does it in a way that doesn't make everyone at the table uncomfortable, fine with me. If a lesbian wants to play a male and does it in a way that doesn't make everyone at the table uncomfortable, fine with me. If a Sm-rf wants to play a human at my table and does it in a way that doesn't make everyone at the table uncomfortable, fine with me ..
You might notice a common theme here that is not specifically linked to race, gender, social class, ethnicity or any of the various -isms or -ists out there?
That's class warfare! You must be a Communist!
Also, you are Homophobic, because you use the word "uncomfortable", at least twice.
So is it correct to say that if a given race was not mentioned, it is automatically disallowed?
And a player should never ask if said thing that was left unmentioned is an option since that is some kind of heresy?
I get that if the DM says "X is not allowed" that X is indeed not allowed. But does Y have to be banned because it was not mentioned?
Also, what if the DM has made a setting and thinks X doesn't fit in it, but all the players disagree and find that X fits in the established setting?
A good GM should make it clear from the start which races are allowed and which ones are not. If the GM only has certain races in mind as acceptable, she should say, "In the game I'm running the only available races are A, B, C, D, and E." That way there's no confusion - the player knows right away that he has to pick a race from those five. Alternatively, the GM might say, "all races from the CRB and ARG are allowable except for X, Y, and Z," in which case the players can pick anything they want except for the disallowed races.
|
|
If a gay guy wants to play a female in my game and he does it in a way that doesn't make everyone else at the table, he's fine with me. If a straight guy wants to play a female and does it in a way that doesn't make everyone at the table uncomfortable, fine with me. If a lesbian wants to play a male and does it in a way that doesn't make everyone at the table uncomfortable, fine with me. If a Sm-rf wants to play a human at my table and does it in a way that doesn't make everyone at the table uncomfortable, fine with me ..
You might notice a common theme here that is not specifically linked to race, gender, social class, ethnicity or any of the various -isms or -ists out there?
That's class warfare! You must be a Communist!
Also, you are Homophobic, because you use the word "uncomfortable", at least twice.
Small Men Under Red Father
I'm just sayin'...
I don't allow Smurfs. They don't fit the setting. I don't want it to become some silly Smurfie game. It's supposed to be grim. Also, the only reason to play one is for the stats. They're all just min-maxed munchkins.
I really don't know whether to ignore this thread or keep reading...
The only thought I have is "Do a barrel roll"
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't know whether to ignore this thread or keep reading...It is a train wreck...but it's your train wreck :)
This topic is ALWAYS a train wreck. It's like politics for gamers...
Perceived Rights vs. Actual RightsI personally love my gaming group because whoever bears the mantle of DM more or less gets ultimate veto power, and the players are 99% of the time perfectly ok with it. In a game with such a variety of class and race combos, the word "no" just means that the player moves on to the 2nd of his hundreds of concepts.
-Vaz
|
|
If a DM were to say that gay characters were not allowed in his game, would that be discrimination?Well yes, but it would be harmless discrimination.
Let's turn this around a bit.
Let us say a player appeared with a concept for an incredibly flaming homosexual stereotype, a Bard with a hard core lisp, really over the top.
Can the GM say "No, that is kind of offensive" or is that homophobic too?
|
If a DM were to say that gay characters were not allowed in his game, would that be discrimination?Well yes, but it would be harmless discrimination.Let's turn this around a bit.
Let us say a player appeared with a concept for an incredibly flaming homosexual stereotype, a Bard with a hard core lisp, really over the top.
Can the GM say "No, that is kind of offensive" or is that homophobic too?
What if the player were an 'incredibly flaming homosexual stereotype', would you ban him from your game on that basis?
|
|
I didn't say anything about homophobia.
That was Firefly's implication with regards to not allowing Furries.
Do I have to allow a flaming, lisping, Bard or not? Is it discrimination to allow it, because it is potentially offensive, or is it discrimination not to allow it?
Or we could just let the GM do what they were selected to do and decide what concepts do and don't fit, because that is part of their job.
|
|
What if the player were an 'incredibly flaming homosexual stereotype', would you ban him from your game on that basis?If a DM were to say that gay characters were not allowed in his game, would that be discrimination?Well yes, but it would be harmless discrimination.Let's turn this around a bit.
Let us say a player appeared with a concept for an incredibly flaming homosexual stereotype, a Bard with a hard core lisp, really over the top.
Can the GM say "No, that is kind of offensive" or is that homophobic too?
Are they fun to game with or annoying. I've met both.
|
|
Are they fun to game with or annoying. I've met both.What if the player were an 'incredibly flaming homosexual stereotype', would you ban him from your game on that basis?If a DM were to say that gay characters were not allowed in his game, would that be discrimination?Well yes, but it would be harmless discrimination.Let's turn this around a bit.
Let us say a player appeared with a concept for an incredibly flaming homosexual stereotype, a Bard with a hard core lisp, really over the top.
Can the GM say "No, that is kind of offensive" or is that homophobic too?
So that kind of bard character would be okay if they were fun rather than annoying?
How would you know which if you banned that character before play?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a player or his/her character is homosexual, that would not matter to me at all. However, sex and sexuality does not feature in my games. There are the occasional childish jokes, innuendoes, and double entendres, of course. But, aside from that, it is mostly ignored.
So, if you are gay, that's fine. If a PC is gay, that's fine, too. If you need your sexuality (hetero- or homo- ) to be center stage, you would be politely asked to tone it down. If you can't or won't, you would be politely asked to leave.
Is that badwrongfun?
|
|
So that kind of bard character would be okay if they were fun rather than annoying?How would you know which if you banned that character before play?
You would ask the GM if it was ok to play whatever concept you have in mind, and you would describe what you have in mind. The GM would ask you questions, you would answer them honestly, and then the GM would let you know.
If they say yes, you are allowed. If they say no, come up with some other concept.
These are easy!
|
|
So that kind of bard character would be okay if they were fun rather than annoying?How would you know which if you banned that character before play?
You would ask the GM if it was ok to play whatever concept you have in mind, and you would describe what you have in mind. The GM would ask you questions, you would answer them honestly, and then the GM would let you know.
If they say yes, you are allowed. If they say no, come up with some other concept.
These are easy!
This sounds very reasonable.
So why is this approach not applied to a player who wants to play a kitsune?
|
|
So that kind of bard character would be okay if they were fun rather than annoying?How would you know which if you banned that character before play?
You would ask the GM if it was ok to play whatever concept you have in mind, and you would describe what you have in mind. The GM would ask you questions, you would answer them honestly, and then the GM would let you know.
If they say yes, you are allowed. If they say no, come up with some other concept.
These are easy!
This sounds very reasonable.
So why is this approach not applied to a player who wants to play a kitsune?
It was. You didn't read the OP did you?
The level of miscommunication in this thread has reached epic proportions.
|
|
The level of miscommunication in this thread has reached epic proportions.Not possible. That book isn't out yet :)'The Book of Misscommunication'
This fabled and dreaded book has the reverse effect of the 'Point of View Gun'. No matter how hard you try people will just not get the point of what you are saying.
I believe it is called "Ultimate Miscommunication"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A player can ask for any concept they wish.
Yes.
And if the GM says no, the player can ask why and the GM should explain why.
Yes.
If the explanation is "I don't want 'X' in this campaign" that is a good enough answer
No.
This is the issue. That effectively defeats the purpose of asking why.
That's pretty much the equivalent of "Why?" "Because."
I don't let my little brother get away with that s&~~ and I certainly won't allow someone who's an adult to do so either.
Thank you! Why does one insist on playing one of the handful of disallowed races or race/class combinations when there is so much else (including, in my campaign, a lot of custom material) to choose from?
Edit: Simply wearing an "I'm a PC, ask me how" shirt doesn't prevent the townsfolk from viewing you as a monster.
This WOULD fly...if you weren't the one who controlled the setting. Saying "X exists, but everyone hates it" is your decision. You cannot then point at the document and say "See? Look, everyone attacks Half-Orcs on sight, it's in the document!" and shrug and give a little fake smile like your hands are tied. It's mutable.
I find this to be a bit of a gray area, because it's harder to change after a game has already been played in it, but before the first game starts in that setting nothing is set in stone.
Now, "Half-Orcs are reviled because there's a story reason behind it" is perfectly fine. But "Half-Orcs are hated in-setting because I hate them and don't want you to play one" is not. It's a bit childish.
Also childish is an insistance on playing a banned race rather than one of the almost infinite number of other options ...
What came first, the chicken or the egg?
(The concept of course!) The player in question manned up and spoke with the GM. Sounds like it ended well to me.