| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So a world where dragons, flumphs, ettins and reality-warping magic exist is not bizarre by default in your opinion?
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to accept that. Even low-level clerics and wizards can pull off some fantastic stuff, regardless of race.
These things do not exist in the life of the average farmer/villager. That's the whole point of bucolic settings. They are islands of normalcy, usually within a civilized kingdom that keeps such things at bay.
The PCs lives are steeped in the fantastic. That's what it means to be an adventurer. It is what makes them different and special.
Normal folk live in a normal world. And when un-normal stuff intrudes on their lives they tend to react poorly and hope for some brave adventurers to come help. This is part and parcel of the trope.
A party that is far too un-normal is indistinguishable from the same threats that panic the regular folk. And role playing this type of clash every time the party wanders into a new place gets exhausting for players and DM alike. However, ignoring the elephant in the room detracts from immersion. So it becomes a loose-loose situation.
I don't tend to run games where Bob the Farmer sees a Beholder floating down the road and just shrugs and sighs, saying "Not another one of these things."
There are campaigns where even the most bumpkin of people are unimpressed with world-shaking magic. But I feel this reduces the coolness factor of the characters in the party. They are the stars of the world. People should be impressed when they perform their deeds - not yawn and go back to nursing an ale.
Really, if something unusual frightens people or turns them hostile, then that will happen regardless of the appearance of the one doing the scaring.
Elves, dwarves, humans, et. al. aren't inherently frightening because they aren't alien. They are normal folk. Once they start to do extraordinary things people will have varying reactions.
Robots, bugs, floating motes of light, monsters, etc...these things are bizarre right from the start.
One of these in a party constitutes an oddity; "that thing that travels with the nice dwarf and human heroes". A whole party of them gives a peasant no starting point. It's just weird and spooky and countless stories have shown us that the pitchforks and torches are soon to follow.
If your worlds are universally cosmopolitan, then more power to you. Mine tend to be more traditionally rooted.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you have a party of freaks, then that is what the racial composition of societies around them should be like too. Every settlement should have ALL the existing races (150 or so by now?), with thousands of variations as to templates, classes and so on. Until you can make that happen, I reserve the right to call b$~@!#%* on the party of freaks concept. An adventuring party must in some way be a reflection of the world around it for their interaction with it to mean something, and for the slightest possibility of maintaining verisimilitude and suspension of disbelief.
I see the overload on races to be something I deal with when I build a setting. I choose a reasonable number, and that is it. I don't buy any sort of argument that it should be a bad thing that not every race and class is available for players. Adding in everything makes a noncoherent world without focus. So, I try to aim for a different style. There is absoutely no reason to have concepts like "the elf country". Elves, if I choose to add them to my setting, should have several different cultures. Scarred lands did this: A trio of elven countries where life was severely different. One was militaristic and disciplined, holding their enemy empire at bay with their vigilance. One had returned to their old ways and lived in small family groups in the forest, with druids in power. The last was mostly urban and quite decadent.
The same would go for every other race in the setting. There is enough conceptual room there to acomodate it. And if this means I will never have the "unbridled joy" of GMing for a half-tengu/half drow dhampir... I think I might just manage to survive that.
Personally, I think this "one wookie rule" would work a lot better if you told all the players it before hand and gave them a chance to decide amongst themselves who will play what race, instead of just having it be the first person to turn in a character sheet. The way I see it, you could still have your verisimilitude, but also the players don't feel like they have to be in a rush to play a race they may like. As a matter of fact, if people get the chance to discuss it beforehand, you'll probably not only lower the chances of people feeling bitter, but also the group can discuss backstory and stuff with each other, thinking up a good way for said wookie to fit in the group, and then you've improved the roleplaying because you have implicitly encouraged trying to actually fit that oddball race in there.
Very good point. I always try to have a pre-campaign session where we get together and work out, as a group, what the composition of the party will be. I also discuss the tone of the adventure and the world and talk a bit about its history and what the characters would know.
This is a negotiation, though, not an edict. There is compromise on both sides as we decide what works best for the group in terms of tone, world, and party. So long as we can find something that works with the massive amount of prep I have done - it's all good.
One fun exercise we sometimes do is that each player must come up with one way that she is connected to the character to her left at the table. This way there is a loose chain of RP connections that binds the party together before we even hit the road. Does wonders for creating character background ideas and for party cohesion.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fantasy in every genre is littered with examples of people from all over the world banding together for various reasons (adventurers, mercenary companies, etc.). It's also happened in our own history, the French Foreign Legion being a famous example. And then suddenly in RPGs, where the only restrictions that exist are the ones you create, this is just too crazy of an idea? Everything needs to be completely homogenized? I don't really understand that sentiment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the party is just a whacky menagerie it raises all kinds of problems. A village of rural bumpkins would likely tolerate a party like this (while giving long stares to the wookie). But they would simply have nothing to do with a total freak party. Their minds wouldn't have anywhere to find purchase.
This is purely dependent upon the way one chooses to make their game world. Not everybody is a narrow-minded racist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't mind people running games with restricted races or not wanting that in their game, because like I said, everyone has different ideas of fun and that's how it should be. I just get very annoyed when people make the assumption that if you don't look at playing races their way, then somehow you're having wrongbadfun or you have bad tastes or making the assumption that said player is a crappy roleplayer or something.
I can't favorite this enough.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How would the "one wookie rule" work if EVERYONE wants an "odd" race?
I might rethink the campaign. I might make 'the party of freaks' an important subplot of the campaign. For example, have bad guys want to capture them at low level and display them in a circus or perhaps make something like 'the heart of a whatever someone happens to be' an important spell component.
So the core assumption is that EVERYONE is a xenophobe / racist / speciesist? I would at least let the party have the benefit of the doubt unless certain factors are put in.
As an example, if a region has been known to suffer from orc attacks, the populace would not take kindly to an orc or a half-orc walking around.There is no good reason for them to act in an unfriendly manner to an elf just because he happens to have pointy ears and a slender build.
I might make some people racist, classist, and it a little afraid of the unknown. Others would be less so. It would also vary by region (I'm visiting Houston right now and it's on the top of my mind).
Take care,
Kerney
Sometimes I really wish there were more people who would DM like I do instead of those who would DM like you do.
No offense, but I just don't like the way you run things. You're free to DM as you see fit, however. Different strokes for different folks.
Wow. That's pretty personal and offensive.
I think making a call that I'm a poor DM based on my stance on a single pre-game setup issue is a bit sweeping.
But no worries. Everyone has their own preferences.
I've run games personally and professionally for thousands of players over several decades. The vast majority of them managed to have a good time.
Proof's in the pudding.
He said nothing about your DMing quality. He said he didn't like your style. So, if you find 'I don't like your style' offensive, stop being condescending to people whose style you don't like.
If you have a party of freaks, then that is what the racial composition of societies around them should be like too.
Pretty much what I do. I don't confuse 'race' and 'culture'. I make nations, and the nations are pretty racially mixed, and nationality is more important than race. An elf and a dwarf from country A will be more similar than an elf from country A and an elf from country B.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He said nothing about your DMing quality. He said he didn't like your style. So, if you find 'I don't like your style' offensive, stop being condescending to people whose style you don't like.Sometimes I really wish there were more people who would DM like I do instead of those who would DM like you do.
No offense, but I just don't like the way you run things. You're free to DM as you see fit, however. Different strokes for different folks.
Wow. That's pretty personal and offensive.
I think making a call that I'm a poor DM based on my stance on a single pre-game setup issue is a bit sweeping.
But no worries. Everyone has their own preferences.
I've run games personally and professionally for thousands of players over several decades. The vast majority of them managed to have a good time.
Proof's in the pudding.
He said that he wished people didn't DM like I do. He wished for a world where I wasn't a DM. That's a pretty direct jab at my ability as a DM.
So I explained that I'm a successful DM, that people enjoy my games, and that I believe the world is just fine with me as a DM in it.
If you choose to find it condescending - that's on you.
Fantasy in every genre is littered with examples of people from all over the world banding together for various reasons (adventurers, mercenary companies, etc.). It's also happened in our own history, the French Foreign Legion being a famous example. And then suddenly in RPGs, where the only restrictions that exist are the ones you create, this is just too crazy of an idea? Everything needs to be completely homogenized? I don't really understand that sentiment.
There cant be any abnormality unless its a bizzare race?
Where did I say that?
He said nothing about your DMing quality. He said he didn't like your style. So, if you find 'I don't like your style' offensive, stop being condescending to people whose style you don't like.Sometimes I really wish there were more people who would DM like I do instead of those who would DM like you do.
No offense, but I just don't like the way you run things. You're free to DM as you see fit, however. Different strokes for different folks.
Wow. That's pretty personal and offensive.
I think making a call that I'm a poor DM based on my stance on a single pre-game setup issue is a bit sweeping.
But no worries. Everyone has their own preferences.
I've run games personally and professionally for thousands of players over several decades. The vast majority of them managed to have a good time.
Proof's in the pudding.
He said that he wished people didn't DM like I do. He wished for a world where I wasn't a DM. That's a pretty direct jab at my ability as a DM.
So I explained that I'm a successful DM, that people enjoy my games, and that I believe the world is just fine with me as a DM in it.
If you choose to find it condescending - that's on you.
"Sometimes I really wish there were more people who would DM like I do instead of those who would DM like you do." Nope, he didn't say that at all.
And yes, the world is just fine with you as a DM. It's also fine with me as a DM. And him as a DM. And her as a DM. The issue is that you're saying 'party of non-core races is BADWRONGFUN because look at my e-peen'. I don't care how long you've been personally and/or professionally running games. Our style is JUST AS VALID as yours, not a 'phase'. So get over yourself.
He said nothing about your DMing quality. He said he didn't like your style. So, if you find 'I don't like your style' offensive, stop being condescending to people whose style you don't like.Sometimes I really wish there were more people who would DM like I do instead of those who would DM like you do.
No offense, but I just don't like the way you run things. You're free to DM as you see fit, however. Different strokes for different folks.
Wow. That's pretty personal and offensive.
I think making a call that I'm a poor DM based on my stance on a single pre-game setup issue is a bit sweeping.
But no worries. Everyone has their own preferences.
I've run games personally and professionally for thousands of players over several decades. The vast majority of them managed to have a good time.
Proof's in the pudding.
He said that he wished people didn't DM like I do. He wished for a world where I wasn't a DM. That's a pretty direct jab at my ability as a DM.
So I explained that I'm a successful DM, that people enjoy my games, and that I believe the world is just fine with me as a DM in it.
If you choose to find it condescending - that's on you.
"Sometimes I really wish there were more people who would DM like I do instead of those who would DM like you do." Nope, he didn't say that at all.
And yes, the world is just fine with you as a DM. It's also fine with me as a DM. And him as a DM. And her as a DM. The issue is that you're saying 'party of non-core races is BADWRONGFUN because look at my e-peen'. I don't care how long you've been personally and/or professionally running games. Our style is JUST AS VALID as yours, not a 'phase'. So get over yourself.
That's a lot of hostility there. I think maybe you are reading something in what I'm typing that I am not intending to write.
Truce, dude. I'm not here to fight.
You started it with the whole "proof's in the pudding" thing. I have been a DM for a while now myself, and my rulings haven't met objections or complaints. I already said that I did not mean to offend. I actually said that in the first post you quoted. Either way, let's just drop it and get back to the matter at hand. By the way, both quantity and quality are good, to an extent.
You started it with the whole "proof's in the pudding" thing. I have been a DM for a while now myself, and my rulings haven't met objections or complaints.
I just posted my thoughts on the party of freaks issue and how I handle it. I suppose that now counts as "starting it".
Never said you have had complaints from your players. Also never said I wish people DMed like me instead of you. That was you.
So I stated my case that I've done a lot of DMing with no complaints, which is all true. Apparently I should have just folded and said, "Yeah you're right. I shouldn't be a DM."
Should know better than to articulate ideas and opinions on a discussion board. That's plain crazy.
|
I would also like this "phase" explained to me in more detail. It seems it was never expanded on once somebody posted about it.
I have been a gamer (not just tabletop or video) since I was able to read and interpret the meaning of instructions given to me in order to complete my objective and save the day, and if race has ever been involved and for me to decide on I have always chosen the one that is as far off from Humans as possible and never once have I said to myself, "You know, I am getting tired of these [non-core] races and I refuse to touch them anymore."
Squid people? Awesome. Cats? Sure. Lizardfolk? Sounds amazing. Birds/Avianfolk? Sweet! And so on.
For 25+ years I have been doing this now. The only reason I am playing as a Human in my campain at the moment is I do not have any of the other books to research the other races. That is going to change very soon for my next character. So what exactly constitutes this "phase" others are speaking of? I am actually quite intrigued and would love to hear more.
-----
Moving to the other argument this topic has of DMing and allowing/disallowing certain races. Hey, you are the DM, be my guest and tell me what you want and don't want at the table. As long as you announce it before we roll our characters I'm game. I dont want to spend 2-3 hours writing up my character with an interesting background and racial traits only to have you say, "not at my table" on day 1 without giving any prior warning.
The "phase" I understand as not the desire to play a non-standard race, but rather the desire to play a non-standard race regardless of the setting. That is, in fact, a sign of some immaturity and/or poor storytelling skills.
PC "I want to be a Yeti!!!one!11one"
DM "This region is a large sandy desert, there are these hairy dudes that only come out at night you can play..."
PC "I SAID YETI!!!!!"
DM "Le sigh."
Most players I know did this when we were teenagers, but no longer ask for ridiculous or inappropriate races. I do, however, still have one player who constantly asks to play a minotaur...
There is nothing wrong with weird races if you are playing a Mos Eisley or Eberron kind of setting. But if the DM is shooting for The Romance of Arthur and you keep wanting to play catfolk, that is a problem.
Eberron does seem like the perfect campaign world for wildly diverse races. It's cosmopolitan, travel is easily accessible, and people are used to seeing magic all the time.
If I was in a game in that world, there would be no issues at all with a menagerie party.
Whale, not all people who want racial diversity are whiny kids.
There are that kind of people on both sides of this argument, you know.
Whale, not all people who want racial diversity are whiny kids.
There are that kind of people on both sides of this argument, you know.
I don't think you understood my argument at all.
The problem is with people wanting to play strange races in inappropriate settings. If you keep wanting to play a catfolk in my Knights of the Round Table game, yes, you are immature because you can't take no for an answer [in fact, look at the two threads about the guy who REALLY wants an allosaurus as an animal companion to see this sort of thinking in a real world example]. It was my experience that people I gamed with in high school made these sorts of demands/requests all the time; this is my experience; this is how I understand the 'phase' point made earlier. This does not mean I am saying that everyone who wants to play a strange race is a "whiny kid." In some games, strange races may be very appropriate. If you want to play a catfolk in a theoretical Eberron game, go for it. You will fit in fine with the Warforged fighter and the Orc druid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whale, not all people who want racial diversity are whiny kids.
There are that kind of people on both sides of this argument, you know.
Quite true.
I think the whole "phase" thing stems from differing camps regarding the relationship between the players and the campaign.
Some believe that a player should subordinate some of their desires for the greater good. While they might feel a particular urge to play a Drow rogue (for example), they can instead play something else if it won't fit well within the campaign world.
Others believe that the campaign follows after character creation - where all the players can make whatever they wish and then the campaign should shape itself to make it work.
Both types of games have their place. A lot depends on how pre-made the world is that the DM will use. And it depends on how the story he has crafted will integrate with different party types.
Some DMs, tend to do a lot of world-building ahead of time; creating histories, nations, and background. Often this will preclude some elements from play to maintain consistency. This is my usual approach as a DM. But not always.
Another style is to build the story as you go. Create a small adventure for the beginning players - whatever they may be - and grow from there using the consequences of each adventure to build on the next. This is conducive any party makeup and can bend itself to fit anything needed. I do this less often because I'm a story-centric DM and like to have some idea of the major arcs in store for a campaign ahead of time.
It sometimes the case that a player will refuse to consider a pre-built campaign world when selecting a character type. Some see this is immature because it is putting personal wants ahead of the group. I believe this is what is meant when people speak of a freak-race "phase" for some players.
In the campaign world I've been making, I've taken steps to accomodate both racial camps. Some regions more or less "belong" to Core races, while others are more exotic locales. Even though Eberron was more racially diverse than most campaign worlds, the Core races were still pretty prevalent except maybe in one nation or two, the main one being the region of Droaam.
Also, part of me feels offended by the term "freak". Personally, I prefer "exotic race" as an alternative.
I use it a more literal sense, where freak means "unusual or unexpected", such as a freak accident or freak storm.
It can also refer to a freak of nature (meaning something that doesn't look like it belongs in nature). Like a human with a cat face and tail or a pig with wings.
Both of these can be used to describe some of the more bizarre racial choices I've seen from players.
A campaign world that supports many different places for different types of play is a gift that keeps on giving. You can use it for multiple campaigns and always have a place that fits your players needs. Good luck with that!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are many reasons I positively loathe the expectation that everyone can play any exotic race they want in any (specifically my) campaign.
First, usually when I see it, they are played for their stats. Typically, these characters have equally exotic class choices for various obscure abilities that go freakish together, usually dependent on the GM letting them abuse rules and whining if they can't.
Second, if this does not happen, there are so many pit traps regarding roleplaying. From "every half-ettercap hates all elves and attack them on sight, why are you not letting me play my character?" to "why did the villagers attack me just because I am a fire-infused tiefling lich wearing a cloak of murdering tentacles and a baby head breastplate??? Unfair!!!oneone", I have been forced to deal with all kinds of idiotic nonsense. Others do this too, but exotic race choices are typically a true hallmark.
Third, if someone comes from a foreign culture, I want them to learn to relate to the local culture in some way, AND I want to see them interact with their own culture somewhere along the way. I can usually do that with elves, dwarves, and whatever else the typical races are in the campaign setting. If the poor, lonesome snowflake character comes from the other side of the planet, or even worse, from a crashed spelljammer vessel, I can't. Now, if what you want to do is bash monsters exclusively, you might not care... But that is not the campaign I run, either. Nor is this any easier when the player insists that I include the caber-tossing and kilt-bearing samurai mist orc culture frequently in my setting to provide this contact point.
Fourth, I usually find that when I say no to an exotic race, if the player accepts this, they make fleshed out, believable characters people can relate to, with quirks, strengths and weaknesses. If I let them keep their snowflake, the character is merely a half-ooze elemental chaos gnome, exactly like all other such characters. The only personality they have is what the race entry says about them, or maybe a simple reversal of something.
Fifth, novelty is a very fleeting thing.
So your problem is with poor players then?
|
|
Lots of great stuff
I certainly see where you are coming from. The complaints you list one can easily flip around against the common core races as well, but we won't go there.
What I will ask is that it seems you have had a few (or multiple it looks like) instances of what you described in your post happen to you before and for that you certainly have my sympathies. Have you ever had a player at your table play a "foreign" or "exotic" race well?
If you "positively loathe" the exotic races I am going to assume the answer is no which is quite sad as I feel that perhaps you have missed out on a great experience that can be brought to your table. Unfortunately I cannot change what has happened but hope and pray that in the future you have a positive experience with one.
For the record, if someone wanted to play some extraterrestrial mars biker mice race with three heads and four arms I would be skeptical too. But I certainly don't feel this way towards the more....(normal?) foreign races such as tengus, kitsune, wayangs, kobolds, undine, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How would the "one wookie rule" work if EVERYONE wants an "odd" race?
As a DM I often impliment a 'one wookie rule' as in the first player to ask for something weird i.e. the less common options in the advanced race guide can go for it, and everyone else has to be core.
I general quality over quantity.
Every adventuring party has mindspace for one oddball character (the wookie). But for that oddball to have room to shine you need the rest of the group to be normal.
If the party is just a whacky menagerie it raises all kinds of problems. A village of rural bumpkins would likely tolerate a party like this (while giving long stares to the wookie). But they would simply have nothing to do with a total freak party. Their minds wouldn't have anywhere to find purchase.
Multiply this times all the villages encountered in a campaign and it gets more exhausting than fun. So you start to just forget about that aspect and the verisimilitude suffers.
So the core assumption is that EVERYONE is a xenophobe / racist / speciesist? I would at least let the party have the benefit of the doubt unless certain factors are put in.
As an example, if a region has been known to suffer from orc attacks, the populace would not take kindly to an orc or a half-orc walking around.There is no good reason for them to act in an unfriendly manner to an elf just because he happens to have pointy ears and a slender build.
An elf is a standard race. I wouldn't have any problem at all with an elf walking into a small village.
But if the party has nothing remotely familiar as a 'civilized' race: clockwork man, giant bug (thri-kreen), kobold and awakened bear - yes...there will be trouble.
It would be a bizarre world if this weren't the case.
What about the following races that can all pass for human unless the player intentionally wished them to be freaks?
Aasimaar (humans with possibly the rare potential for white feathery vestigial wings or metallic sheened hair. 90% of them don't grow the wings until 10th level or after.)
Tiefling (able to pass off for human easily, bat wings and barbed tail optional. and even those can be covered by a good corset or skirt if you choose to have them)
Suli (human with a likely tendency towards tan skin, dark hair, and buff frames, elemental heritage is subtle unless displayed)
Fetchling (pale skinned human with minor albino traits)
Oread (human with earth themed hair-eyecolors, could have skin ranging from limestone pale to granite dark. which aren't too off from the human norm)
Undine (human with blue or green eyes and a slightly odd haircolor)
Sylph (pale human with a slender and whispy frame)
Ifrit (human with a tendency towards tanner skin colors and fiery toned haircolors)
Changeling (pale skinned human with heterochromia)
Dhampir (pale skinned human w/ mild albino features)
Samsaran (human w/ pale skin and odd hair/eye color)
these 11 races are hardly a menagerie, being all able to pass off as human with maybe an odd coloration that could be passed off as a dye job or a hint of Gnomish blood
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would say it is far more difficult to do all these things with a race that already has a clear concept in most players' minds, such as elves. If nothing else, I have put some thought to what elves are like in the campaign, which gives me a bit more authority there than when discussing buomman-descended grindylow vampires.
Note also that if I were to make an exotic race a part of my setting, I would have a place for them in it, and my problems above would be solved. Thing is... A setting can deal with a certain number of oddities before becoming unfocused and scattered. I could mention a few settings I have worked on.
One is an incarnum setting that cleaves pretty faithfully to Magic of Incarnum, using the character options from there and the PHB. Races available are human, dwarf, elf, gnome, halfling, half-elf, half-orc, aasimar, tiefling, rilkan, skarn, duskling and azurin.
Another setting was themed around fey, lycanthropes, light and darkness, giving me human, elf, gnome, half-elf, dhampirs, lizardfolk and shifters.
The third was a more experimental setting, with humans, duergar, elans, a race of four-armed engineers and inventors, and a race of noble, nomadic halflings.
The worst discussion I have been in regarding this was when I was making characters for a campaign that featured light elves and dark elves as two sides of a metaphysical coin... And a player wanted me to add SUN ELVES as well, and refused to see that that design space was already filled.
So a world where dragons, flumphs, ettins and reality-warping magic exist is not bizarre by default in your opinion?
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to accept that. Even low-level clerics and wizards can pull off some fantastic stuff, regardless of race.
These things do not exist in the life of the average farmer/villager. That's the whole point of bucolic settings. They are islands of normalcy, usually within a civilized kingdom that keeps such things at bay.
The PCs lives are steeped in the fantastic. That's what it means to be an adventurer. It is what makes them different and special.
Normal folk live in a normal world. And when un-normal stuff intrudes on their lives they tend to react poorly and hope for some brave adventurers to come help. This is part and parcel of the trope.
A party that is far too un-normal is indistinguishable from the same threats that panic the regular folk. And role playing this type of clash every time the party wanders into a new place gets exhausting for players and DM alike. However, ignoring the elephant in the room detracts from immersion. So it becomes a loose-loose situation.
I don't tend to run games where Bob the Farmer sees a Beholder floating down the road and just shrugs and sighs, saying "Not another one of these things."
There are campaigns where even the most bumpkin of people are unimpressed with world-shaking magic. But I feel this reduces the coolness factor of the characters in the party. They are the stars of the world. People should be impressed when they perform their deeds - not yawn and go back to nursing an ale.
Player Characters themselves are freaks, regardless of Race.
i already mentioned 11 races that can all Pass for human enough to not be considered Wookies
but here are descriptive factors a human can use to milk attention from NPCS
Albino
Heterochromia
Insanity
Youth/Age
Terminal Illness
Summoner Levels
Druid Levels
Gunslinger Levels
Alchemist Levels
Being a Foreigner from a Radically different culture
Being a Spellcaster
Dye Jobs
Piercings
Tattoos
Odd Clothing Choices (Nothing Stops the human from dressing like a China Doll, a Mummy, the Grim Reaper, or a Professional Sailor)
and that is just the tip of the iceberg in things humans can do to become freaks.
It's true. A party of adventurers can choose enough skin colors, prosthetic horns, and weird eyes to look like a group of extras from Star Trek: The Next Generation.
But what is the point you are making, Lumiere?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The point, if I understand it, is that there isn't a problem with someone having flaming hair due to being an ifrit, since said player could, if playing a human, just decide to torch his own hair. :-)
Seriously, if a PC dresses up like a mummy or the grim reaper, there will be a heavy price to pay, because normal villagers and townspeople are going to freak about it. By the same token, the same thing will happen if you really are a mummy or a grim reaper. Making your freakishness a "racial issue" rather than a behavioural one won't excuse your freaking out.
It's true. A party of adventurers can choose enough skin colors, prosthetic horns, and weird eyes to look like a group of extras from Star Trek: The Next Generation.
But what is the point you are making, Lumiere?
that there is no point in banning freaks when a human could make a series of modifications to turn themselves into freaks.
if the players wish to play a party of freaks, let them
it's not like they won't already do that if they truly didn't wish to.
i'd rather have a party of mixed races, nationalities, and cultures with a variety of different outlooks than a bunch of humans whom try to look like star trek extras.
a party of planetouched
a purple haired Samsaran Wizard in a purple robe and looks human
an Aasimaar Oracle with blonde hair and blue eyes, clad in mithril plate and looks human
a Fetchling Bard with black hair and blue eyes, pale skin, dressed in victorian noble's garb and looks human
and an Tiefling Ranger with black hair and pale skin, who wears leather armor and looks human
an all human party party
a human sorcerer with prosthetic horns, surgically implanted batwings, and a surgically implanted tail
a human oracle with surgically implanted wings, bleached white hair and dyed blue skin
a human rogue who runs around in a japanese schoolgirl uniform with a pair of curved shortswords
and a human fighter who wears a tengu mask, with a set of samurai armor, and wields a sickle in each hand?
which party would you be more accepting of
the planetouched party who tries to pass themselves off as humans?
or the human party who tries to be freaks?
i'd rather have the planetouched, what about you?
The point, if I understand it, is that there isn't a problem with someone having flaming hair due to being an ifrit, since said player could, if playing a human, just decide to torch his own hair. :-)
Seriously, if a PC dresses up like a mummy or the grim reaper, there will be a heavy price to pay, because normal villagers and townspeople are going to freak about it. By the same token, the same thing will happen if you really are a mummy or a grim reaper. Making your freakishness a "racial issue" rather than a behavioural one won't excuse your freaking out.
and there is no rule stating an Ifrit has to have flaming hair
if they want hair that is a fiery shade of red that isn't hot. it is fine.
It's a phase that RPG groups go through... but also a phase that RPG systems go through. Anybody remember when 3.5 groups always had a whisper gnome, a goliath and an elan in 'em? ;)That's because those races were rally overpowered (well the goliath and whisper gnome were, don't know about elan, never played psionics).Those players weren't just picking a race because they thought it included something new in the world of D&D? That all that talk about 'liking the culture' and 'appreciating the mindset' was just lies? That it was all some kind of... blatant justification for squeezing a little more power out of their favorite overpowered cookie-cutter character template?!
(weeps manly tears) I feel so used!
[Edit: Not making fun of you, by the way, necromental... but of the fact that we GMs are supposed to keep swallowing this guff. Wow, they totally fooled us, dude.]
Elan wasn't that powerful. it's only racial modifier was a charisma penalty, and all of it's situational racial powers required you to be of a psionic manifesting class.
kinda underpowered
my Reason for playing a Fetchling Bard?
i wanted to play some count's sickly shadow-cursed niece, Fetchling Fit that
my reason for playing an Angelkin Oracle?
i wanted to play a Flonne/Colette Brunel Expy, oblivious, nasty damage dealer, mediocre healer, make lots of childlike quips (like cheering Zeppy! Zeppy! every time i saw a Zeppelin or Calling Captain Roargar, Captain Row-Row)
my Reason for playing a Samsaran Conjurer?
i tried to convert Patchouli Knowledge into Pathfinder, Samsaran was the closest thing to a sickly purple haired magician Yokai that could pass for human.
my Reason for playing a Sylph Air Elementalist Wizard/Trapfinder?
i wanted to convert my Weather Gypsy OC, Rin Cloudstrider, Rin was an air element nymph (Sylph was the closest fit) and Sylph offered some fitting boons (weather prediction, speed boost, wind barrier) and i reflavored many spells to be wind themed (Magic Missile became Air-Cutter, Infernal healing become healing Raincloud, ETC. )
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, the people who are most likely to become adventurers are those who do not feel accepted by their people. If you read the backstories for the Pathfinder Iconic PCs, you'll find that 90% of them are bastards, orphans, or people who have been all-around rejected by society. Meresiel is a forlone, Irimjika is an orphan, Amiri was thrown out by her barbarian clan, Lem ran away from home after burning down the house of his former slave masters. Those are all people who no longer fit into society, and because of that I find allowing PCs to be members of weird races to be trivial because generally speaking, a PC with a good reason for adventuring is often an abnormality in the first place.
As a GM, I find that letting my players play some of the weird races challenges me to fit those races into my campaign setting. It might have been a race that I never thought twice about and now all of a sudden I need to decide how a race of monkey men interacts with my world, or even with another world. I think that its lazier to say, "You don't fit into my world at all," then it is to say, "I don't have a place for your kind in my world yet, so let's make you an orphan / adopted / amnesic and we'll grow your cultural heritage from there."
Finally, I agree with many folk that many of the Core races are simply boring and overdone to me. I don't really like playing elves because everyone played an elf at some point in Forgotten Realms, and I find that human characters come with too many traps and pitfalls in their character. I am much more interested in some of the weirder races that sometimes will open themselves to interesting character design and roleplaying situations, in my opinion the best race in the game is the kitsune simply because change shape is one of the most roleplay-heavy racial trait that any race possesses.
But again, its all up to personal tastes and I see no reason why quality and quantity of races needs to be mutually exclusive.
There are many reasons I positively loathe the expectation that everyone can play any exotic race they want in any (specifically my) campaign.
First, usually when I see it, they are played for their stats.
This is why I've grown to dislike racial stat mods -- the psychological pull they create is too strong, and the realism they create is too little. Races already have enough (often too many, I feel) bells and whistles to set them apart from each other, so they don't need stat mods, which create the "Gotta find a +Int race, I want to play a wizard!" effect.
Eberron does seem like the perfect campaign world for wildly diverse races. It's cosmopolitan, travel is easily accessible, and people are used to seeing magic all the time.
If I was in a game in that world, there would be no issues at all with a menagerie party.
Even better is Planescape, where cutters tend to get bored if they don't see something new and bizarre every week.
...I miss Planescape.
A party that is far too un-normal is indistinguishable from the same threats that panic the regular folk. And role playing this type of clash every time the party wanders into a new place gets exhausting for players and DM alike. However, ignoring the elephant in the room detracts from immersion. So it becomes a loose-loose situation.
This is a false dilemma, don't you think?
Early on, I'd expect a 'party of freaks' to get a lot of mistrust, but after they've spent time in an area proving to the locals how heroic (or at least civilized) they are, word spreads. And because they're all freaks, people they've never met will recognize them all the more readily, and come asking for help!
Eberron does seem like the perfect campaign world for wildly diverse races. It's cosmopolitan, travel is easily accessible, and people are used to seeing magic all the time.
If I was in a game in that world, there would be no issues at all with a menagerie party.
Even better is Planescape, where cutters tend to get bored if they don't see something new and bizarre every week.
...I miss Planescape.
A party that is far too un-normal is indistinguishable from the same threats that panic the regular folk. And role playing this type of clash every time the party wanders into a new place gets exhausting for players and DM alike. However, ignoring the elephant in the room detracts from immersion. So it becomes a loose-loose situation.This is a false dilemma, don't you think?
Early on, I'd expect a 'party of freaks' to get a lot of mistrust, but after they've spent time in an area proving to the locals how heroic (or at least civilized) they are, word spreads. And because they're all freaks, people they've never met will recognize them all the more readily, and come asking for help!
I believe that this is what I tried to say earlier.
However, this time I'll just bold it to make sure people see it.
The game I mostly recently has been GMing for Rise of the Runelords is all exotic races, although I was a bit hesistant at the start, I have had little problem running it.
Currently, the party contains:
A Kitsune ninja (Who has been hiding her race from the rest of the people in Sandpoint, and whose family has been secretly working to protect the heir to the Jade Throne)
A Nagaji Saurian Shaman, whose master is a Naga in Kaer Maga and who is working to estabilish trade relations between Varisia and Nagajor. His animal companion is a Velociraptor brought from Najajor.
A Kobold Paladin of Apsu who had escaped from Hobgoblin slavers, and in the process received a vision from Apsu
And a social awkward but brilliant Changeling witch.
Generally my players get more excited about race than class...It's always been the first thing we have picked out when rolling up characters. And I think most of don't worry to much about optimism. Hell...if anything the Paladin is suboptimal. As long as the DM can work with the player it doesn't take that much work to come up with a plausible reason for the character to exist in the game.
This is why I've grown to dislike racial stat mods -- the psychological pull they create is too strong, and the realism they create is too little. Races already have enough (often too many, I feel) bells and whistles to set them apart from each other, so they don't need stat mods, which create the "Gotta find a +Int race, I want to play a wizard!" effect.There are many reasons I positively loathe the expectation that everyone can play any exotic race they want in any (specifically my) campaign.
First, usually when I see it, they are played for their stats.
my reason for disliking the racial stat mods too
4th edition had it even worse "Gotta Find a +Str +Dex race, i wanna play a Ranger, thank the gods for the bugbear"
"Gotta find a +Int +Cha Race, i wanna play a Warlock, luckily there is the nymph."
"Gotta find a +Int +Str race, i wanna play a Spellsword, luckily there is the Genasi"
in PF it is
"i wanna play a paladin, better find the +Str +Cha Race"
"i wanna play a wizard, better find a +Int Race without a Con Penalty"
"I wanna play a bard, better find a +Dex +Cha Race"
hell, i'd rather that Race be entirely cosmetic and that the desired Racial perks be bought with some (Extra) Starting Feats.
|
|
I've actually always found it EASIER to focus on a multitude of races. It's just like making multiple human cultures, and I've always enjoyed imagining how peasants would react to what is essentially a heavily-armed petting zoo/acid trip appear in town and ask if anyone wants them to chase the foxes out of their chicken coop.
What I've always found difficult, and why I appreciate Pathfinder a little better than 3.5, is too many base classes. Having so many ways to do something, especially when each of them has a separate rule system (psionics/incarnum/binding/shadowcasting/truenaming/etc.). Mind you, i don't find them mechanically difficult, as most of them are fairly simple once you've read the appropriate texts a few times and have playtested it once or so, it's just for some reason overwhelmingly difficult for me to put so many different power systems into one setting. Magic, whether arcane or divine, is easy. Th rest is just "hitting stuff but in weird ways." Once you get into the alternate power sources, I start getting a bit overwhelmed as to how to incorporate that into the setting coherently. Key word being coherently, mind you. It's fairly easy to stick in a Psychic Warrior NPC with no explanation and just watch the party adapt to a new style of fighting , which usually takes like...5 rounds in my group's case.
Anyway, tangent aside, races have never been tricky for me. You wanna play a monkey goblin scrollmaster wizard? Fine, go ahead. You'll get weird looks and other goblins will treat you like a heretic, and the party might object and if they roleplay it well, possibly have difficulty accepting you. Otherwise, i actually find the concept of weaving in alternate sentient species into one world kind of fun.
This is a false dilemma, don't you think?
Early on, I'd expect a 'party of freaks' to get a lot of mistrust, but after they've spent time in an area proving to the locals how heroic (or at least civilized) they are, word spreads. And because they're all freaks, people they've never met will recognize them all the more readily, and come asking for help!
Not at all. Having the problem early on is the problem. The entire track of the adventure is derailed because the adventure becomes about their clashes with the local folk rather than about whatever was going to happen.
This tired trope gets exhausting after the first 5 times you do it.
This is a numbers game, which is one reason I mentioned how many games I have seen. After going through the freak show for the 35th time you start to see a pattern. After putting my hand on a hot stove several times I will eventually learn that it is a bad thing.
As I mentioned before, there are always exceptions. Building the adventure after the party has been rolled up allows for anything and everything. Playing with a group of trusting and close friends allows for just about anything.
But if you start running games for strangers at the FLGS or at game conventions you need a more stringent filter to insure a more enjoyable game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After reading this thread there's still something I'm wondering about. Why do all small villages have to be made up uniformly of xenophobic racist a#@*~!#s?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A village can be an extremely tolerant and open bunch of people and still freak out when a "heavily armed petting zoo/acid trip" comes calling.