| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Many complain about "core only", usually not understanding that it is a response to stupid race demands.
Yeah, statements like this don't make you look all that well informed.
Most GMs that I've dealt with (either playing with or chatting with) are not concerned about races when they run a Core Only game. It's about limiting how much they have to deal with, either because they don't want to have to buy books, don't want to have to worry about interactions with other rules, not have to think about how additional classes/feats/spells work, and so on. It's more about simplifying their job than any 'oh god not another race BAN BAN BAN'.
There's nothing wrong with making things more simple. That's completely within the GMs perview, he has to deal with everything. I probably would not enjoy such a game, and probably wouldn't play in it given a choice, but that's the player's right.
However, if the attitude is that you think the player is trying to derail your game or isn't allowed to have a preference, you're a lousy GM and you should stop running. Full stop. End. Period.
I say this as someone who stopped running games for a couple of years because I had gotten to the point where I felt it was me against them. If that's your mentality, you are a bad GM, and you should stop and re-evaluate and reconsider why you are running. I was a bad GM (although the players said they thought I was great, even while I was constantly thinking about what I need to do to deal with them and their activities). But I was, I was a bad GM. I needed to stop GMing, and I did.
When you can come to the table with the mind set that the Players are not the enemy and aren't trying to usurp your power, then you are ready to GM again and be a good GM. That's not to say there shouldn't be limits on what comes to the table. It's saying that the mindset that your players are trying to eff your game over if they don't do exactly what you want every time is the problem, not limiting choices or putting restrictions in. Your posts scream 'I want my control back'.
Many complain about "core only", usually not understanding that it is a response to stupid race demands.Yeah, statements like this don't make you look all that well informed.
Most GMs that I've dealt with (either playing with or chatting with) are not concerned about races when they run a Core Only game. It's about limiting how much they have to deal with, either because they don't want to have to buy books, don't want to have to worry about interactions with other rules, not have to think about how additional classes/feats/spells work, and so on. It's more about simplifying their job than any 'oh god not another race BAN BAN BAN'.
There's nothing wrong with making things more simple. That's completely within the GMs perview, he has to deal with everything. I probably would not enjoy such a game, and probably wouldn't play in it given a choice, but that's the player's right.
However, if the attitude is that you think the player is trying to derail your game or isn't allowed to have a preference, you're a lousy GM and you should stop running. Full stop. End. Period.
I say this as someone who stopped running games for a couple of years because I had gotten to the point where I felt it was me against them. If that's your mentality, you are a bad GM, and you should stop and re-evaluate and reconsider why you are running. I was a bad GM (although the players said they thought I was great, even while I was constantly thinking about what I need to do to deal with them and their activities). But I was, I was a bad GM. I needed to stop GMing, and I did.
When you can come to the table with the mind set that the Players are not the enemy and aren't trying to usurp your power, then you are ready to GM again and be a good GM. That's not to say there shouldn't be limits on what comes to the table. It's saying that the mindset that your players are trying to eff your game over if they don't do exactly what you want every time is the problem, not limiting choices...
How about the converse? Th GM isnt trying to eff you over just becaus he pruned a few options out of a given campaign? Or that he isn't oppressing you just because you didnt get the exact character you wanted?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Absolutely, if you're a player, and you consider every GM that says no to be a tyrant, you need to stop, take a deep breath, and walk away for a little while from the game. Think about why you are playing in the first place. One GM might be a bad GM, if it's every GM you come across, then absolutely, you are a bad player and you need to stop and re-evaluate.
When you can come to the table with the mindset that the GM has a lot of work to do, and has to set some reasonable limits to get that done, then you are ready to play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This IS gamist world building in a nutshell. The less defined the better leaving just enough world for the players to interact with and little else.
You must have a different understanding of "gamism" than I do. The relevant wikipedia page says gamism is based on "satisfying clear predefined goal conditions in the face of adversity: in other words, on the desire to win" and that it "may not spend much time dwelling on why the characters are facing [the challenges in the game]". Perhaps I didn't do a good job explaining myself earlier, but that is not an accurate depiction of my DM style. E.g. I generally hate random encounters and my sessions are usually light on combat because I want conflicts to be meaningful and based on more than "kill them and take their stuff".
Honestly, I'd say the closest of the members in the stupid gamist/narrativist/simulationist trichotomy to my DM style is narrativist. Don't let that stop you from pigeonholing others so you can ignore their arguments, though.
Many complain about "core only", usually not understanding that it is a response to stupid race demands.Yeah, statements like this don't make you look all that well informed.
Most GMs that I've dealt with (either playing with or chatting with) are not concerned about races when they run a Core Only game. It's about limiting how much they have to deal with, either because they don't want to have to buy books, don't want to have to worry about interactions with other rules, not have to think about how additional classes/feats/spells work, and so on. It's more about simplifying their job than any 'oh god not another race BAN BAN BAN'.
There's nothing wrong with making things more simple. That's completely within the GMs perview, he has to deal with everything. I probably would not enjoy such a game, and probably wouldn't play in it given a choice, but that's the player's right.
However, if the attitude is that you think the player is trying to derail your game or isn't allowed to have a preference, you're a lousy GM and you should stop running. Full stop. End. Period.
I say this as someone who stopped running games for a couple of years because I had gotten to the point where I felt it was me against them. If that's your mentality, you are a bad GM, and you should stop and re-evaluate and reconsider why you are running. I was a bad GM (although the players said they thought I was great, even while I was constantly thinking about what I need to do to deal with them and their activities). But I was, I was a bad GM. I needed to stop GMing, and I did.
When you can come to the table with the mind set that the Players are not the enemy and aren't trying to usurp your power, then you are ready to GM again and be a good GM. That's not to say there shouldn't be limits on what comes to the table. It's saying that the mindset that your players are trying to eff your game over if they don't do exactly what you want every time is the problem, not limiting choices...
Let me get this straight. If I think ANY player, behaving in ANY WAY, regardless of my experience with playing with that player, is choosing to play a freak race to derail the campaign, then I am a LOUSY GM and should not GM at all? I would like a clear answer on this from you.
And finally... "all that well informed". As you say, there are many situations where someone decides to play core only. It is a retreat position that is easy to define, that is well known, and so someone who doesn't want interminable arguments about why a player can't play a summoner, dhampir, or pleroma can use it without getting into arguments like "he got to play an aasimar, why can't I play a twice-half-dragon gelatinous cube nymph???" It is far easier just to say "sorry, not in the core rulebook".
Further, there are many on these boards who speak in pretty aggressive terms about core only, some even going so far as to say that GMs who play core only are bad GMs. Many people do not agree with you on your stance that it is okay to limit options for the game.
I note that you decided GMing wasn't worth the hassle...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let me get this straight. If I think ANY player, behaving in ANY WAY, regardless of my experience with playing with that player, is choosing to play a freak race to derail the campaign, then I am a LOUSY GM and should not GM at all? I would like a clear answer on this from you.
I said if you think that any player who wants to play a non standard race is just out to destroy your campaign, then yes, you are a lousy GM and need to stop and take a break. Because you think any person who wants to play a non core race is just doing so to break your game. This is a major bit of paranoia on your part, and you need to stop and reassess why you are running.
If you have a specific player who is trying to derail your games, you need to ask yourself why you are having this actively disruptive person in your games. Are you masochistic? Are they your wife or girlfriend or husband or boyfriend? Why are you having this person in your game?
Finally, why do you have to intentionally reverse the meaning of something someone tells you to boost your own ability to post in self righteous mode? Because my post was pretty clear that it said that if you feel any player who comes with a request that isn't what you want is trying to derail your game, then you need to stop running. That didn't state you can't feel that way about any player. It says if you feel that way about any player that doesn't want to play core races, you are seriously in need of a time out as a GM. You're close to burning out if you have that level of paranoia about players.
And finally... "all that well informed". As you say, there are many situations where someone decides to play core only. It is a retreat position that is easy to define, that is well known, and so someone who doesn't want interminable arguments about why a player can't play a summoner, dhampir, or pleroma can use it without getting into arguments like "he got to play an aasimar, why can't I play a twice-half-dragon gelatinous cube nymph???" It is far easier just to say "sorry, not in the core rulebook".
Again, if you are doing it because you want to play a simpler game, that's all great and good. If you are playing it that way because you feel like if you don't you'll have to argue with any one who plays with you, you need to stop and quit GMing for a while. If you feel like you'll have an argument with a specific person, you need to re-examine why you are gaming with someone that torques you off that much.
Further, there are many on these boards who speak in pretty aggressive terms about core only, some even going so far as to say that GMs who play core only are bad GMs. Many people do not agree with you on your stance that it is okay to limit options for the game.I note that you decided GMing wasn't worth the hassle...
GMing core only is not a bad thing. The reason you have for doing it can make you a bad GM. That's because of the headset you have to have to do it that way. If it's a confrontational thing, if you are drawing the lines in the sand to stake out the battlezone and give yourself home field advantage against your players, then you are a bad GM and you need to stop and reexamine.
If you are doing it because you're working 60 hours a week and have a kid and can't put in the time to cover all the extraneous stuff, that's perfectly reasonable. If you're doing it because you just don't like anything other than core, that's fine too. But if your mindset is, I have to do this to keep my players from getting out of control, your head is not in the right place to be a good GM and you need to stop and rethink.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I MUST PRESERVE THE GAME SETTING AT ALL COST
So a player wants to play a "twice-half-dragon gelatinous cube nymph" and the GM says no. Why? The GM doesn't want to have to try to fit in a culture for the creature. Except a "twice-half-dragon gelatinous cube nymph" doesn't need a culture. I mean do half-elves and half-orcs need their own cultures typically? No, they typically reside within one of the parent cultures or their parent(s) live as hermits driven out by their local culture. So a claim against this type of character because of needed to set up a culture for it is disingenuous.
Let's be honest, the GM (and myself as well) feel the idea is idiotic and don't want it in the game. Nothing wrong with that, but let's not wrap it up in some kind of justification for preservation of the setting.
But what if the player wants to play something a little less "gonzo/freaky/super-cooled cloud moisture-ish", say a catfolk. Now if the GM has not colored in all the corners of the map, if not every single valley is accounted for, every cavern complex, every island, every blade of grass, then it could be that a catfolk could reside somewhere off the edges of the map that nobody has come into contact with yet. Thus the established material is preserved. There is no need to rewrite the material, rework the history.
But what if every corner in existence is accounted for? What if the GM has figuratively painted themselves into the corner, what then? Well then maybe the creature is unique, the product of some extremely unusual circumstances (wild magic, magical experimentation, descended from of a cured were-cat but conceived on a full-moon and so an aspect of the curse re-exerts itself, etc). This also can be used in cases where there are areas not explored, there is no reason to have to make a possible culture merely because you could.
The point is that claims of protecting the setting are stretches. The setting, even ones where every location is accounted for can still handle unique individuals. What GMs that argue this really mean is that the inclusion of these wacky (in their view) races feels like it devalues the setting. It changes it from this serious endeavor to a cartoon place where anvils are raining from the sky. It doesn't matter this isn't necessary an outcome from including unusual races, this is how it feels to them and so they must protect their creation.
Let me say, I actually have no problem with someone saying, "I don't want you to play a Wookiee in my setting, it doesn't feel right." But please don't tell me that the setting can't handle 7 foot tall walking carpets. Be honest with me as a player and I will respect you as a GM. Give me some b.s. about the setting and then when I suggest ways to work around it you just stick your fingers in your ears and scream "ENTITLEMENT!" and I will not respect you.
I have answered this already. I have no problems with requests. I do have a problem with argumentation about it, whining, aggression, and so on. And booting players is not something to do lightly. Most who are trying to derail a campaign do not realize that that is what they are doing, sadly. They feel it is "fun" to play a freak character, and love every second of attention they get for being a nonfunctional race. They relish spending every moment of being in a settlement acting out on the issue of the townspeople not knowing what they are. They do not care that other players might want to do something other than that. Meanwhile, letting such a player play a human or other race integrated into the setting often works far better. But you don't see that if your immediate response is BOOT BOOT BOOT!!!, do you?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's be honest, the GM (and myself as well) feel the idea is idiotic and don't want it in the game. Nothing wrong with that, but let's not wrap it up in some kind of justification for preservation of the setting.
The setting is what makes an idea idiotic or not.
If I am running a pre-generated setting with history, background, etc. and a certain class or race doesn't make sense within it - then it is not going to be there. Period.
A player can make a character that fits the campaign or can bow out of playing that one. No harm no foul.
And when I run an anything-goes campaign that player is more than welcome to come back with the freaky concept and join in.
In my experience, no player has ever stormed out because I said no to a race or class. Instead they made something else and got down to the business of having fun with the rest of the table.
The point is that claims of protecting the setting are stretches. The setting, even ones where every location is accounted for can still handle unique individuals.
Entirely untrue.
The point is that claims of "I can only play this character concept as this race" are stretches. The character can always be adapted to fit a setting. What players that argue this really mean is that choosing one of the boring (in their view) races feels like it devalues their character. It changes it from this perfect vision of the character to something completely unlike anything they wanted. It doesn't matter this isn't necessary an outcome from choosing a featured race, this is how it feels to them and so they must protect their right to play as any race they like.
Let me say, I actually have no problem with someone saying "I want to play a Wookie in your setting, it is what feels right to me". But please don't tell me that your character concept can't handle using a featured race. Be honest with me as a GM and I will respect you as a player. Give me some b.s. about your vision of your character and then when I suggest ways to work around it you just stick your fingers in your ears and scream "LOUSY GM!" and I will not respect you.
The setting is what makes an idea idiotic or not.
If I am running a pre-generated setting with history, background, etc. and a certain class or race doesn't make sense within it - then it is not going to be there. Period.
Please give a concrete example of what you mean by this.
The only example I could really come up with off the top of my head would be a setting where say all dwarves were exterminated and someone wanted to play a dwarf. But other than something as specific as that, I am not seeing it. So please give me some example so I can see your point.
A player can make a character that fits the campaign or can bow out of playing that one. No harm no foul.
What do you mean "fits the campaign"? What campaign? Be specific so we have some idea what you are getting at. "Your half-dragon doesn't fit the campaign." "Why." "Because I said so." Not really much of an argument. So let's see some specifics, give me an example of a character that couldn't possibly fit some campaign. Maybe it is valid (see my above example about the dwarf in a world where dwarves have been exterminated) or maybe it is just a GM not wanting something they don't like and using the "doesn't fit the campaign" as a deflection.
You also occasionally run into the issue of "Dwarves are vikings who live underground. All Dwarves have beards. You're doing it wrong if you don't do that." and "Elves are pretty boys who shoot bows. Why aren't you shooting a bow and why does your Elf have low Charisma?".
Oh holy crap yes.
Whenever a GM or a fellow player tells me how to roleplay my character, I instantly want to slap them in such a way that Moe Howard would be in awe of it. No, my dwarf does NOT attack goblins on sight. No, my elf is NOT a snooty arrogant schmuck. No, my halfling does NOT overeat. And so on and so forth.
Dark Sun does this best.
No, my halfling is NOT a cannibal savage.
Why couldn't a campaign where dwarves have been exterminated have a dwarf character? Maybe the dwarf hid under a table when the magical dwarf-destroying apocalypse spell hit?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The point is that claims of "I can only play this character concept as this race" are stretches. The character can always be adapted to fit a setting. What players that argue this really mean is that choosing one of the boring (in their view) races feels like it devalues their character. It changes it from this perfect vision of the character to something completely unlike anything they wanted. It doesn't matter this isn't necessary an outcome from choosing a featured race, this is how it feels to them and so they must protect their right to play as any race they like.
Well yes and no. If I want to play a character descended from a were-cat and have some of that feline heritage be evident, then playing a vanilla human isn't going to cut it. Do I have to play a catfolk for that concept. Nope. There are certainly other options out there, hell maybe even a were-cat. So if a GM really didn't want catfolk, even one unique individual that didn't need an entire society to back it up from, fine, but just saying, "play an elf" isn't really allowing me to explore the concept I had in mind. So I agree, there is usually not a single option that is necessary, but there are a large number of options that aren't going to cut it.
Why couldn't a campaign where dwarves have been exterminated have a dwarf character? Maybe the dwarf hid under a table when the magical dwarf-destroying apocalypse spell hit?
Oh there could be a dwarf in situation like that. Heck, it could even be a major point of the campaign, bringing short and hairy back. But that was just an example where a GM that wanted to claim that a specific race wouldn't fit the setting might be valid. All the dwarves have been killed, thus there are no dwarves, can't play one. I have no problem with that. But if a player did want to play one, the GM should think long and hard if it was absolutely necessary to keep a dwarf character out in order to preserve the setting. Does the existence of a single dwarf prove that the dwarves were not exterminated? Maybe not.
Of course, I tend to find an answer of "No" as not very interesting most of the time. And an answer of "maybe" is much more so. Perhaps the dwarf was petrified by a medusa or such creature and just recently got freed only to learn he is the last of Durin's folk left in existence (or at least he and everyone else knows). The entire time people just think he is a short bulky human despite his claims otherwise, "I am a dwarf!" "ha ha, there are no dwarves anymore. Not for 200 years or more. Even then they were probably tales just told by fairies."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am a very permissive GM. I honestly hate the idea of banning stuff. IMO, a GM should try to always say "yes" unless he really has to say "no".
That doesn't mean players have all the power. Not at all. The GM will always have the final say on what is allowed and what is not, but arbitrarily banning stuff with no regard to your players' opinion is bad GMing, IMO.
If they want to have a party composed exclusevely of exotic races. So be it. I'll give them a little warnign about possible consequences ("you guys might have problems bleinding in") but I stop them from doing it. It's their choice and they will live with the consequences.
Currently, of all options in PF, I only ban 2 archetypes, and that because I feel they mess with game balance too easily, and would make my life as a GM really difficult. (Master Summoner and Synthesist, if you're wondering), but I'm willing to make concessions if someone makes a really good case for allowing them.
A character being a Vishkanya instead of an Half-Elf won't disrupt game balance at all. And flavor is what the players make of it, so I don't see how choosing a different race is disruptive unless the whole group is against the idea. If it's only the GM, then the GM is probably being an uptight baby unwilling to share any control of "his" world.
And why doesn't "play an elf" cut it? Why is you adapting your concept to the campaign worse than the GM adapting the campaign to your character? When you say that "play an elf doesn't cut it", how is that even a shred better or more valid than "outside core doesn't cut it"? Why is "I want feline traits" more worthy of respect than "I don't want catfolk in my campaign"?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And why doesn't "play an elf" cut it? Why is you adapting your concept to the campaign worse than the GM adapting the campaign to your character? When you say that "play an elf doesn't cut it", how is that even a shred better or more valid than "outside core doesn't cut it"? Why is "I want feline traits" more worthy of respect than "I don't want catfolk in my campaign"?
There's a huge difference, though. How much each one is conceding.
All a player has is his character. That's it. When they lose control over their characters, they have nothing left. When the GM allows a player to pick an unusual race, he still has the whole campaign world to control.
What is allowed or not should be a group decision, not just the GM's.
And why doesn't "play an elf" cut it? Why is you adapting your concept to the campaign worse than the GM adapting the campaign to your character? When you say that "play an elf doesn't cut it", how is that even a shred better or more valid than "outside core doesn't cut it"? Why is "I want feline traits" more worthy of respect than "I don't want catfolk in my campaign"?
I guess at this point I am confused as to what you perceive to be the concept of the character.
"I want to play a character that is descended from a were-cat, where some feline features have re-exerted themselves."
"Play an elf."
"How does that invoke anything of my feline heritage?"
"That isn't your character's concept."
"Huh?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if you aren't allowed to play a freak race, your character becomes an NPC entirely under the control of the GM, do I understand this correctly?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pres man: So you need to play a catfolk because the sum total of what character you wanted to play was a catfolk...? If that is the case, I suspect the game won't be much poorer for not having your catfolk character in it. You could say that you want to play an uncivilized, vain, playful, elegant character who loves to hunt and has a mean streak, but also enjoys the company of others... That would be a good description of a catfolk character that puts no demands on race at all. But no, your character concept is essentially "cat traits".
If I am running a pre-generated setting with history, background, etc. and a certain class or race doesn't make sense within it - then it is not going to be there. Period.
Please give a concrete example of what you mean by this.
How about "I'm running a fantasy Barsoom game set at a time a bit before the John Carter series. There are pretty much humans (red and black martians) and green martians. White martians, at this time, are only for NPCs." That would pretty much mean no traditional demi-humans and most oddball races in the Advanced Race Guide.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if you aren't allowed to play a freak race, your character becomes an NPC entirely under the control of the GM, do I understand this correctly?
Not sure how you got that from what I said. My point is that any time a player makes a concession to the GM, he is giving up a much more than a GM is when he allows the player to do/use something unusual.
The GM can always say that character is an exception, and the campaign will be intact. The player simply lost an option.
Again:
What is allowed and what is not should be a group decision, not just the GM's.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So does the other. If it wasn't, they wouldn't be there and ... There are five people at the table, and the gm is one of them, not a public utility. And if you decide I don't have any control over the ingredients in my soup, then instead of me cooking it, one of you can. Any takers? No? Oh, I see then.
Let's say that my friends and I are making a pizza. We agree that I'm making the pizza - dough, sauce, and cheese, baking it in my oven, eating in my house - but everyone else will bring one topping. Let's say one friend brings mushrooms, which I don't like, but all the rest of my friends are keen on or don't mind. Those mushrooms are going on that pizza. If everyone is agreed on no mushrooms except for one guy, then yes that one guy is going to have to yield to group taste or else not sit down at the table. But I don't automatically get priority over the entire rest of the table just because I'm doing most of the cooking. And it's not nice to just throw out someone's contribution unless it really would ruin someone else's meal ("I am allergic to mushrooms"), especially if they're really enthusiastic about that particular contribution ("I grew these mushrooms myself"). I cook for my friends because I like them and I want them to enjoy what I cook.
Isn't that why people GM? Because you like your friends and want them to have a good time?
PS: an aside to the player claiming "I can just make gunpowder in game" (or an F-18...because lets face it in a world where you can create an item instantly via magic an F-18 would only take one action to construct) That is metagaming in it's worst aspect. Your character has no idea what ingredients might be used to make gunpowder. And inventing new things is entirely in the GMs hands it wouldn't be wrong for him to say "sorry those ingredients that make gunpowder in the real world are NOT the ones needed to make it in this fantasy world - you fail."
Saying "my Int 10 fighter with no alchemical or engineering expertise invents gunpowder because I know the ingredients" is metagaming. But if the character has a high enough Craft (Alchemy) skill, the character ought to be able to figure it out. This means that a character probably won't be able to invent gunpowder at level 1, but he should be able to do so eventually (and it won't be too long if he invests mechanical resources into the skill). Making firearms might be a little more difficult, but the Gunsmith feat and maybe some Knowledge (engineering) ought to do it. Remember that 5 ranks in a craft skill and a feat is enough for a character with no magical ability to learn how to make magic weapons. A moderately competent crafter can achieve quite a lot, and arbitrarily making gunpowder impossible isn't realistic.
Avoiding gunpowder for aesthetic reasons is valid, but that's a different conversation than "your character can't invent a simple explosive no matter how skilled an alchemist they are, you metagamer."
And it brings up the above issue of whether your aesthetic preference is worth shooting down a friend's contribution to the game. If the whole group minus one is on your side about the aesthetics (they think it will detract from the setting and want to play that setting) or the player isn't too invested in that particular concept then maybe it is worth it to just say "no." But that's something you say only to preserve the enjoyment of the group as a whole, not because you're the GM and what you say goes.
Great power -> great responsibility
Continuity is BIG in simulationist games and the more shared world building in the setting the greater the loss of continuity.
Going to disagree with that one. I've done quite a lot of play in a setting with a lot of shared world building, and we have plenty of continuity. Part of the fun is seeing things you helped create turn up in a game years down the road. Having bits of your character's backstory show up in continuity is just an extension of having the actions your PC takes at the table affect setting continuity.
If everyone's votes are of equal value, I dare say not much will EVER get banned. And if you think what the GM feels on freaky races matters here, you are an exception on your side of the argument. After all, banning a race because it doesn't fit makes you a bad GM, which has been firmly established here during twelve pages.
So, how would you feel about GMing a group of ONLY elves, with players who really relished the part of doing things the elf way? For several years?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If everyone's votes are of equal value, I dare say not much will EVER get banned.
I don't see how not banning stuff merely for one person's personal preference is a problem. If I think something will make the game more difficult to GM or seriously harm the fun of other players, I'll forbid it. If it's just a difference of taste. Well, I still have literally EVERYTHING ELSE to fit my tastes.
And if you think what the GM feels on freaky races matters here, you are an exception on your side of the argument. After all, banning a race because it doesn't fit makes you a bad GM, which has been firmly established here during twelve pages.
Nope. What makes someone a bad GM is arbitrarily banning/changing stuff without asking their friends' opinions (I assume you're playing this game with your friends).
I have my own houserules, just like everyone else, and these include banning 2 archetypes and a few feats that I think are disruptive to the game. But I asked my players how they felt about these changes. I'm not so passionate about my house-rules that I can't bear to see them being criticized by my friends. If one or more of them really, really wanted to play one of those archetypes and/or use one of these feats, I'd disccuss it with them and maybe allow it.No one likes losing options, but if no one feels particularly passionate about it either, I'll remove it from the game.
So, how would you feel about GMing a group of ONLY elves, with players who really relished the part of doing things the elf way? For several years?
I'd not mind at all. I'm not the one playing an elf, it's them. Nothing they do can force me to play an elf, so who cares?
And if they insist on meeting other elves, in fact will not even talk to those of other races?
I do not hate elves. I'm okay with using elven NPCs (in fact, my current group just spent 4~6 session in Kyonnin), that said, elves only appeared because I wanted them to.
If they want to play an elf-centric campaign and I don't want to GM it, I'll simply not GM it. There is a huge difference between one or two (or even all) PCs wanting to belong to a race I don't particularly like and the group wanting me to GM a campaign I don't want to GM. Don't act as if they're the same.
Indeed there is a difference between a player wanting to play a particular character concept, including race, and a player demanding that a particular society must exist in the game setting where this race is from and the group must spend time there. The latter infringes directly on the GM's area of control and the former does so only tangentially if that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And if they insist on meeting other elves, in fact will not even talk to those of other races?
... do your friends really do that? Because that's kind of a jerk thing to do, and also exceedingly unlikely, at least if you're playing the other creatures with any degree of plausibility or fun.
But if they really insisted on that, I'd ask them what they want from such a game.
I'm going to be honest.
I made a whole slew of post points, but they were covered by mdt, Vivianne LeFlamme, or Wierdo above, and generally much better than I could cover them.
I'm gonna put my stuff here anyway, because I took the time and effort to write it, but I'm going to put it behind spoiler tags because it really doesn't add anything that's not already said, so please ignore it. Also, if you don't, bear in mind, it was written while holding a very fussy toddler. :)
Why this discussions always go down to "DM versus players"?Because it is ALWAYS about the DM and players. How much power does each have and how do you resolve disagreement? Sissyl and others say the DM has all the power, Icyshadow and others say players do, Kirth and I say it's a sharing of the power.To me, the GM comes up with the world and gives the players all the options they can handle. But he also acts as a 'governor' to keep things from going off the happy train rails.
It's the GM's job to give the players a great place to play in, and to adjudicate the rules. But also to make sure no one person overwhelms everyone else. Ideally, the GM should work with the player to overcome any issues with their concept. But someone, somewhere, has to make a final decision if talking doesn't work. By social contract, that is the GM. Every player has given him that final authority. If he abuses it, they'll leave. If one person doesn't like his final ruling, they'll leave. That's the player's right, and their way of exercising a check on the GM, even as the GM exerts a check on the player's exuberance over their character.
In the majority, I agree with both TOZ and mdt, insomuch as such a thing is possible. I tend to side with the "share the power" thing, but that's mostly because my personality is generally set to "please my friends" with exceptions.
The reason the GM is the final arbiter is because and equal distribution of power doesn't work with all social contracts, and if one person doesn't make the final decision problems abound for all.
However, it's not really fair to limit the players only to "accept it or get out".
That's why I advocate neither immediately dropping their ideas when conflict arises but talking first. Talking is an amazing thing, really.
That's all well and good, your players can have the best intentions of keeping the game and campaign running smooth as much as they want, but it isn't going to stop the city of regular humans who only know of other human looking things from going "DID THAT GIANT FROG JUST F*****G TALK!?!?!?!?" Players have to understand that the world has to react to your character's race, and if they have never seen something like you before, and they think you happen to be a monster because you look like an effing monster, then you have to deal with the consequences of that. If it means the village attacks you, then it means the village attacks you. If it means you get imprisoned or hunted down, then you have to cope. Don't go walking around as some random monster looking race that no one in this DM's world has ever seen and expect to be treated like a human all nonchalant like it's totally normal for you to be there, because if it was, you would immediately not want to play that race anymore.
If you were responding to me, you missed the point entirely.
Also, the city of regular humans responds how the GM wants them to respond.
I'm all for having regular humans regard weird races as weird (my half-frost giant/half-drow character had a shoe thrown at him rather regularly), but it's inherently subject to a given GM's views and ideas and willingness to play the world that way.
The player's don't have to understand the situation you outlined above unless they're in your campaign.
The only thing a player should understand is what the GM expects. And the burden of the communication of that lies with the GM.
Also, due to the all-inclusive nature of your assertion, you're assigning motive and action to people who definitively don't play that way. So, you know, please don't do that.
The world changes to meet the demands of the story and the desires of the DM. Of course, a lot of retconning can make for an unsatisfying story, which is why I think it's a good idea to not try to nail everything down in advance. You won't know in advance what you will need to improvise or what ideas you will get and want to use halfway through the campaign. If there's no room in your world for a labyrinth filled with gelatinous cubes, then if you get a really cool idea for a labyrinth filled with gelatinous cubes, you won't be able to use it without retconning.Thanks. I am not sure how I missed that, but when you read two or more pages at a time stuff can get missed.
This IS gamist world building in a nutshell. The less defined the better leaving just enough world for the players to interact with and little else.
So while you may not BE a player you do seem to be gamist at your core. And so arguing at simulationists who like having a largely predefined world out there waiting to be explored that they are wrong/bad because YOU find it easy to just drop anything into your loosely defined world is exactly what you are doing. Isn't it?
This isn't the same thing at all as a gamist approach to world design.
A simulation (a real, cohesive, interactive world) can have loosely defined elements - even largely loosely defined elements - that are only prescribed later. It's not usually my cup of tea - I generally like to have worlds as complete as possible - but it's quite possible to have a believable, self-consistent simulationist world even when the GM doesn't know anything beyond the borders of the current <region the adventurers are likely to be in>.
A gamist approach to world design seems to be, by its nature, about what makes the most mechanical elements of the game function well, regardless of over-all story or potential consistency.
This is what makes the most story options desired by players fit. Big difference.
And now, Bwang: that's pretty unfortunate, really. I'm sorry your experience is unpleasant enough to have only those who refuse to go with the group and game play exotic races. That's really a shame. However, you're still coming off as arrogant. That's rude and not a good thing, despite your assertions or intent.
*'Who, in this entire thread, has been arguing for custom races and custom classes?'Terribly sorry, but this is where these arguments lead in my experience. But even some of the ARG races verge upon the silly and simply do not fit as establishing races.
You don't have to be sorry. I've let you know that your experience is limited (as everyone's experience inevitably is), and thus not all-inclusive. Because of that, certain assertions don't keep here.
* 'are a little different altogether from each other and most of the discussion.'Separate argumentative view points, like looking up at El Capitan from the flats and looking down from the crest. Both are awe inspiring, but one also scares the giblets out of me.
I would love to understand this, but I don't. Please explain and enlighten me!
*'First, Bwang, you obviously run a very customized game. I can respect that. / your experience...substantially different/ conversation doesn't apply.'I do, and thanks/Unfortunately, I run a beginning-intro game to familiarize new players with what will be the basics of my game (Spell points, no monks, etc.) and this is where I run into this. I will admit to being pig headed at not allowing flying PC races until a few years ago, but that was primarily due to there not being good rules for such./For my real game, I agree, but it does for my intro games.
You're welcome. The first is great, but again your experience from the intro games which seem to, by definition, follow a different set of logistics and elements than the majority of games out there. If I'm wrong please let me know, but given that your intro games seem to hold non-standard elements to the game rules, they seem to hold non-standard outcomes.
Often I've found that with variant rules players do start out looking for more power because they're uncertain of their own survivability. The latter isn't always a conscious choice. It's and interesting, yet consistent trait I've found, even among those who don't power game in other circumstances (especially if they get attached to their characters). Could that be something that you're experiencing?
*'Check out some of my own...differently in them.'I shall, and likely lift ideas, as well!
Nice! Feel free!
And allow me to share my experiences:
EXAMPLE ONE
(not my game) Sprite Sorcerer with at-will invisibility, game lasted 3 more sessions.EXAMPLE TWO
(Not my game) Half djinn Sorcerer, 2 sessions.EXAMPLE THREE:
(not my game) The mentioned party with L'l Niki, and the 2 half-dragons had been running for nearly a year, 25+ sessions, when the GM allowed rebuilds using the racial level out of Dragon. Never ran after the next night. (Confession: I was L'l Niki!)<SNIP>
I could go on, but I think my point is made, just as yours was...
In fact it may have been made as well as mine, but that's just because mine wasn't made very well, it seems.
What I was pointing to wasn't that your experience was wrong for you, but rather since our experiences differed, it means that - regardless of who the outlier is (you or me) assigning blanket motives to all those who play unusual races (what I understand from you saying "gonzo") is false. Your experience is valid insomuch as it informs you, but insisting that your experience holds true across all examples is false.
I repeat, when I have a 'gonzo' player whose primary focus is not "breaking of immersion" I'll reconsider.
Feel free to make that your sticking point. I was hoping to grant you a different perspective, but if you insist... okay. That's your choice.
*'But what that means is that while our experience differs, mine proves your assertion irrelevant,...'I can truly say the same thing!
Nope. False equivocation.
Your point (as I understand it): "I've only experienced this, thus it must be true" (implied by the refusal to change your opinion unless conflicting evidence is given)
My point (as I was trying to make it): "you have a set of experiences that lead to one outlook [strange races = bad players], but I have a set of experiences that lead to different outlook [strange races do not automatically lead to bad players and can, in fact, lead to good players]; one of the two opposing outlooks must be wrong, and thus the most restrictive of the two"
If, for example, in my own experience, I've seen people fall from great heights repeatedly and walk away fine, I'd naturally tend to come to the conclusion that there is no great danger in falling from great height. After all, I've never encountered differently.
If someone else explains, however, that they've seen someone fall from a great height and be seriously injured, it would be in my best interest to rethink my conclusions, despite my own experiences.
In this case, based on your experience, you seemed to assert that all those who played unusual races were going to be disruptive to the game. I'm letting you know that such things aren't always the case.
Thus your point isn't as solid as mine, though it's an understandable conclusion to come to if it's the sum of your experience. Rejecting input based on other experience leads to false presumptions.
*'Icyshadow's statement solid: you can't assign generalized motives to all people who place "gonzo" races'...If it walks like a duck...
It could be a different webbed-footed water fowl entirely.
*"gonzo" being a slightly subjective term anyway.'We are in total agreement there, I trust you feel the same about 'meta-gaming?
Yep! :)
*"even the most special snowflake" would agree with your ideas,'You may have missed the part about 'a reason...' that preceded that, its a conditional phrase.
No, I pointed out the fact that one of the elements of broad disagreement here is the hammering out of those reasons. I'm not actually saying you're wrong on this one, just that it's not a solid argument to make in general, as it's been unilaterially rejected by those who are entirely opposed to your side.
*'Running a setting...neither invalidates...your own.'Agreed, but it does point out that I've been doing this for a bit. A player needs a good reason for something to exist in-game, not just 'I wanna X'.
Understood, and accepted. I disagree on a universal level, but submit that you have the right to run your game as you see fit.
If I don't have any semblance of a framework, games drag while I read up on a random monster, have to roll out every treasure...or at the other end: waste hours I can't afford crafting encounters the players never tap because they switched from a dungeon crawl to a sea voyage. This happened with my last 'frozen tiny supercooled cloud droplet', a Human Wizard (that had wanted a Half-Dragon), so I have had the CORE race/class monkey wrench jammed into my game. The third time he pulled a stunt like this, the party was 2 hours into a 10 hour game and I shut it down so I could refresh my mind on game naval rules (he had been intensely reading them beforehand). We as a group talked it out and I explained the bind it was putting on me and (having 4 GMs at the table), they saw my point. The planned dungeon crawl went on, the Wiz making himself as counterproductive as possible without ticking off the Barbarian. The next week we did the voyage and only the Wiz sulked. After it was over the Barbarians player told me what was up.
There are a large number of points here.
1) "any semblance of framework" is vastly different than the majority of what is proposed here. Having a basic framework is, in fact, what is being currently suggested and debated, but a variable framework capable of handling various elements that can be plugged into and removed from it. A framework versatile enough to handle most issues, but waiting for the specifics to be plugged in.
2) I would like you to clarify: what was up? Did the wizard read your game plan notes or something? Or was he just on a naval-adventure kick? In any event, it sounds like you went with the majority of the table (though my reading comprehension may be off, so please feel free to clarify), which is always the right method of handling a disinter.
*'Good reasons are good... it comes across as arrogant.Thank goodness, it supposed to. It may be seen as arrogant, but it is the way it must be. I have a responsibility to my other players. If a player wants to be the growling dog in the doorway, the game has to move past him, by another door, through a window or by stepping over the dog. If he snaps, you pop him with a newspaper. If he bites, put him down before he hurts someone. It may sound harsh, but I sit 5-8 at a table, folks who are parting with several hours of their life for this game and I can't waste hours catering to a spoilt lapdog with an attitude.
It has been my exp. that every 'frozen tiny supercooled cloud droplet' has been this way, although (admittedly)not every 'dog' has gone the exotic race path. Indeed the worst $^&*# was a human cleric in three separate games, all of which collapsed shortly. I cannot allow the one to ruin things for the rest. I run a role-playing game with exp for role playing.
1) No, it's not the way it must be. Not on a message board in which people are supposed to treat each other as equals and engage in discourse.
2) You are correct that you have a responsibility. If your social contract encourages you to execute that in a harsh manner, more power to you.
3) If you are equating all who play exotic races with those who wish to disrupt the game, while that may be a trend in your area, I'm letting you know that it's not that way across the board. (I can clearly see that you're not claiming the reverse - you are not claiming that all who wish to disrupt the game choose exotic races, which has been borne out).
4) Let me know if any of these points misunderstood you and how. I would like to communicate clearly.
Fortunately, we have M:tG games a plenty for non-roleplayers.
As you like.
That's all well and good, your players can have the best intentions of keeping the game and campaign running smooth as much as they want, but it isn't going to stop the city of regular humans who only know of other human looking things from going "DID THAT GIANT FROG JUST F*****G TALK!?!?!?!?" Players have to understand that the world has to react to your character's race, and if they have never seen something like you before, and they think you happen to be a monster because you look like an effing monster, then you have to deal with the consequences of that. If it means the village attacks you, then it means the village attacks you. If it means you get imprisoned or hunted down, then you have to cope. Don't go walking around as some random monster looking race that no one in this DM's world has ever seen and expect to be treated like a human all nonchalant like it's totally normal for you to be there, because if it was, you would immediately not want to play that race anymore.A 1000 times this! If a player buys into the in-world realities of playing a rare/monstrous character, ok, I'm more likely to go with it. However, in over 20 years of gaming, every player who has asked to play the oddball race wanted it strictly for the power/mechanical upside and resented not being treated like Joe Average Commoner when they were walking down the street.
using fluff or roleplay restrictions to balance the mechanics of an oddball race is a poor idea. many races are inferior to humans.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Sissyl
You really should consider dropping your current players if they are as bad as you say they are in this thread. I've never had players as bad as you describe in all my time. I've had one or two here and there over the years, but not a whole game worth. I'm being 100% serious here, you should either find a new group, or stop GMing. You come across as jaded, burned out, and lashing out at anyone who doesn't agree with you. If you come across like this in person, any potential new players will just bail, and the only ones you are likely to get are the ones who can't get into anyone else's games. This is a negative feedback loop situation, you get bad players, you react to them as normal, and react hostilely, which drives off good players, and only bad players stick it out because they are no longer welcome in other games.
I've honestly seen this before, and it never ends well and never ends pretty. Please seriously consider. If you aren't having fun, and you dread dealing with new characters from players, you really really should consider taking a break and seeing if things improve in your life. Go play in someone elses game for awhile, new blood, not your old group.
using fluff or roleplay restrictions to balance the mechanics of an oddball race is a poor idea. many races are inferior to humans.
It has nothign to do with balance. Most 0HD races are relatively balanced across the spectrum.
It's about versimillitude. If you were playing in LoTR universe, and you were playing a black-skin orc, you would expect to be treated with hostility in the Elf Lands, The Dwarven Kingdoms, and pretty much most Human lands. Anything else blows the reality of the game you are playing in.
In my homebrew setting (which doesn't use Pathfinder rules at all), orcs (playable) are catfolk (albeit with more in common with smilodons than housecats).
If someone says they want to play a catfolk and I hand them the document on orc rules, history and culture, and they say 'No, a Pathfinder catfolk', what happens then?
using fluff or roleplay restrictions to balance the mechanics of an oddball race is a poor idea. many races are inferior to humans.It has nothign to do with balance. Most 0HD races are relatively balanced across the spectrum.
It's about versimillitude. If you were playing in LoTR universe, and you were playing a black-skin orc, you would expect to be treated with hostility in the Elf Lands, The Dwarven Kingdoms, and pretty much most Human lands. Anything else blows the reality of the game you are playing in.
there are many forms of hostility to work with.
do you mean "Kill the Orc on Sight?"
do you mean "the Orc needs somebody to vouch for his worth before he enters?"
or do you mean "Triple the prices for everything the orc buys?"
while i would be fine with the second, i wouldn't be too thrilled with the first and refuse to accept the third.
In my homebrew setting (which doesn't use Pathfinder rules at all), orcs (playable) are catfolk (albeit with more in common with smilodons than housecats).
If someone says they want to play a catfolk and I hand them the document on orc rules, history and culture, and they say 'No, a Pathfinder catfolk', what happens then?
i really don't like the pathfinder catfolk
mostly because they follow all the housecat cliches
personally, i'd like a nekomimi race that followed the tiger, panther, smilodon, or jaguar just a little more.
using fluff or roleplay restrictions to balance the mechanics of an oddball race is a poor idea. many races are inferior to humans.It has nothign to do with balance. Most 0HD races are relatively balanced across the spectrum.
It's about versimillitude. If you were playing in LoTR universe, and you were playing a black-skin orc, you would expect to be treated with hostility in the Elf Lands, The Dwarven Kingdoms, and pretty much most Human lands. Anything else blows the reality of the game you are playing in.
there are many forms of hostility to work with.
do you mean "Kill the Orc on Sight?"
do you mean "the Orc needs somebody to vouch for his worth before he enters?"
or do you mean "Triple the prices for everything the orc buys?"
while i would be fine with the second, i wouldn't be too thrilled with the first and refuse to accept the third.
All 3 would be perfectly valid within the world.
Native American in the American West :
1) Kill on Sight - Happened quite often to lone NA's, especially ranchers
2) Needs someone to Vouch for - Again, happened quite frequently "We don't serve your kind here... oh, Mr. Gunslinger, he's your friend? Well that's entirely different!"
3) Triple Prices - "We don't serve your kind here! Oh, you actually got money, ok, fine." And then the shop keep charges 3 times more for everything.
Is it a nice thing? No. Is it realistic? Absolutely. If you are playing something hated that much, the GM should warn you up front. And if you are ok with, great, go for it.
using fluff or roleplay restrictions to balance the mechanics of an oddball race is a poor idea. many races are inferior to humans.It has nothign to do with balance. Most 0HD races are relatively balanced across the spectrum.
It's about versimillitude. If you were playing in LoTR universe, and you were playing a black-skin orc, you would expect to be treated with hostility in the Elf Lands, The Dwarven Kingdoms, and pretty much most Human lands. Anything else blows the reality of the game you are playing in.
there are many forms of hostility to work with.
do you mean "Kill the Orc on Sight?"
do you mean "the Orc needs somebody to vouch for his worth before he enters?"
or do you mean "Triple the prices for everything the orc buys?"
while i would be fine with the second, i wouldn't be too thrilled with the first and refuse to accept the third.
All 3 would be perfectly valid within the world.
Native American in the American West :
1) Kill on Sight - Happened quite often to lone NA's, especially ranchers
2) Needs someone to Vouch for - Again, happened quite frequently "We don't serve your kind here... oh, Mr. Gunslinger, he's your friend? Well that's entirely different!"
3) Triple Prices - "We don't serve your kind here! Oh, you actually got money, ok, fine." And then the shop keep charges 3 times more for everything.
Is it a nice thing? No. Is it realistic? Absolutely. If you are playing something hated that much, the GM should warn you up front. And if you are ok with, great, go for it.
if you are constantly murdering PCs of a given race? charging them triple prices nearly everywhere? requiring someone vouch to let them inside? why the hell are you allowing them to play that race?
In my homebrew setting (which doesn't use Pathfinder rules at all), orcs (playable) are catfolk (albeit with more in common with smilodons than housecats).
If someone says they want to play a catfolk and I hand them the document on orc rules, history and culture, and they say 'No, a Pathfinder catfolk', what happens then?
i really don't like the pathfinder catfolk
mostly because they follow all the housecat cliches
personally, i'd like a nekomimi race that followed the tiger, panther, smilodon, or jaguar just a little more.
My orcs are anything but nekomimi.
My orcs are anything but nekomimi.In my homebrew setting (which doesn't use Pathfinder rules at all), orcs (playable) are catfolk (albeit with more in common with smilodons than housecats).
If someone says they want to play a catfolk and I hand them the document on orc rules, history and culture, and they say 'No, a Pathfinder catfolk', what happens then?
i really don't like the pathfinder catfolk
mostly because they follow all the housecat cliches
personally, i'd like a nekomimi race that followed the tiger, panther, smilodon, or jaguar just a little more.
Anthro Smilidons works too. as long as they don't follow housecat cliches.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the end, we must adjust to the player majority or part ways.
Each of us have our own reasons that we absolutely love about role-playing.
I simply love delivering and receiving a good story with surprising twists and turns (with a touch of the erotic from time to time).
But, the majority of the groups I try out tend to be those who like to work the rules to the max advantage. They love the challenge of making incredible creations on paper and die roll results rather than the actual "role-playing" a.k.a. boring part.
For the longest time, I was adamantly against this mindset, but kept my own council because even though my characters weren't min/maxed, they pulled their weight. Then one of these players, who is extremely effective and not as overbearing as some might think, said a very simple thing that adjusted my view forever.
"Everyone has to pull their weight so that the party may survive. Otherwise a non-efficient character is a liability . I am No One's liability and I Will Not be the cause of your characters death."
Ever since then, I've been more open minded to the optimized mindset in groups and have tailored mine to be just as efficient without sacrificing from the role-play standpoint.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
if you are constantly murdering PCs of a given race? charging them triple prices nearly everywhere? requiring someone vouch to let them inside? why the hell are you allowing them to play that race?
Because in that setting, they aren't intended to be a player race. This is the same as wanting to play a Drow in Golarion, or a half-fiend. Neither is intended to be a player race in that setting.
But, as the GM, if the player absolutely has their heart set on playing one of the most hated races in the setting, and is willing to live with that hatred, then I'll go along with it. But it's not me 'letting' them play a hated race, it's me waving big red flags, with a siren going off, and a 30 foot sign saying 'WARNING WARNING DANGER WILL ROBINSON DANGER DANGER!' and them responding with 'DAMN THE TORPEDOES AND FULL SPEED AHEAD!'.
*shrug*
If it means that much to someone, I can be flexible with it.
Anthro Smilidons works too. as long as they don't follow housecat cliches.
Not that either. More like fuzzy, sabretoothed neanderthals.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
if you are constantly murdering PCs of a given race? charging them triple prices nearly everywhere? requiring someone vouch to let them inside? why the hell are you allowing them to play that race?Because in that setting, they aren't intended to be a player race. This is the same as wanting to play a Drow in Golarion, or a half-fiend. Neither is intended to be a player race in that setting.
But, as the GM, if the player absolutely has their heart set on playing one of the most hated races in the setting, and is willing to live with that hatred, then I'll go along with it. But it's not me 'letting' them play a hated race, it's me waving big red flags, with a siren going off, and a 30 foot sign saying 'WARNING WARNING DANGER WILL ROBINSON DANGER DANGER!' and them responding with 'DAMN THE TORPEDOES AND FULL SPEED AHEAD!'.
*shrug*
If it means that much to someone, I can be flexible with it.
but Orcs and Drow, both show up in the Advanced Race Guide, which is a big compendium of Player races for the Pathfinder RPG.
Anthro Smilidons works too. as long as they don't follow housecat cliches.Not that either. More like fuzzy, sabretoothed neanderthals.
i guess a rare few are furrier than the standard?
From what I've read from the Inner Sea Guide in Pathfinder... and the huge selection of various companion reference material, exotic races -are- meant to be there... otherwise why publish these books? Mayhap it's the GM's that have to change their point of view on the world?
The point is that claims of "I can only play this character concept as this race" are stretches. The character can always be adapted to fit a setting. What players that argue this really mean is that choosing one of the boring (in their view) races feels like it devalues their character. It changes it from this perfect vision of the character to something completely unlike anything they wanted. It doesn't matter this isn't necessary an outcome from choosing a featured race, this is how it feels to them and so they must protect their right to play as any race they like.Well yes and no. If I want to play a character descended from a were-cat and have some of that feline heritage be evident, then playing a vanilla human isn't going to cut it. Do I have to play a catfolk for that concept. Nope. There are certainly other options out there, hell maybe even a were-cat. So if a GM really didn't want catfolk, even one unique individual that didn't need an entire society to back it up from, fine, but just saying, "play an elf" isn't really allowing me to explore the concept I had in mind. So I agree, there is usually not a single option that is necessary, but there are a large number of options that aren't going to cut it.
Why couldn't a campaign where dwarves have been exterminated have a dwarf character? Maybe the dwarf hid under a table when the magical dwarf-destroying apocalypse spell hit?Oh there could be a dwarf in situation like that. Heck, it could even be a major point of the campaign, bringing short and hairy back. But that was just an example where a GM that wanted to claim that a specific race wouldn't fit the setting might be valid. All the dwarves have been killed, thus there are no dwarves, can't play one. I have no problem with that. But if a player did want to play one, the GM should think long and hard if it was absolutely necessary to keep a dwarf character out in order to preserve the setting. Does the existence of a single dwarf prove...
I actually had.a "all dwarves exterminated" campaign.
And I actually had a player who insisted on playing a dwarf. I did say know. I did allow him, however, to be a human "dwarves scholar" - a human who was obsessed with the vanished dwarves culture. They had access to many eats and other things - were obsessed with retrieving the philosophies of the ancient dwarves and living the dwarven way. They had certain knowledges of dwarves maxes out(character was a bard). Used "ancient dwarven war-chants. And since many of the adventures took place in dwarven ruins ... their obsessions were important. In the end, I was honestly told by the person that they would have enjoyed playing the actual dwarf ... Less. Person ended up becoming the ambassador to the dwarves when they were finally found.