| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I say "No Lizardfolk sorcerers".
A good player says "Then can I play a Lizardfolk wizard or witch instead, because I want a reptile throwing arcane spells?" (yes, you can)
A bad player says "Why the hell not?" (uh, because there aren't any)
Not that hard.
|
No it isn't a different story. It is how many people run their game. Many of us have consistent game worlds and settings that the players have participated in building over years.
That's not the story I've been hearing throughout this thread and others in the slightest.
Best case it's been "The GM has his concept for the setting and if you mess with that it ruins his fun, which is bad"
Is ruining fun not "bad".
The entire arguement for allowing a build in is that if you don't, it ruins the players fun, correct?
So you are basically saying if a GM doesn't want to run a game with a concept in the game, they are wrong.
But if a player wants to play a concept that the GM doesn't want to run, the player is entitled to make the GM run it anyway.
Do you really not see the problem with that logic?
|
|
Who are you replying to?That is not "player entitlement", that's DM abuse.
The DM is there to have fun too.
People seem to forget that part.
Anyone putting the DM in a light as some sort of villain for even thinking about disallowing anything, is just maddeningly unjust and borders the realm of severe douchbaggery.
Then, shoehorning mass amounts of accusations of horrible discrimination on top of that is just asshat behavior for the sake of being an asshat.
And that, in a nutshell, is the player entitlement community.
A small but vocal minority of players who feel like they are victimized by anyone who says "no" to them, who have no sense of irony at the fact that they themselves are demanding people do exactly what they tell them to do...
|
|
Just to remind newcomers who didn't read the thread, again:
The OP and his player worked it out peacefully.
He allowed the Kitsune.
After the player promised to play it the way the GM insisted. A key point that should not be overlooked in the discussion.
The GM only said no in the beginning because the player refused all suggestions of ways to fit it into the game. Only when the player agreed to conditions and promised not to be disruptive, did the GM agree.
|
|
Then he's being a jerk and I leave.Ok, suppose the GM doesn't justify it. Just chooses not to. Disallowed because I don't like it. Nothing more.
Are you going to just... what? Play it anyway? How do you think that's going to work out for you?
So, if the DM's decision isn't final enough for you...
So because he doesn't like your idea, you take your ball and go home rather than come up with something else.
And the GM is the jerk in your mind in this scenario?
Interesting...
|
Just to remind newcomers who didn't read the thread, again:
The OP and his player worked it out peacefully.
He allowed the Kitsune.
After the player promised to play it the way the GM insisted. A key point that should not be overlooked in the discussion.
The GM only said no in the beginning because the player refused all suggestions of ways to fit it into the game. Only when the player agreed to conditions and promised not to be disruptive, did the GM agree.
That sounds very peaceful.
I hope they both have fun.
|
|
And yet we had people supporting the player and not the GM...in my mind I translated it as the gm should just bend over and take whatever the player dishes out. *rolls eyes*.Yes we're getting a lot of this.
If I were a more uncharitable person I could harp on how "Compromise = Ass Rape" as much as BBT harped on "Disallowance = Racism".
You aren't asking for compromise. You are asking for acquiescence.
Compromise is the GM going "That isn't going to work, what else you got so we can try and work something out that fits?"
What you are asking for is the GM to rewrite the setting to accomodate whatever idea the player comes up with, because the GM serves the individual player. Not the group, the group selected the GM and agreed to play in the setting, the individual player.
|
|
Yes, if you 'insist'. But you seem to be saying it can't even be discussed without being rude and entitled.
Absolutely not. Never make up a character before you decide on the setting. Wy the heck would you create a character before knowing the world they live in?
I have about five or six stable characters that I tweak to fit each game. Most games I play in do not have super specific restrictions, and most of my characters are standard enough to not even raise an eyebrow.
I have a warforged warblade I made ahead of time. Should I not have made him just because I didn't know when I would find a setting he could fit in?
Any campaign the restrictions are put out there before we decide what to play. If you decide to play a campaign concept which has its restrictions as part of it, you have rather i icily accepted the restrictions. The time for bringing things like that up is before you decide on the campaign. Then is when you can say "I can only ever have fun playing an x and in no other way"
I don't have a comprehensive "Banned" list stashed anywhere. I'm not sure I'm even aware of all of the things that might get put on there if I were to make one. And anything I put on there would almost certainly be subject to revision upon review.
So, no. There is no major agreement, overt or tacit, among my players and I. Core and APG are allowed, UC and UM get reviewed but are likely, alternate core race traits are in, but non-core races etc. from ARG are by permission only, other paizo material has to be approved, 3.5 and 3pp are fairly unlikely, but ask if you want.
Make a concept. Need a random splat feat to make it work? Ask. Answers no? Let's find another way. Why is this such a tragedy for so many people?
|
|
If they are generic enough to fit, then sure. But a warforged is hardly generic is he?
I designed him to be a sentient shield guardian build long ago and left inert after his master was killed. I usually have him found and healed by one of the party spellcasters and assume duties as their guardian. This helps for worlds without warforged.
I mean, it was literally the only thing you said wasn't included.
You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your job to fit that unusual character choice to the setting not my job to warp the setting to fit you choosing the one percent of banned things rather than the 99% of in things.
Neither of us have a job in this case. It's a game. I'm only saying that when the DM can bend, he should honestly consider it. Otherwise it is the player that is alway bending, and I don't like doing that to my players. The setting is as mutable as the character in 99% of the things in it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want to discuss this but this conversation is moving way to fast for me....
I think everyone can agree:
1. The GM has a right to remove certain things from the game (The Most Important Rule).
2. The player has the right to ask why (as anyone has the right to ask that of anything).
My Thoughts on the rest:
If the GM responds to the question "Why can't I play an orc?" with "Because I said so", while that is all he HAS to say because he's the GM, he is refusing to answer the player's question, which is antagonistic. Like an authoritarian parent who refuses to discuss or back up his decisions, it breeds resentment and isn't healthy for a gaming group.
If the GM responds with an actual reason, such as "Orcs went extinct in this world because they couldn't adapt to expanding civilization and died off in wars they started" (something that happened at my table), and the player replies with "Well, I was thinking ________ as a backstory might make him fit" (he's the result of some mad wizard's genetic experiment, he's from a foreign land, etc.), the player is not being entitled or stubborn. He is seeing if he can accomodate the GM's decision and reach a compromise.The GM is not require to aquiesce, but listening to the player is at least being reasonable, even if he already knows he is not going to change his mind, and he can respond with the reasons why he is not going to.
If the GM responds in either way and the player responds with "No, I am GOING to play an orc and do it the way I want to! (as if orcs existed in this world)", that is being an entitled player, at which point I would say "Work with me on it, play a different character, or play a different game."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The large citrus fruit has summarized my position nicely.
Walter: "Am I wrong?"
The Dude: "You're not wrong, Walter. You're just an a%+!%$%!"
There's also a lot of "special snowflake" on the part of DMs who think banning features from a world makes it more interesting than arbitrary.
It may seem arbitrary to you, but it may not be to the GM.
I say "No Lizardfolk sorcerers".
A good player says "Then can I play a Lizardfolk wizard or witch instead, because I want a reptile throwing arcane spells?" (yes, you can)
A bad player says "Why the hell not?" (uh, because there aren't any)Not that hard.
The problem with the bad player's question is the "the hell" part. I would ask the question in order to ensure that I move far enough away from whatever the DM does not like. For example, if the answer is that for plot reasons that specific combination cannot occur, I would know that another arcane class is fine.
On the other hand, if the answer were that a key plot point was that in this game world lizardfolk are incapable of arcane magic, I would know not to try any other arcane lizardfolk combinations. If I had my heart set on playing a lizardfolk (assuming that the race itself isn't banned), I might consider what a lizardfolk who wanted to be an arcane spellcaster but couldn't might do -- maybe he would become a cleric with the Magic domain, or a rogue who eventually picks up minor magic through rogue talents. Knowing the reason for the ban on lizardfolk sorcerers would give me an idea of how far from the original concept I need to go to fit into the DM's game world.
There's also a lot of "special snowflake" on the part of DMs who think banning features from a world makes it more interesting than arbitrary.
Running games for me is a playing ground to develop fleshed out worlds to explore in my art and writings. I want a concise, believable world that can also host compelling stories. As great as it sounds, a world with 20+ different races all living close to eachother with unique cultures and no discrimination of any kind, isn't concise or realistic.
And if anyone feels like making the "there's magic, don't talk about realism" comment, don't. Even the most far-removed fantasy elements make sense in the universe they exist in, other elements (society, technology, language) are all based on real world cultures.
I do agree that arbitrarily banning things (no kitsune because I don't like them, not because they don't fit the story or world) is a poor thing to do because it forces player options into GM preferences for characters.
Going into the reasons never, ever results in a player replying "Gee, I see your point, so I'll make something else"... at least, not in any game I've ever seen. If a player demands something more than "This is the tone I want for the game," he's already a problem player. Wading into the details won't fix that.
I posted an example from my game of player-DM compromise enabled by the DM going into his reasons in a previous iteration of this thread. Further, I don't actually think this sort of thing is particularly uncommon.
I say "No Lizardfolk sorcerers".
A good player says "Then can I play a Lizardfolk wizard or witch instead, because I want a reptile throwing arcane spells?" (yes, you can)
A bad player says "Why the hell not?" (uh, because there aren't any)Not that hard.
The problem with the bad player's question is the "the hell" part. I would ask the question in order to ensure that I move far enough away from whatever the DM does not like. For example, if the answer is that for plot reasons that specific combination cannot occur, I would know that another arcane class is fine.
On the other hand, if the answer were that a key plot point was that in this game world lizardfolk are incapable of arcane magic, I would know not to try any other arcane lizardfolk combinations. If I had my heart set on playing a lizardfolk (assuming that the race itself isn't banned), I might consider what a lizardfolk who wanted to be an arcane spellcaster but couldn't might do -- maybe he would become a cleric with the Magic domain, or a rogue who eventually picks up minor magic through rogue talents. Knowing the reason for the ban on lizardfolk sorcerers would give me an idea of how far from the original concept I need to go to fit into the DM's game world.
A non-magic class that pretends to be a spellcaster through UMD is one of my favorite kinds of characters. I would actually be excited if a player came to me with that in a game where I said lizardfolk couldn't be arcane spellcasters. The sorts of character interaction and plot devices you can throw in are delicious.
Going into the reasons never, ever results in a player replying "Gee, I see your point, so I'll make something else"... at least, not in any game I've ever seen. If a player demands something more than "This is the tone I want for the game," he's already a problem player. Wading into the details won't fix that.I posted an example from my game of player-DM compromise enabled by the DM going into his reasons in a previous iteration of this thread. Further, I don't actually think this sort of thing is particularly uncommon.
Another anecdote on this coming from my table>
(Background: One of my players wants to try a homebrew combination of barbarian/rogue called Shadow Fury for her next character. This was okayed by me).
SKiller: *browsing through ARG* What about Hobgoblins? They'd be great for this class.
Big Lemon: Goblinoids in this world have been at war with humans, elves, and dwarves since the dawn of civilization.
SKiller: So could they work at all?
Big Lemon: The only sort of backstory I can think of that would work is if you were an escape slave. You would have to hide your true nature and risk being chased out of town or attacked on sight by people that realize who you are.
SKiller: That could be fun.
Included in that is also the unspoken trust in me that I won't create a story that requires the party to spend a lot of time in cities and large groups of people that will make it hard for her character to do anything.
