I would have to ask, using your original formulation, what kind of friends would decided they wanted only an all elf campaign when their friend had his heart set on running the other campaign, and couldn't possibly figure out something else within the setting as given they would enjoy playing. Of course, that situation puts the onus on the players ... So never mind. You won't like it.
Yeah, because if four people really want something, they should always defer to the one person who wants something else, or they're bad friends? Is that seriously your argument?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, GM has worked out a no elves campaign. Bob wants to play elf. When the discussion is over, the group wants Bob to be able to play an elf, voting down the GM four to one. The GM should then LET SOMEONE ELSE GM the no elf campaign? I... am afraid you lost me there.
I wonder, what would happen if the GM convinced the other players (4 to 1, again), that Bob should play a not-elf? Does Bob have to adapt? If he doesn't, is he then a BAD PLAYER?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The time investment is, however, nowhere even close to equal. If they want a campaign where I invest into it only as much time as they invest into making a pc, they can have one. It will be shallow and vapid, but they can have it.
So, GM has worked out a no elves campaign. Bob wants to play elf. When the discussion is over, the group wants Bob to be able to play an elf, voting down the GM four to one. The GM should then LET SOMEONE ELSE GM the no elf campaign? I... am afraid you lost me there.
Apparently so. I'm saying someone else can run the elves-included campaign, and the original GM can see if anyone wants to also play in a no-elves campaign. And to clarify, that's one possibility among others, not the sum of all possibilities in the universe.
I wonder, what would happen if the GM convinced the other players (4 to 1, again), that Bob should play a not-elf? Does Bob have to adapt? If he doesn't, is he then a BAD PLAYER?
I've said repeatedly -- something like six times now -- that if the group says "no X," then Bob (or whomever) doesn't get to play X. I can only assume that people are ignoring that because they're not arguing in good faith.
So, really, the group is deciding between forcing the GM to adapt, which means no campaign if the GM doesn't want that, and forcing Bob to adapt, which means campaign without Bob if they don't.
The time investment is, however, nowhere even close to equal. If they want a campaign where I invest into it only as much time as they invest into making a pc, they can have one. It will be shallow and vapid, but they can have it.
If the time commitment bothers you, you can always step down as DM.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, really, the group is deciding between forcing the GM to adapt, which means no campaign if the GM doesn't want that, and forcing Bob to adapt, which means campaign without Bob if they don't.
Can you see no other possibility, in human interactions, than a series of ultimatums?
B Woof! That's a loooong post!
*And now, Bwang: that's pretty unfortunate...arrogant. That's rude and not a good thing, despite your assertions or intent.
B Well, I think speed traps are rude, but they have a purpose, much as I hate them.
*...Because of that, certain assertions don't keep here.
B As I stated somewhere, 'If it walks like a Duck...' My experience is that almost every exotic tries to kink the hose, but I state again not every kink comes from them.
*I would love to understand this, but I don't. Please explain and enlighten me!
B Oy! It took me 2 semesters of losing lunch table debates before I finally understood! Basically, 5 blind men encounter an elephant, each 'touching' a different part. The man with the trunk compared it to a snake, the man with a leg to a tree; the side a wall; the tail a rope and the tusk a spear. Each was right from their point of view. By each man shifting one position, they become more acquainted with the elephant, but not always more enlightened.
My first view of EC was from a campsite across the valley floor: egad what a magnificent sight! The Forest Service coptered us to the area behind the face at lunch and my view was from the left edge. All I could think was how far I could so easily fall. Does that help?
*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.
B I've been running low end, intro games from 1978-ish, and have seen it in every medium from Chivalry and Sorcery to Tunnels and Trolls., every genre from Testament to Traveller and Space Opera. It seems universal to me. I should note that it seems to be people who actually know the rules that are trying to 'Mary Sue' the other players.
*Often I've found...Could that be something that you're experiencing?
B Again, these are intro games where players are unsure to start with, so you point is more than valid. The real problem is the player that has never played a game (or the campaign) and wants to play a leprechaun in Star Wars or a Gorn in D&D (or 'Bob' the absolutely normal man in a Champions game! Sry, a pet peeve.)
*...but insisting that your experience holds true across all examples is false.
B As is yours, hence my statement. I think you believe I'm unyielding here, but I am willing to admit that Blue Whales and Unicorns both exist, even if I've never seen either.
*Your point (as I understand it): ...etc.
B Having never seen someone survive a fall from great height, but having seen one death and 3 hospitalizing injuries (2 of less than 20 feet), I can presume that it is nearly always a bad thing. If you say that one can leap from EC (above) and not wind up paste on the valley floor, I will continue to doubt but at least entertain a methodology that might mitigate the impact (para sail, jet pack, bungee cord, etc). Still not going to jump off the top. Heck, I think my fingerprints are still ingrained in that 'safety bar'! 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. For each of us, rejecting knowledge based on experience leads to false hopes.
B "even the most special snowflake" would agree with your ideas,'
*...as it's been unilaterially rejected by those who are entirely opposed to your side.
B I seem to have missed that and do not find anyone else saying that, sry.
*"any semblance of framework" is...specifics to be plugged in.
B Exactly! By having a 'framework', I can plug in something that fits the chandelier. If you want to bring in a screw in halogen bulb, I'm likely to frown, but let it in, provided it doesn't unbalance or strain the suspension. Bring in a bulb from Kazakhstan that runs on 210v and weighs 5 lbs, then insist that everyone else dance to a polka? Yeah, I'm gonna bounce it.
*I would like you to clarify...
B I was new to 3.5, had never used or seen used the naval rules (chase, interaction of magic, etc) while he had just killed a game of pirates on the high seas. He wanted to do the same to my game using his (better, I admit) knowledge of those rules.
*'Good reasons are good... it comes across as arrogant. SKIP ...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.
B Ah, but that's the way it must be in a campaign. If the GM is constantly changing the campaign, the players can't get into the real role playing because they can't trust the GM to NOT break the world on any given session. No Gunpowder until I decide to give it to goblins, but after the party gets access, I rule gunpowder doesn't work anymore? I saw that pulled in '76. I owe all my other players a stable platform upon which to roleplay, not a heaving deck awash in storm surge.
*Not on a message board in which people are supposed to treat each other as equals and engage in discourse.
B Sorry, I thought I was being clear that this was my view of my place at the game table.
*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.
B Actually, I am slaved to the players' joint will, they play my game because I push the rules and such off on them, just guiding them along.
*If you are equating all who play exotic races...
B Alas, friends in CA, LA, NJ and GA all 'whine' about this. I am delighted that you've never experienced this. If you come up with a vaccine, please let me know!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course I can. It's just that final authority matters. If Bob and crowd have decided that this campaign is going to be a thing, and Bob then decides to break a hard limit of the setting or campaign just because he will not adapt, there is a bad situation already. Bob is whining about his elf when he should already know that there would be no elves. At this point, you are telling me the other players either force the GM to adapt to Bob, or abandon the campaign. You even suggest handing the campaign OVER TO SOMEONE ELSE, something I find a truly bizarre concept. If not, the GM is a bad GM.
But there is a worse problem here. I have a slight feeling you think the same "group consensus" should apply through the campaign. I consider it the GM's job to adjudicate problematic situations in the campaign, whether it's disruptive players, difficult conflicts, imbalance between characters, bad reactions to stuff that happens in play, and the like. If the group then interferes into that, the end result is that there IS no final authority, and you make GMing that group pretty much impossible, as soon as any conflict enters the scene.
It may be that it works fine for you. It may be that you THINK it works fine for you. I don't know, and to be honest, I don't care. Just don't call people bad GMs for not following your pretty strange way of doing things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, so if the group decides on Bob getting to play an elf (supposedly by outvoting the GM), the GM has to decide to play with elves, give up on the campaign, or be a bad GM.Or gather interest for that campaign and accept that the original elf camiagn will get run, by someone else if not by you. Don't ignore stuff just to make it seem like I'm advocating only "A" when in fact I'm advocating "A," "B," "C," or "other."
It seems like people do that a lot on here. Makes me wonder why they're against exotic races when they like straw men so much.
But there is a worse problem here. I have a slight feeling you think the same "group consensus" should apply through the campaign. I consider it the GM's job to adjudicate problematic situations in the campaign, whether it's disruptive players, difficult conflicts, imbalance between characters, bad reactions to stuff that happens in play, and the like. If the group then interferes into that, the end result is that there IS no final authority, and you make GMing that group pretty much impossible, as soon as any conflict enters the scene.
So, if I want to go jogging today, that means I'm probably going to quit my job in favor of running marathons? I'm certain now that you're not arguing in good faith.
So you are saying the group does NOT have the authority to force certain solutions to conflicts at the game table on the GM?
So you are saying the group does NOT have the authority to force certain solutions to conflicts at the game table on the GM?
During play? Between sessions? What types of conflicts? What sorts of solutions?
Say... Bob is playing a heavily optimised elf. Everything that happens in the campaign is about Bob. Nobody else can survive the stuff that could even remotely challenge Bob. Bob slices through everything that would be a challenge to anyone else in his first action.
Or, Bob's elf threw a spider into the hair of Joe's character, and Joe gets a panic attack due to his phobia of spiders. After this, Joe is angry with Bob and a conflict mounts.
Or, Bob doesn't want to play a lot of "stupid talking". Joe hates "all that pointless combat", and both demand the GM change it.
Or, Bob wants to invite Susan to the group. Joe doesn't want to invite Susan.
Or, Bob feels there are too many encounters with constructs, while Joe likes those.
Or any of a thousand possible issues.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No offense Sissyl, but I think at this point you need to bow out of this discussion.
To clarify: I don't think either of you is 100% right, however at this point in time you are only reading in Kirth's posts exactly what you want to hear, which is that Kirth is stupid and doesn't make any sense. For the past several posts you have conjectured entirely different versions of his prior posts by simply reading what you want out of the post and ignoring the rest.
What I think You're taking from Kirth's post is that he apparently thinks that everyone should have equal rights and that he's an awful GM by some measure because other people's opinions matter.
What I have taken from Kirth's posts is just that he thinks the players other than the GM and the one player should have an opinion. I.E. if you have a GM and four players, the GM suggests a game with no elves. If the one player wants an elf, and the other three are fine with no elves, in what realm is it okay for that one player to demand an elf? On the flip side of that coin, if the GM proposes it, and all four players would prefer to have a game that includes elves for whatever reason, the gm has the options to simply put off the non-elf game for a time and run one with elves, allow another GM to take over and run a game that has elves so that the players can have what they wish, or become a dictator and ignore the wishes of the players and enforce absolutely no elves.
I think there's actually a fourth option that's called "Compromise", wherein perhaps if you as a GM don't like dealing with elves as a vast quantity, perhaps what you could do in your setting if a player vastly wishes to play an elf is work around it, either re-tool the race to be something mechanically/thematically similar, or simply change the nature of the race to make it a lot more uncommon, and give the player a greater roleplaying opportunity by playing up such a rare entity.
In my opinion, when beginning a game neither the GM nor the Player has absolute authority unto the ends of the earth to decide how the game should be run, though the GM should have ultimate say on the final details. Essentially, I'm not going to shove a game my players don't want to play down their throats, just because I really want that story, but I'm also not going to let the group pigeonhole me into running only one type of game, just because they won't think outside the box.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And no offense, FlySkyHigh, but I think at this point you need to stop telling me what to do.
"what if all of them want to play only elves"
Actually had this happen when a group I was setting up really got into Elfquest. A very interesting turn of events.
And no offense, FlySkyHigh, but I think at this point you need to stop telling me what to do.
You really should start reading posts, though. Especially when they're respectful and well written.
Know why I didn't answer that, Arcutiys?
Because I already have, and because it is misrepresenting my view.
I never claimed Kirth was a bad GM by any measure, or indeed, ever. Feel free to quote me on this. I have been called a bad GM repeatedly, however.
Next paragraph: I already stated the situation. Bob wants his elf despite agreeing to play this no-elf campaign. FlySkyHigh ignores that Bob has been informed about it and still wants an elf.
Next paragraph: Compromise is fine and dandy, but I was asking about the situation where that has been tried to no avail. FlySkyHigh again chooses another situation and applies what I say to that. He also suggests that maybe I could retool the elf to something else, something I have claimed would be a great idea for pages - but in the situation I am talking about, Bob has DECIDED THAT'S NOT AN OPTION!
Final paragraph: FlySkyHigh says he agrees with me that the GM should have ultimate say on the final details, and says that he will not be pigeonholed into running only one type of game for the players, again something that has been my clearly stated position from the start.
There was just this little thing that I was called a bad GM for saying I would set hard limits to make a campaign function a certain way, and expect the players to make characters to fit that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the group agrees on "no elves," then no one I've ever played with would immediately turn around and demand to play one.
LOL, My tenant runs a game with no Wizards, Monks or other 'skilled' Classes. I think Kobolds are the most popular Race.
Another group has a standing rule: you cannot play the same race OR class 2 campaigns in a row. (Gms also don't run for more than a year.) I don't get to play with them due to work, but I love the idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I gotta agree with other posters here...I don't think you are arguing with Kirth, but rather have assembled a straw men position you think Kirth holds and are arguing against it.
To beat the elf example into the ground, I imagine this is how it would go down and what Kirth is talking about:
"Hey Guys, would people be cool with a campaign focused on X, I am only allowing X races (no elves) and X classes"
Players all agree...go to pick out characters.
Players are not really cool with the class or race selection, or theme/setting of the game...Talk with GM, and come to a compromise, or the GM runs other ideas by them to find out what they want. Go roll up characters
All the players agree, except for Bob, who really likes X class or race, or not into the setting/theme. Bob can either choose a new character, and save the character he wanted for a later campaign. Or he can sit out the game. Or someone can offer to DM another game and he can play that character in that game. Or he can DM his own game with those options if the players agree and DM agree, and the DM can finally get some player time.
Now if everyone decides one way, the DM has planned and set everything up for the campaign, and Bob shows up with something that won't work and was against the guidelines...you definitely have a problem and I think it's perfectly fair for Bob to roll up a new character or leave (I suspect Kirth would agree).
To be honest, I don't really understand the situation here. If I am with a group of friends, why would I force them to play a game or characters they didn't enjoy? And as a player why would I intentionally be a pain to the DM? And with a group of strangers, why would I play in a campaign I am not interested in, or DM for a group of people whose playstyles completely differ from my own?
Sissyl, duly note that at no point was I trying to claim that my views were in any way opposing to yours. Rather I think that the views I had stated (with the exception of compromise, which I had seen lacking in Kirth's posts) were in fact in line with what Kirth was trying to say. By nature of your following statement, it seems to me that you and Kirth are actually fairly in-line with one another on your train of thought, it is simply that one (or both) of you have missed the forest for the trees and taken it far more personally than it was intended.
For my point, I can see where Kirth's mentions of "Bad GMs" may have made you feel attacked, but I don't personally feel that he was directing it as saying "You" are a bad GM, but more describing qualities that he felt made someone a bad GM. If you exemplify those qualities, then technically yes, by nature he probably would think you are a bad GM, I just don't think it was intended in any way as an attack.
And as to your "Bob" scenario. If a player under any circumstances refuses to compromise in any way, then they need to not play. I understand this is a difficult decision for some people to make, but for the betterment of the group that player needs to be removed. Giving in to a player who refuses to compromise for no reason other than to shut them up will only encourage them in acting out similarly in the future. I've never personally encountered this, but given human nature that is the most likely possibility.
I'm sorry if you felt like I was misinterpreting your view, but over the past few pages your words have seemed increasingly hostile, while Kirth's seemed to be more trying to find a new way to describe what he was saying, and with each new iteration of his attempt to explain you seemed to grow more and more offended and/or agitated, stating even:
Okay, so if the group decides on Bob getting to play an elf (supposedly by outvoting the GM), the GM has to decide to play with elves, give up on the campaign, or be a bad GM. As such, the GM in this situation has no right to set a hard limit, expect Bob to adapt his character to the campaign, because if the GM does, BAD GM. The players decide by strength of numbers what goes and doesn't go in every campaign.
That was what I thought. Thank you.
which in fact was a bit of a hyperbole of his prior statement, drawing what you wanted to hear and nothing else. I can only assume that in this case what you have come to do is either a) set up a mental image of what Kirth is/does/believes and are arguing fervently against it or b) demonstrate in some way the qualities that Kirth believes make a "bad" GM, and as such have taken to defending yourself in order to self-justify your own actions.
I feel that MMCJawa pretty much has the feel of what I"m trying to say as well. I can't fully wrap my head around this situation, as I've both never encountered it, or met anyone who has. It seems to me that the entire situation is entering the realm of hyperbole in and of that it seems so remarkably absurd, that the actual occurence itself would probably render me speechless.
So, GM has worked out a no elves campaign. Bob wants to play elf. When the discussion is over, the group wants Bob to be able to play an elf, voting down the GM four to one. The GM should then LET SOMEONE ELSE GM the no elf campaign? I... am afraid you lost me there.
I wonder, what would happen if the GM convinced the other players (4 to 1, again), that Bob should play a not-elf? Does Bob have to adapt? If he doesn't, is he then a BAD PLAYER?
This almost happened to me.
Running a non-Tolkien game, which yes, means no elves. This guy really wanted to play an elf, but in this game, it was about playing in a quite different fantasy world.
I didn't budge, because there were some specific reasons there were no elves (space was given to other things, and they didn't fly with the setting, which was more about the ascent of monsters). Player moved on. I guess he wanted to play a generic arrogant elven wizard, that was the impression I got.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course I can. It's just that final authority matters. If Bob and crowd have decided that this campaign is going to be a thing, and Bob then decides to break a hard limit of the setting or campaign just because he will not adapt, there is a bad situation already. Bob is whining about his elf when he should already know that there would be no elves. At this point, you are telling me the other players either force the GM to adapt to Bob, or abandon the campaign. You even suggest handing the campaign OVER TO SOMEONE ELSE, something I find a truly bizarre concept. If not, the GM is a bad GM.
But there is a worse problem here. I have a slight feeling you think the same "group consensus" should apply through the campaign. I consider it the GM's job to adjudicate problematic situations in the campaign, whether it's disruptive players, difficult conflicts, imbalance between characters, bad reactions to stuff that happens in play, and the like. If the group then interferes into that, the end result is that there IS no final authority, and you make GMing that group pretty much impossible, as soon as any conflict enters the scene.
It may be that it works fine for you. It may be that you THINK it works fine for you. I don't know, and to be honest, I don't care. Just don't call people bad GMs for not following your pretty strange way of doing things.
Yep. He/She who would try to break the setting to fit their character, is not playing ball with the dm. The dm sets it up, sometimes throwing a lot of time and effort into making a world, and the players play. If the player wants to dm, they should become a dm.
It seems like people do that a lot on here. Makes me wonder why they're against exotic races when they like straw men so much.Okay, so if the group decides on Bob getting to play an elf (supposedly by outvoting the GM), the GM has to decide to play with elves, give up on the campaign, or be a bad GM.Or gather interest for that campaign and accept that the original elf camiagn will get run, by someone else if not by you. Don't ignore stuff just to make it seem like I'm advocating only "A" when in fact I'm advocating "A," "B," "C," or "other."
is the guy playing an Exotic Race such as an Aasimaar, Fetchling, Samsaran, or Catfolk any worse than the guy who plays only Elves and only Dwarves?
is the guy who wants to play a Ninja, Gunslinger, or Aegis any worse than the guy who plays a Cleric or Wizard?
There was one line in her post you missed."Nymphs were known for being attractive and persuasive, and being good buddies of elves and humans alike, I wanted a race that blended the desired traits, half elf didn't offer the exact racials I wanted to fit this concept, so I tried 7 drafts of a half nymph race." - As you can see, she had a legitimate reason to ignore your suggestions. Also, it's funny that you would mention hostility here when it's usually people like you who point the finger and accuse others of badwrongfun styles of play.
I didn't miss it. I suspect other races can be attractive and persuasive (if not supernaturally so) as well. She didn't ignore my "suggestion" (a question really). She answered it quite well. And I'm oh so glad you know "people like you", well me.
Apologies for the hostility, I misinterpreted the messages you sent to Umbriere.
I do agree that there are no right or wrong ways to play. I actually said that earlier in this thread.
That's all right. It's the internet; these things happen. I was a bit short myself. Normally I just try to point out what I meant. This thread seems to go in phases argument and agreement and back to argument. A lot of that is differences in campaign / play style, new posters and the inevitable misinterpretation that pure text communications brings to it.
I will note that I did have a player ask to play a pure-blood Azlanti, and said no, there are no Azlanti in the Razor Coast.
Just as an aside: What is the Azlanti write up?
Basically human with +2 to all ability scores.I will note that I did have a player ask to play a pure-blood Azlanti, and said no, there are no Azlanti in the Razor Coast.Just as an aside: What is the Azlanti write up?
at the cost of the bonus feat and bonus skill points, with +1 ECL attached.
All these people wanting to play non-human non-fighter/rogue/cleric/wizards from the CRB make me sick.
Like how dare they try to use ADDITIONAL rules without the GM's handwritten consent signed in blood?
Yep. He/She who would try to break the setting to fit their character, is not playing ball with the dm.And he/she who will not bend the setting to fit the player is not playing ball either.
Also no street sam cyborgs in non shadowrun games.
No elves in a fantasy world that doesn't have elves.I get that some people absolutely, positively want to play something, but you can't always play what you want in every setting. If it is a class/race combo that you really like to play, try something different, and choose from the list of options the dm presents to you. They made the world after all (or they are running this piece of it), so ask why what you want isn't on, by all means. Negotiate it out, but don't expect something that is not there for a reason to be put in for weak reasons.
I was reading this really different setting, sort of ancient world renaissance, very Persian (yes, Persian renaissance of former slaves), and although fantasy, it didn't have orcs. You could not play an orc there. Nor should you be asking to play an orc. There were also no elves, but the highly cultured beautiful people that were the standard, were closer to elves in a few ways. Still, no orcs.
If it was an Isger game, even I the hobgoblin looter would understand, the dm is likely to say no hobgoblins (unless you are playing the hob and gob side in that conflict, which would be cool and full of a lot of despoiling).
Yep. He/She who would try to break the setting to fit their character, is not playing ball with the dm.And he/she who will not bend the setting to fit the player is not playing ball either.Also no street sam cyborgs in non shadowrun games.
No elves in a fantasy world that doesn't have elves.I get that some people absolutely, positively want to play something, but you can't always play what you want in every setting. If it is a class/race combo that you really like to play, try something different, and choose from the list of options the dm presents to you. They made the world after all (or they are running this piece of it), so ask why what you want isn't on, by all means. Negotiate it out, but don't expect something that is not there for a reason to be put in for weak reasons.
I was reading this really different setting, sort of ancient world renaissance, very Persian (yes, Persian renaissance of former slaves), and although fantasy, it didn't have orcs. You could not play an orc there. Nor should you be asking to play an orc. There were also no elves, but the highly cultured beautiful people that were the standard, were closer to elves in a few ways. Still, no orcs.
If it was an Isger game, even I the hobgoblin looter would understand, the dm is likely to say no hobgoblins (unless you are playing the hob and gob side in that conflict, which would be cool and full of a lot of despoiling).
but at the same time, i'd rather have races be banned for a reason that makes more sense than "i don't like furries" or "i don't like elves"
but at the same time, if hybrids exist, the appropriate hybrid should generally be allowed if both parent races exist, with the DM looking over the race and proofreading, like if humans and nymphs both exist, a half human half nymph could make some sense.
but at the same time, if hybrids exist, the appropriate hybrid should generally be allowed if both parent races exist, with the DM looking over the race and proofreading, like if humans and nymphs both exist, a half human half nymph could make some sense.
Not necessarily, hybrids might exist, but these specific hybrids don't exist.
An example from my own game. One continent is a floating island with no magic, so the inhabitants developed two things. Psionics and Wings. There are four races there, Humans, Elves, Halflings, and Stryx. All four are modified from the base races to have wings and lose some other things.
Half-elves exist in the setting, but half-elves with wings don't. If a winged human and winged elf mate, the offspring is a regular half-elf, with no wings. This means that on this continent, half-elves are treated with pity and a tiny bit of revulsion. And having one in the family is a black mark on your family, because you intentionally did something you knew would make a wingless child.
So in this world, a winged half-elf would not exist as a hybrid, even though half-elves do, winged humans do, and winged elves do.
but at the same time, if hybrids exist, the appropriate hybrid should generally be allowed if both parent races exist, with the DM looking over the race and proofreading, like if humans and nymphs both exist, a half human half nymph could make some sense.Not necessarily, hybrids might exist, but these specific hybrids don't exist.
An example from my own game. One continent is a floating island with no magic, so the inhabitants developed two things. Psionics and Wings. There are four races there, Humans, Elves, Halflings, and Stryx. All four are modified from the base races to have wings and lose some other things.
Half-elves exist in the setting, but half-elves with wings don't. If a winged human and winged elf mate, the offspring is a regular half-elf, with no wings. This means that on this continent, half-elves are treated with pity and a tiny bit of revulsion. And having one in the family is a black mark on your family, because you intentionally did something you knew would make a wingless child.
So in this world, a winged half-elf would not exist as a hybrid, even though half-elves do, winged humans do, and winged elves do.
how the hell? do a winged human and a winged elf? not make a winged half elf? that makes no sense.
how the hell? do a winged human and a winged elf? not make a winged half elf? that makes no sense.
Because the mutations in each are different, and they cancel each other out. It could just as easily be divine judgement that no mixing should occur and they are being punished by not getting wings.
The point is, it adds a story hook for half-elves that visit this place, or for people from this place to have odd reactions to half-elves.
how the hell? do a winged human and a winged elf? not make a winged half elf? that makes no sense.
1. Maybe the wings are a blessing by divine powers upon several specific races, and half-elves don't count.
2. The wings are a magical effect that are not genetically inheritable but manifest on a few particular races due to certain specifics.
3. The way the genes combine from humans and elves results in a 'mule', except instead of infertility the result is no wings.
There are lots of explanations that can make sense within the setting.
how the hell? do a winged human and a winged elf? not make a winged half elf? that makes no sense.1. Maybe the wings are a blessing by divine powers upon several specific races, and half-elves don't count.
2. The wings are a magical effect that are not genetically inheritable but manifest on a few particular races due to certain specifics.
3. The way the genes combine from humans and elves results in a 'mule', except instead of infertility the result is no wings.
There are lots of explanations that can make sense within the setting.
Number 3 actually. Spot on.
but at the same time, if hybrids exist, the appropriate hybrid should generally be allowed if both parent races exist, with the DM looking over the race and proofreading, like if humans and nymphs both exist, a half human half nymph could make some sense.Not necessarily, hybrids might exist, but these specific hybrids don't exist.
An example from my own game. One continent is a floating island with no magic, so the inhabitants developed two things. Psionics and Wings. There are four races there, Humans, Elves, Halflings, and Stryx. All four are modified from the base races to have wings and lose some other things.
Half-elves exist in the setting, but half-elves with wings don't. If a winged human and winged elf mate, the offspring is a regular half-elf, with no wings. This means that on this continent, half-elves are treated with pity and a tiny bit of revulsion. And having one in the family is a black mark on your family, because you intentionally did something you knew would make a wingless child.
So in this world, a winged half-elf would not exist as a hybrid, even though half-elves do, winged humans do, and winged elves do.
Mind if I use this idea for a campaign I'm running? It's a really nifty Idea, and I have just the place for that in my world.
Number 3 actually. Spot on.how the hell? do a winged human and a winged elf? not make a winged half elf? that makes no sense.1. Maybe the wings are a blessing by divine powers upon several specific races, and half-elves don't count.
2. The wings are a magical effect that are not genetically inheritable but manifest on a few particular races due to certain specifics.
3. The way the genes combine from humans and elves results in a 'mule', except instead of infertility the result is no wings.
There are lots of explanations that can make sense within the setting.
expect nobody to play a half elf in that game then, because wings are a huge advantage to give a PC race, and lots of players, will want the wings.
expect nobody to play a half elf in that game then, because wings are a huge advantage to give a PC race, and lots of players, will want the wings.Number 3 actually. Spot on.how the hell? do a winged human and a winged elf? not make a winged half elf? that makes no sense.1. Maybe the wings are a blessing by divine powers upon several specific races, and half-elves don't count.
2. The wings are a magical effect that are not genetically inheritable but manifest on a few particular races due to certain specifics.
3. The way the genes combine from humans and elves results in a 'mule', except instead of infertility the result is no wings.
There are lots of explanations that can make sense within the setting.
all this right here is a huge reason to keep races as written and not start tweaking things, its a slippery, slippery slope once you do, also this all sounds silly
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i always tell people (by that i mean my wife and kids) if it isn't in the ARG or inner sea bestiary you can't play it, if you want to make your own race, then make your own campaign
Mind if I use this idea for a campaign I'm running? It's a really nifty Idea, and I have just the place for that in my world.
Knock yourself out. :)
expect nobody to play a half elf in that game then, because wings are a huge advantage to give a PC race, and lots of players, will want the wings.
I don't expect them to play one. If they want to, they can.
Most campaigns however, do not start out on this continent, they visit it.