Talk me down: Exotic Race Antipathy


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

901 to 950 of 1,827 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>

captain yesterday wrote:
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

Ok everyone, we can stop debating now. Captain Righteous has decreed we are doing our games wrong.

Everyone make sure to commit sepuku to make up for the shame.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
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?
Yep. That's the thing about the group over the individual, be it the GM or a player.

It is Logical.


mdt wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:


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.

even if you don't start out on that continent, nobody is going to play a half elf in your setting when you gave a small group of humans and elves, the massive and priceless advantage of flight, but not half elves.

just about everyone, will want to fly, which will mean, when they hear about it they will always want to play the winged humans and winged elves from that continent, because flight is an immeasurably massive advantage. makes you immune to many traps, opens up many style based option abuses, such as ranged characters who are completely immune to melee opponents, or even the concept of casters that no longer fear anyone that can't also fly.

there is no amount of Racial Boons that can compensate for permanent natural extraordinary flight

it opens many doors and grants many immunities

the drawback of the strix, that fails to balance them, is the loss of a second attribute bonus, a penalty to a fairly common casting stat, and a lot of negative fluff, which does nothing to balance them.


And another round of thanks to Moonwhisper for also explaining how everyone else plays the game wrong.

For your information, I've had games in this world for going on 5 years now, with about 15 different players in two different parts of the country. Oddly enough, I've had exactly one winged human character.

Imagine that... you are wrong. I know, mind blowing right?


mdt wrote:

And another round of thanks to Moonwhisper for also explaining how everyone else plays the game wrong.

For your information, I've had games in this world for going on 5 years now, with about 15 different players in two different parts of the country. Oddly enough, I've had exactly one winged human character.

Imagine that... you are wrong. I know, mind blowing right?

Sadly enough, in that type of game, I'd be the player that wanted to play a half-elf, just for the roleplay opportunities. A lot of the people in my group do things similarly.

Hell, in a game I played a year or two ago, we played in a setting where half-elves were reviled as desecrations of nature (along with all other half-breeds.). I played a Synthesist Summoner HalfElf, who used his Eidolon both as a tool to help him survive, as he was forced out into the wilds on his own when he was nothing but a baby, and as a way to hide his true nature. He actually made it a point of order to never show his true face to anyone, so whenever he slept he would sleep apart, going to extreme lengths to hide his real identity from the rest of the group. Mechanically, most of the players knew what I was, but IC, all of the players thought I was just some humanoid/beast creature, and often played up how "Ferocious" I was, as I essentially substituted for a Fighter in the party.


Not sure why you say sadly. Sounds like you had fun. :)


mdt wrote:
Not sure why you say sadly. Sounds like you had fun. :)

Oh I had tons of fun! That character is probably one of the ones I've had the most fun on in all my time playing Pathfinder.

I say sadly, because according to a lot of people in this thread, wanting to play a half-elf in a game where half-elves are bad/weird/reviled labels me a s@$! disturber or a person wanting to be a "super-cooled piece of cloud moisture" or whatever, when in reality I just saw an interesting character concept and wanted to try it out. I mentioned to the GM that I wanted to play a half-elf, he reminded me of the background about them. I told him my concept, he thought it was interesting and gave me the ok.


Ah, you should ignore 90% of the hot air on these threads (including about 40% of my hot air, my hot air is obviously more relevant and filled with unicorns and rainbows than those blowhards). :)


mdt wrote:

And another round of thanks to Moonwhisper for also explaining how everyone else plays the game wrong.

For your information, I've had games in this world for going on 5 years now, with about 15 different players in two different parts of the country. Oddly enough, I've had exactly one winged human character.

Imagine that... you are wrong. I know, mind blowing right?

still, i don't like the idea of 0ECL winged humanoids, because flight bypasses many obstacles at the low levels.

it's not telling that you play the game wrong

it's just, that if you include a winged 0ECL race, lots of power gamers and munchkins, will try to play it. because power gamers and munchkins, really value flight.

and a lot of them would race to fly at level 1

i wonder how it is, you only had 1 winged human out of 15 players when in your typical pathfinder group, if such a race were introduced, people would race to play one, only because wings are such a massive mechanical advantage

the continent that exists to justify those winged humans, could have been done without

the only excuse i can find for not many players introducing winged humans

was either

you didn't tell your group about it upfront till a later point in the campaign

or you rejected a bunch winged human proposals for being regionally inappropriate due to playing in a variety of completely different regions.

or, your players wanted a challenge and chose not to play the winged races that would trivialize everything


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I can just say that when I make a character for a game, I try to find a character concept that excites me WITHIN THOSE OPTIONS PROVIDED BY THE GM. Not doing so would be rude. I sometimes ask if I could play some other character concept. If so, I would not ask to play something the GM specifically excluded, because I know it is a headache to deal with.


I didn't reject a bunch of winged character proposals.

Some games they didn't know about them until they reached the island, or ran into some of them in ports. Some games I offered them, but they didn't want them. My wife ended up playing one because I made her character.

One thing about the winged people, they were mutated by unstable magic. Their entire island is full of unstable magic, and any spellcasting has a chance to fizzle or blow up spectacularly. As a result, they culturally don't trust magic. They use psionic equipment instead. In fact, it's illegal to bring magic items into their island (this is a safety thing, magic items can explode there).

So part of it was the oddity factor.

The other part is, I use Fast Progression for the first 5 levels, medium for levels 6 to 15, and slow for 16 to 20. Because of this, most people have access to flight relatively quickly (level 5 for most builds), so there's not the urgency to get flight.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why is it rude for a player to ask to play something not allowed? Unless he is doing it out of spite, it's a very reasonable request. Especially if the GM decided to ban whatever it is without first asking how his players felt about it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:

Why is it rude for a player to ask to play something not allowed?

Ok everyone, we're going to play flag football now.

I want to play tackle football while everyone else plays flag, 'kay?

Ok everyone, we're going to have the party at my house, please no throwing the ball in the house.
I wanna play toss in the living room, next to the tv, 'kay?

Ok everyone, we're going to walk one at a time over the rickety bridge, slowly, so we all get over safe.
I'm gonna hop on one foot all the way across and hold onto you to keep my balance, 'kay?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

As a GM I believe that I should be careful about restricting the options of the players to make the character they wish. This does not mean that I believe that there can never be restrictions placed.

Time I was pretty restrictive:
One campaign I ran started with a restricted list of core races (only human, elf, halfling, and half-orc; half-elf was allowable but discouraged). The background was that these beings were all living on giant "tree balls" on the elemental plane of air (sort of like this but more treeish and less bushish and much larger).

The background was that an army of fiends had over run the people's home world. In an act of desperation the druids and other magic users created the tree balls and evacuated as many people as the could. The dwarves and gnomes refused to leave the world and instead bunkered into mountain kingdoms together.

Overtime the tree balls drifted apart and the other races lost contact with each other (why half-elves are rare, half-orcs started as their own tribe so didn't need more humans to keep them going). At the start of the campaign the tree balls were again approaching each other. This was a sign that a significant event was happening. Due to the fiends attacking and so many people leaving, the planes are out of balance. The heroes eventually returned to their native world and began the process of bringing goodness back to the survivors, returning the planes back to balance.

Likewise as a player I believe that I should be careful about trying to get changes to the setting and/or campaign that the GM is running. Does that mean that I never believe that as a player I shouldn't speak up when a GM is planning a campaign that I see serious problems with, not at all but I should be just be careful and give the GM the benefit of the doubt.

What about when I am designing a campaign? Well it should be noted that I start throwing ideas and getting feedback quite far in the future before it starts. So I don't run into situations where everyone agrees on a no-elf campaign and then someone shows up with an elf, because the campaign details and character creation rules have been hashed out far in advance before the first session.

What about game decision and "power"? As a GM, I make the decisions about the functioning of the world and NPCs, but when it comes to game rules, I am not the final arbiter. I am the "first among equals". I'll make a decision for that game session and then the group will discuss the particular issue between games until we come to a consensus. Most issues end up going my way, not because I drop the GM hammer down, but instead because I am the one most likely to do the research and analysis of the details involved. When I am shown to be wrong, I have no problem changing the ruling, because I am interested in being correct from then on than to be worried that I might have got an obscure rule wrong a single time.

When we are hashing out the coming game, often times I will throw out an idea of the type of game I am thinking about running. Remember this is pretty far in the future, so I haven't already committed weeks of time writing up all the encounters and npc stats, etc. for the entire campaign. If the potential players aren't interested, I might rework the ideas, start over from scratch, or just decide not to GM for the time. Generally having the best, most awesome campaign ideas doesn't really do you much good if you are the only person interested in sitting down and playing it.

As for player's being "badong" for wanting a race with abilities that play to their class/role, I find that idea a bit strange. Wouldn't a creature with natural abilities that aided a particular role/career natural be more likely to pursue that role/career and avoid roles/careers that explicitly go against their natural abilities. Someone that isn't very bright isn't likely to become a wizard, likewise someone that is very weak isn't likely to become a barbarian (the class not the culture). Similarly a race that has higher natural charisma is more likely to have more members of the race that have levels in charisma based classes. I don't see anything "badong" with a player making choices of their character along these lines.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

"Hey guys, wanna play a no elves campaign?"
"Sure! Awesome!"

"Now that we are making characters, I want to make an elf. I only want to play an elf."
"Dude, I told you this was no elves."
"Doesn't matter! I WANNA ELF!!!!!!11"
"HEY! WHY DID YOU BAN ELVES WITHOUT CONSULTING US FIRST???!!!??? BAD GM!! And he gets to play an elf!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

"Hey guys, wanna play a no elves campaign?"

"Sure! Awesome!"

"Now that we are making characters, I want to make an elf. I only want to play an elf."
"Dude, I told you this was no elves."
"Doesn't matter! I WANNA ELF!!!!!!11"
"HEY! WHY DID YOU BAN ELVES WITHOUT CONSULTING US FIRST???!!!??? BAD GM!! And he gets to play an elf!"

That's not even close to what I said, but feel free to exaggerate. It seems that's a big part of your arguments around here.

There a pretty big difference between "asking & negotiating" and "demanding & throwing a tantrum". Are your friends that childish?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

"Hey guys, wanna play a no elves campaign?"

"Sure! Awesome!"

From my personal experience it is at this point that people say, "I want to make an elf. I only want to play an elf." Of course the GM isn't going to say, "Dude, I told you this was no elves." because at this point has the GM hasn't "told" anyone anything, they have only asked a question about a possible upcoming campaign.


What I have said is that the GM has final authority. This got me called a bad GM. But as you say, you did not correctly present my actual position, then when I try to restate it, you claim I exaggerated.


It really depends on the campaign what should or shouldn't be allowed.

I'm running Planescape using Pathfinder rules (or at least rules that are more based on Pathfinder than on anything else), and I encourage people to play unusual races, or even come up with their own creations (though human is still the most popular race).

Now, if I wanted a much more traditional medieval European fantasy feel to my game, or a more fantasy light game, I would limit race selection much more, in fact I might even just limit it to human depending on the particular feel I wanted for the game. I might even limit what classes people can play, or even make them start out as commoners, it all depends on what sort of "atmosphere" I'm trying to give the game.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
What I have said is that the GM has final authority. This got me called a bad GM.

Not really. I said "the GM always has final say" myself. And I never called you a bad GM.

Sissyl wrote:
But as you say, you did not correctly present my actual position, then when I try to restate it, you claim I exaggerated.

I claim you exaggerated because you tried to restate your position with a huge exaggeration. You act as if all players are go directly against the GM at every chance they have just out of spite. I've never seen this happen. Not once in 16 years. Even when I was a kid and gamed with other 10-years old kids.

Why can't it be like

GM: "Okay, guys, our next campaign is in a world with no elves"
Player: "Ah, but I really wanted to play an Elf this time? Is there no way to fit one?"

Then the GM should consider the possibility of allowing elf characters. He doesn't have to necessarily allow it, but there is not harm in considering the possibility. He and the player should talk to each other and see for whom the presence/absence of elves matters most. If the GM really wants a no-elf campaign, and the player doesn't care all that much... No elves. If the player was really looking forward to play an elf and the GM is not as passionate about their nonexistence in the setting, he should allow it.

What I'm criticizing is not the banning of options, but the willingness of a GM to do it without even consulting his players (who are probably his friends) just because he is the GM. It's even worse, IMO, if he does so not because the banned option would be problematic, but because it doesn't fit the GM's personal taste ("I don't like elves, so no elves").

I don't allow Leadership in my games, but if I surely wouldn't be offended if a player asked (not "demanded", asked) if he could take it.


Sissyl wrote:

"Hey guys, wanna play a no elves campaign?"

"Sure! Awesome!"

"Now that we are making characters, I want to make an elf. I only want to play an elf."
"Dude, I told you this was no elves."
"Doesn't matter! I WANNA ELF!!!!!!11"
"HEY! WHY DID YOU BAN ELVES WITHOUT CONSULTING US FIRST???!!!??? BAD GM!! And he gets to play an elf!"

It was very much like that.

There were a lot of options too, a wide array of monster races thrown in (which each had a place on the map, and were involved in politics and culture that the players would run into).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lemmy: Sensible. And exactly what got some here to call me a bad GM.


Sissyl wrote:
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.

IMO, I would disagree. I believe in any group activity, social issues should generally be handled by the group at large. There are some exceptions (as there are to all things),

Spoiler:
for example a guy that creeps out the home owner where the group plays. Maybe the rest of the group isn't bothered by the guy, but the home owner is perfectly entitled to say who can and cannot come into their home. Of course the group is perfectly entitled in that case to abandon the homeowner and go play somewhere else if they think the homeowner is being unfair.

Sissyl wrote:
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.

If the group is bothered, then they should speak to Bob about it as a group and ask him to intentionally "gimp" his character to make the game more enjoyable for them. The GM can be the leader of the "intervention", but it really needs the whole group involved.

Sissyl wrote:
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.

I'm a little confused, was there an actual spider present at the table or just a description of an in game event? Anyway, it is the responsibility of a player with a phobia like that to let everyone know before playing. If that has happened and Bob is intentionally pushing Joe's buttons, then again the group should speak to Bob about it. This is something that could lead to a ban from a game group.

Sissyl wrote:
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.

I have found that upfront expectations are often best. If the campaign is going to be roleplaying heavy, that should be discussed before starting. If it is only kick-the-door-in heavy, that likewise should have been told to the group before beginning. It as at the point before the campaign starts that these things should be worked out, so everyone knows what they are getting into. Inexperienced GM sometimes don't think to do this.

If for some reason it shows up later, well it is trickier. Obviously no GM should ever be forced to play in a method they are not comfortable with. If the GM is comfortable either way, then it should be a group decision. If a consensus can't be reach, then it might be time for a breaking up of the group. But that is likely to happen even if the GM decided to take it upon themself to make the decision alone. At least the people know what people they want to game with in the future or from then on.

Sissyl wrote:
Or, Bob wants to invite Susan to the group. Joe doesn't want to invite Susan.

Group consensus on new players always, with homeowner's ultimate veto rights (assuming the group games in a home).

Sissyl wrote:
Or, Bob feels there are too many encounters with constructs, while Joe likes those.

Certainly criticism is something every good GM wants to hear. Sometimes as GMs we get in a rut with our preferred "monsters" and it is good to hear from players. I prefer 3.5 over PF, and a rogue player (who couldn't sneak constructs) certainly should feel entitled to let me know if they feel they have been gimped for too long. It is also good to hear of things that the players are enjoying. Of course encounters can have a mix of creatures so, it is possible to satisfy both players to some extent. Obviously the actual nature of the challenges are something that fall within the GM's area of control, so they get to decide.

I think it is best if a certain type of monster is going to be common to give players a bit of a heads up before the campaign starts. If the campaign is going to be 90% vs. undead, that is something the players should know in order to make characters that play into it. I told my 3.5 players when we ran Rise of the Runelords that if they went ranger to probably take something like giants, dragons, constructs, undead, or magical beasts over say goblins for favored enemy. This was because even though goblins were common at the start, they quickly disappear and I didn't want anyone to feel like they had a wasted class ability.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pres man wrote:
Sissyl wrote:

"Hey guys, wanna play a no elves campaign?"

"Sure! Awesome!"

From my personal experience it is at this point that people say, "I want to make an elf. I only want to play an elf." Of course the GM isn't going to say, "Dude, I told you this was no elves." because at this point has the GM hasn't "told" anyone anything, they have only asked a question about a possible upcoming campaign.

Then no offense to your friends, but they're some pretty s+#~ty people. If they literally wait until just after they all agree to then go NOPE, NOW I WANT TO BE AN ELF. Than they're more than likely doing it just to be a dick.

I'd have to say that in 15 years of playing D&D, I've never seen this occur, and I'm kinda sad you have to put up with something like that.


FlySkyHigh wrote:
pres man wrote:
Sissyl wrote:

"Hey guys, wanna play a no elves campaign?"

"Sure! Awesome!"

From my personal experience it is at this point that people say, "I want to make an elf. I only want to play an elf." Of course the GM isn't going to say, "Dude, I told you this was no elves." because at this point has the GM hasn't "told" anyone anything, they have only asked a question about a possible upcoming campaign.

Then no offense to your friends, but they're some pretty s!~#ty people. If they literally wait until just after they all agree to then go NOPE, NOW I WANT TO BE AN ELF. Than they're more than likely doing it just to be a dick.

I'd have to say that in 15 years of playing D&D, I've never seen this occur, and I'm kinda sad you have to put up with something like that.

Sorry, I wasn't as clear as I meant to be (problem with trying to use the quote directly). I was taking the "sure! awesome!" comment to be from some but not all of the players. I took it as the GM asking for views, some people said it was awesome and then one guy said they wanted to play an elf. I wasn't taking it as a player saying yes, then after everyone agrees changing their mind (i.e. it was still in the debate stage and hadn't yet reached the decision stage). Again, sorry for the confusion.


pres man wrote:
FlySkyHigh wrote:
pres man wrote:
Sissyl wrote:

"Hey guys, wanna play a no elves campaign?"

"Sure! Awesome!"

From my personal experience it is at this point that people say, "I want to make an elf. I only want to play an elf." Of course the GM isn't going to say, "Dude, I told you this was no elves." because at this point has the GM hasn't "told" anyone anything, they have only asked a question about a possible upcoming campaign.

Then no offense to your friends, but they're some pretty s!~#ty people. If they literally wait until just after they all agree to then go NOPE, NOW I WANT TO BE AN ELF. Than they're more than likely doing it just to be a dick.

I'd have to say that in 15 years of playing D&D, I've never seen this occur, and I'm kinda sad you have to put up with something like that.

Sorry, I wasn't as clear as I meant to be (problem with trying to use the quote directly). I was taking the "sure! awesome!" comment to be from some but not all of the players. I took it as the GM asking for views, some people said it was awesome and then one guy said they wanted to play an elf. I wasn't taking it as a player saying yes, then after everyone agrees changing their mind (i.e. it was still in the debate stage and hadn't yet reached the decision stage). Again, sorry for the confusion.

Ah, that makes a little more sense. Still never personally encountered that situation, but I suppose that's a lot more reasonable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

From my experience people tend towards more exotic races the longer they play. You have 7 core races. If a group is rather active then you can get play all of those races in quite a short while (even more so when you consider not everyone likes every core race).
There are of course many more classes to explore but also trying a new race can be exciting.

There is of course the Optimizing and the Marry Sue'ing. But that can happen with any race. We have one player in our group who plays nothing but elves (I think the most deviation I have seen was Half-Elf). In every game, even outside of Pathfinder. If Elves don't exist he makes the most elvish character he can within the system. And let me tell you, he couldn't be farther from an Elf in real life.

The argument the human is one of the best races mechanics wise also speaks against that. Often when I build a character with an exotic race I have this thought: "Dang it. If I just had one more feat."
But I have played a lot of humans and so I try to focus more on the races I have not played yet.

I often I have a certain theme in mind when creating a character and choose a race that fits that theme best from the standpoint of mechanics and flavor.

But in the end the choices of race (and class) depends on the setting and the players (including the GM). It is okay to say no to certain choices. But it should be with reason. And it shouldn't be a categorical "No" to every proposal of a player.
If a concept does not fit this game, maybe it will be fitting for the next game.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Seriously, if you want to argue with me, that's fine, but have the decency to argue against my actual position rather than someone else's oft-discredited misrepresentation of it.

Sorry, Kirth, but your actual position doesn't fit the theme of this campaign setting. You'll just have to play someone else's misrepresentation, instead. :P


Karuth wrote:

From my experience people tend towards more exotic races the longer they play. You have 7 core races. If a group is rather active then you can get play all of those races in quite a short while (even more so when you consider not everyone likes every core race).

There are of course many more classes to explore but also trying a new race can be exciting.

There is of course the Optimizing and the Marry Sue'ing. But that can happen with any race. We have one player in our group who plays nothing but elves (I think the most deviation I have seen was Half-Elf). In every game, even outside of Pathfinder. If Elves don't exist he makes the most elvish character he can within the system. And let me tell you, he couldn't be farther from an Elf in real life.

The argument the human is one of the best races mechanics wise also speaks against that. Often when I build a character with an exotic race I have this thought: "Dang it. If I just had one more feat."
But I have played a lot of humans and so I try to focus more on the races I have not played yet.

I often I have a certain theme in mind when creating a character and choose a race that fits that theme best from the standpoint of mechanics and flavor.

But in the end the choices of race (and class) depends on the setting and the players (including the GM). It is okay to say no to certain choices. But it should be with reason. And it shouldn't be a categorical "No" to every proposal of a player.
If a concept does not fit this game, maybe it will be fitting for the next game.

This is how I'm starting to get. I've been playing for 15 years, and even now in PF I believe the only classes I haven't played are cavalier and samurai, and I've played every core race and most of the featured ones, and several uncommon. I actually make it a point of order in games now that when we start a new one, I try to play something entirely different than anything I've played in the last 3-4 games. I.E. in reverse chronological order... Vampire Rogue, Human Monk, Elf Fighter, Half-Elf Summoner, Dwarf Oracle, Dhampir Sorcerer, Aasimar Paladin, Ifrit Fighter... I'm losing track. I don't always prefer to play monstrous races, because if I find a core race that fits a concept I want to play, I do it. If I don't, I find a different race.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Hmmm... Does the GM have the most authority?

RAW says the GM has the most authority. But do most groups go by RAW? Not really... Looking back on my many years of experience it tends to be the charismatic people with the biggest group of followers that have the most authority in ANY social group, gaming or otherwise. This is probably why the successful GMs are charismatic people. They have an automatic fan club behind all their ideas. GM:"No elves." Group:"Yay! No elves". Most groups when they are forming however have more than one charismatic leader type. If Bob the elf isn't charismatic then the group will tell him to shape up and make something else in the no elf game. If he IS charismatic however we end up with a problem. In this case compromise between Bob and the GM better happen fast or it becomes a test of wills between the two. And in my experience a test of wills always ends badly.

There are many ways to compromise: Bob could be the GM for a while (he IS charismatic), Bob could agree to play something else with the promise that the GMs next game will feature elves, the GM could run an elf game with the promise that next game will be the no elves game, and on and on...

But what if they both have their heart set on doing their thing now and no one else wants to GM? Then one of two things happen, the group plays what the GM wants or the group breaks up.

Nothing democratic about it.

Scarab Sages

Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

still, i don't like the idea of 0ECL winged humanoids, because flight bypasses many obstacles at the low levels.

it's just, that if you include a winged 0ECL race, lots of power gamers and munchkins, will try to play it. because power gamers and munchkins, really value flight.

and a lot of them would race to fly at level 1

i wonder how it is, you only had 1 winged human out of 15 players when in your typical pathfinder group, if such a race were introduced, people would race to play one, only because wings are such a massive mechanical advantage

You don't know that the winged humans and elves are +0 ECL races.

And mdt said that the PCs usually visit from elsewhere.

They could even be the villains of the campaign, for all we know, their role designed to be gigantic patronising douches to any visiting groundbound races?


The main thing I don't like about flying PC races in the fact that so much fluffy crunch has to be taken out of the racial abilities to compensate for the huge advantage of flight in order for it maybe be balanced. I'm not a fan of that, I wouldn't do it, but it wouldn't have any problem playing in a game where they exist.


I'm a little confused, so hopefully one or more of the DM-has-ALL-authority people can help me out. The impression I'm getting is that, when you sit down to start a campaign, the conversation goes something like this:

Player 1: "Can we play a pirate campaign?"
Player 2: "Dude, that would be awesome!"
Player 3: "As long as I can play a kitsune, I'm fine with anything."
DM: "No. My setting is pure Tolkien and there are no pirates and no kitsune."
Player 3: "Well, here's this cool Razor Coast thing..."
DM: "I do all the work, so I pick the setting! I'm running a Tolkien campaign. Period. If you don't like it, you can leave."

I'd like to think that's not what happens, but when someone says point-blank that the DM makes all decisions regarding the setting and that any player input is unwelcome at best and an act of insubordination at worst, then I don't know what else to think.

Request: Can someone who does believe the DM should ban at will edit the above conversation, keeping the players' quotes but changing the DM responses to something that fits your position, if the above does not?


I will say from my experience, I don't think I've ever had a situation where the players started a conversation about a new campaign. The GM does do most of the work on the campaign (a labor of love in my case), so I guess it just comes across as tacky to me as a player to say to the GM, "Can you run a game about X in it for us?" I have no problem with discussing a campaign ideas with a GM, but I never start the conversation.

Generally the GM has approached the players first, even if it is just "I'm thinking about running a game, any ideas about what you might find interesting?", but it usually is with something more like, "I am think about running a pirate campaign, anyone interested?"

I guess at best, I might have heard something like, "This campaign is wrapping, any idea about what you might run next?"


Interesting -- when I started what ended up becoming an Aviona reboot in Houston, the initial converesation went something like this: "What setting do you guys want? Golarion? Aviona (think Three Musketeers meet Three Hearts and Three Lions)? A homebrew we can create and develop together? Other? Everyone please let me know what you'd like to see."

Prior to that, I've pretty much always played in homebrew settings that the players and DM all developed together.

With the exception of default Golarion for learning the Pathfinder rules, I don't think I've ever played in a campaign in which the DM started with "Here's what I'm offering."


I'm not with the "DM should ban at will" crowd, but I'd imagine the discussion to be something like this.

Player 1: That campagin is through, what now?
DM: I have this new idea in my homebrew setting...
Player 2: but I really hoped I could finally play X.
DM: you know X is not available in my world.
Player 2: I know, but does it have to be your homebrew? I really want to play X.
Players 1, 3, 4: I don't care as long as I don't DM...
DM: I DM... so it's my world and I don't want the hassle of changing my world to fit in X, because its does not fit.
Player 2: But I'm out of ideas and I want to finally give X a go.

Player 2 vs DM issue started...?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:

I'm a little confused, so hopefully one or more of the DM-has-ALL-authority people can help me out. The impression I'm getting is that, when you sit down to start a campaign, the conversation goes something like this:

Player 1: "Can we play a pirate campaign?"
Player 2: "Dude, that would be awesome!"
Player 3: "As long as I can play a kitsune, I'm fine with anything."
DM: "No. My setting is pure Tolkien and there are no pirates and no kitsune."
Player 3: "Well, here's this cool Razor Coast thing..."
DM: "I do all the work, so I pick the setting! I'm running a Tolkien campaign. Period. If you don't like it, you can leave."

I'd like to think that's not what happens, but when someone says point-blank that the DM makes all decisions regarding the setting and that any player input is unwelcome at best and an act of insubordination at worst, then I don't know what else to think.

Request: Can someone who does believe the DM should ban at will edit the above conversation, keeping the players' quotes but changing the DM responses to something that fits your position, if the above does not?

Player 1: "Can we play a pirate campaign?"

Player 2: "Dude, that would be awesome!"
Player 3: "As long as I can play a kitsune, I'm fine with anything."
DM: "Well, that's not what I have ready guys. Remember the player hand out I gave you last week? We were going to be on Homebrew World, which was far away from the ocean?"
Player 3: "Well, here's this cool Razor Coast thing..."
DM: "Er. Well, I've not looked at that and wasn't really ready to GM a pirate game. We can do that next time, unless one of you wants to GM it?"

That, for me, is where I stand. Like a number of people that have chimed in earlier, I have times when we run in a homebrewed world that I've spent time one, developing and letting them know what is and isn't available. If, for some reason, everyone wanted to change at the last moment at the table with no advance notice, I'd be a little peeved but would roll with it.

That said, if on this particular world frog people (for example) are an unknown/do not exist at all, I'm fairly unlikely to allow one. I mean, I went to a lot of effort to explain the world and what was/wasn't allowed. I would hope that the people I'm playing with would appreciate that and try to work within the framework rather than trying to be disruptive. And yes, it has happened over the years. I've had a player walk because the others didn't want them to play a berserker in a theives guide campaign, and another because they couldn't play a half-drow/half-centaur. Happily, the other players had my back anytime things get too wonky and ask the other player(s) to work with the game rather than go in a strange direction.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:


Player 1: "Can we play a pirate campaign?"
Player 2: "Dude, that would be awesome!"
Player 3: "As long as I can play a kitsune, I'm fine with anything."
DM: "No. My setting is pure Tolkien and there are no pirates and no kitsune."
Player 3: "Well, here's this cool Razor Coast thing..."
DM: "I do all the work, so I pick the setting! I'm running a Tolkien campaign. Period. If you don't like it, you can leave."

In my local groups, it often goes something like this:

Player 1: "Can we play a pirate campaign?"
Player 2: "Dude, that would be awesome!"
Player 3: "As long as I can play a kitsune, I'm fine with anything."
DM: "No. My setting is pure Tolkien and there are no pirates and no kitsune."
Player 3: "Well, here's this cool Razor Coast thing..."
DM: "I've put a lot of work into this Tolkien campaign and I'm not keen on pirates or kitsune. If I forced myself to DM that from scratch, it'd be unsatisfying for everyone. If one of you wants to run Razor Coast instead, I guess that's fine. I can put my game on hold.
Player 1: "But I want to play in a pirate game!"
Player 2: "I don't feel like DMing."
Player 3: "Yeah, and I want to play a kitsune."
DM: "Sooo... What else are we interested in?"
Player 1: "Call of Cthulhu?"
Player 2: "Ugh, no."
Player 3: "What about a sci-fi?"
DM: "I dunno. Has anyone got anything written for sci-fi?"
Player 1: "I've got a near-future mecha game with a covert war and politics focus."
Player 2: "Like Gundam?"
Player 1: "Yeah, but the governments are trying to keep the mech engagements and technology secret from the public. You guys would be black ops mech pilots."
Player 3: "That sounds cool."
DM: "Yeah, okay. Give us the details and we'll make characters."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Interesting -- when I started what ended up becoming an Aviona reboot in Houston, the initial converesation went something like this: "What setting do you guys want? Golarion? Aviona (think Three Musketeers meet Three Hearts and Three Lions)? A homebrew we can create and develop together? Other? Everyone please let me know what you'd like to see."

Right, as a GM you started the conversation, that is what I was getting at.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Prior to that, I've pretty much always played in homebrew settings that the players and DM all developed together.

With the exception of default Golarion for learning the Pathfinder rules, I don't think I've ever played in a campaign in which the DM started with "Here's what I'm offering."

Yeah, that is why I said that I often hear, "What are you guys interested in?" But I have also heard and said, "I am thinking of running an X campaign, you interested?" That is because too often the first question usually gets crickets chirping in the background.


pres man wrote:
Right, as a GM you started the conversation, that is what I was getting at.

OK, conceded, but that was a pretty open-ended starter. There's a big difference between (a) "what are you interested in?" vs. (b) "here's what I've got, take it or leave it." (Insert comment (a) before Player 1's initial quote, and the conversation is the same.)

In 30+ years, I've only encountered (b) as the initial quote once, and it was for a by-invitation-only one-off, rather than an ongoing campaign.


BTW, Umbral Reaver, I wish I could "favorite" your post more than once!

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:

I'm a little confused, so hopefully one or more of the DM-has-ALL-authority people can help me out. The impression I'm getting is that, when you sit down to start a campaign, the conversation goes something like this:

Player 1: "Can we play a pirate campaign?"
Player 2: "Dude, that would be awesome!"
Player 3: "As long as I can play a kitsune, I'm fine with anything."
DM: "No. My setting is pure Tolkien and there are no pirates and no kitsune."
Player 3: "Well, here's this cool Razor Coast thing..."
DM: "I do all the work, so I pick the setting! I'm running a Tolkien campaign. Period. If you don't like it, you can leave."

I'd like to think that's not what happens, but when someone says point-blank that the DM makes all decisions regarding the setting and that any player input is unwelcome at best and an act of insubordination at worst, then I don't know what else to think.

Request: Can someone who does believe the DM should ban at will edit the above conversation, keeping the players' quotes but changing the DM responses to something that fits your position, if the above does not?

Your scenario there is just a little bit too restricted to do it justice, I think. Let's try this ;

GM (it usually starts with the GM) : "I'm thinking of running a pure Tolkien setting, where there are no pirates and no kitsune."
Player 1: "Can we play a pirate campaign?"
Player 2: "Dude, that would be awesome!"
Player 3: "As long as I can play a kitsune, I'm fine with anything."
GM: "I'm not really interested in running a pirate campaign at the moment. Kinda had my heart set on this Tolkien campaign, with no pirates, or Kitsune. You guys can run a different campaign if you like though."
Player 1: "Eh, I don't have time to be a GM. It takes too much effort, learning all the rules, not just the ones that affect my character. Planning encounters. Developing a plot."
Player 2: "I find the idea of GM'ing intimidating. I never play CHA characters, because I'm not a good talker in real life. Playing dozens of different NPC's? No thanks."
Player 3: "I want to play a game, not to run a game."
Players 1, 2, & 3: "Our choice is your game or no game. Of course we prefer to play your game with restrictions, than no game at all."
GM: "Thank you."

Coming from an area where we only have one or two GM's, the GM's have always had all the power. The idea of players deciding how a game would run is interesting to me, but an alien concept, sufficiently so that it doesn't sit right with me. I mean, as a player, I create one character. That's the only character I have to develop, level, roleplay, etc. The GM makes dozens, in the form of the various NPC's, good and bad, that the players interact with, as well as the world, the plot, etc. It takes a whole lot more effort for the GM to modify to accommodate a single player's preferences than it does for that one player to adapt to the GM's. Just my POV anyhow.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:

Hmmm... Does the GM have the most authority?

RAW says the GM has the most authority. But do most groups go by RAW? Not really... Looking back on my many years of experience it tends to be the charismatic people with the biggest group of followers that have the most authority in ANY social group, gaming or otherwise. This is probably why the successful GMs are charismatic people. They have an automatic fan club behind all their ideas. GM:"No elves." Group:"Yay! No elves". Most groups when they are forming however have more than one charismatic leader type. If Bob the elf isn't charismatic then the group will tell him to shape up and make something else in the no elf game. If he IS charismatic however we end up with a problem. In this case compromise between Bob and the GM better happen fast or it becomes a test of wills between the two. And in my experience a test of wills always ends badly.

There are many ways to compromise: Bob could be the GM for a while (he IS charismatic), Bob could agree to play something else with the promise that the GMs next game will feature elves, the GM could run an elf game with the promise that next game will be the no elves game, and on and on...

But what if they both have their heart set on doing their thing now and no one else wants to GM? Then one of two things happen, the group plays what the GM wants or the group breaks up.

Nothing democratic about it.

I'm not sure it's all about charisma in many cases, but rather who is willing to do the work. GMing is work, no doubt about it, and there are many good players who are smart, inventive and charismatic who simply refuse to GM.

I think this might be why GMs are perceived to be all or nothing my way or the highway sorts of people, because they are willing to get things ready for the game and do all the grunt work and then Joe the player shows up and gets upset because he watched 34 hours of a show and wants to recreate it for the game no matter what.

I love to GM. I don't mind the work and enjoy creating things for my players. I do mind when no one even wants to run a one time beer and pretzels game so I can blow off steam too. I especially mind when people get cranky when their latest creation that they just have to play doesn't correspond with the game we're trying to play.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:

I'm a little confused, so hopefully one or more of the DM-has-ALL-authority people can help me out. The impression I'm getting is that, when you sit down to start a campaign, the conversation goes something like this:

Request: Can someone who does believe the DM should ban at will edit the above conversation, keeping the players' quotes but changing the DM responses to something that fits your position, if the above does not?

While I'm not exactly a DM-has-"ALL"-authority, I'd be categorized in the "most" authority area... But, in any case, your impression is wrong (AFAIC), so that might be contributing to all your confusion in this thread. As I suspected earlier, your one post shows that (again, AFAIC) you and your group are almost wholly unique, which contributes to the confusion (and, bluntly, unhelpfulness - unhelpful in that you seem to think that there are other groups out there like yourselves in any meaningful number, and are willing to label what a 'bad DM' might be based on your unique group's attributes).

Like pres man, I've never had a situation in which the prospective players essentially say (paraphrased) "I want you to run X for us". My friends and I would consider that tacky, weird, and inappropriate.

Of course, my players also are smart and conscientious enough to know the work involved in preparing and DMing a campaign.

But, I'll bite with your completely hypothetical conversation:

Player 1: "Can we play a pirate campaign?"
Player 2: "Dude, that would be awesome!"
Player 3: "As long as I can play a kitsune, I'm fine with anything."
DM: "I'm not really interested in running/prepared to run a pirate campaign, and I don't know anything about kitsune. I'm not sure I'd do them any justice since everyone would just treat you as a human. I'm only interested in running/prepared for A, B, or C, if you want me to DM."
Player 3: "Well, here's this cool Razor Coast thing..."
DM: "That's cool. Who'll DM?"

To continue the conversation, for us it would go:

Player 1, 2, & 3: "We're not DMing, it's too much work."

The good thing for our particular group is:
1) We're all good friends on the same page with likes and dislikes,
2) We are fully aware how much work/effort/time is required to prepare and run a campaign.
3) The person willing to DM does give a shortlist of what he's willing to run within X timeframe. (Depending on that timeframe involved, it could really be just one option, take it or leave it or somebody else can DM which we know isn't happening as outlined above.)

So, due to our good fortune, it works out for us.


Kirth Gersen wrote:

I'm a little confused, so hopefully one or more of the DM-has-ALL-authority people can help me out. The impression I'm getting is that, when you sit down to start a campaign, the conversation goes something like this:

Player 1: "Can we play a pirate campaign?"
Player 2: "Dude, that would be awesome!"
Player 3: "As long as I can play a kitsune, I'm fine with anything."
DM: "No. My setting is pure Tolkien and there are no pirates and no kitsune."
Player 3: "Well, here's this cool Razor Coast thing..."
DM: "I do all the work, so I pick the setting! I'm running a Tolkien campaign. Period. If you don't like it, you can leave."

I'd like to think that's not what happens, but when someone says point-blank that the DM makes all decisions regarding the setting and that any player input is unwelcome at best and an act of insubordination at worst, then I don't know what else to think.

Request: Can someone who does believe the DM should ban at will edit the above conversation, keeping the players' quotes but changing the DM responses to something that fits your position, if the above does not?

DM just lied as Tolkien had Kitsune (well fox people) and Pirates.

If he meant Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the ring world then he would be honest.


OK, the theme I'm seeing from the "DM picks setting, take it or leave it" people is that no one else is ever willing to DM; one person always has a monopoly on the job. Is that actually the case? In my last group, out of 7 players, six of them (houstonderek, TOZ, silverhair2008, Jess Door, Psychicmachinery, Mundane) were also accomplished DMs with one or more of their own campaigns. I have never been in a situation in which only one person is willing to run a game.

Arnwyn tells me that this is "almost wholely unique" (although it's true of pretty much all of the gaming groups I've been in, across 30 years and 6 states, so I'm inclined not to believe that continued assertion). So, am I the only person? Let's get some more data here -- please sound in, everyone!

Survey:

Quote:

1. Which of the following best describes your experience:

(a) Only one person is ever willing to be a DM.
(b) At least two people are able and willing to DM a game at any given time.
(c) Most of the players in a given group are also DMs at times.

2. Which of the following best describes your attitude on setting:
(a) What the DM says goes, no discussion. Take it or leave it.
(b) What the moajority wants will generally influence, if not determine, what direction the DM allows.
(c) All players must be allowed to play anything.

My guess is that question 1 will have more than one person to answer other than "a." I also predict that there will be a strong correlation between 1a and 2a answers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:
Aranna wrote:

Hmmm... Does the GM have the most authority?

RAW says the GM has the most authority. But do most groups go by RAW? Not really... Looking back on my many years of experience it tends to be the charismatic people with the biggest group of followers that have the most authority in ANY social group, gaming or otherwise. This is probably why the successful GMs are charismatic people. They have an automatic fan club behind all their ideas. GM:"No elves." Group:"Yay! No elves". Most groups when they are forming however have more than one charismatic leader type. If Bob the elf isn't charismatic then the group will tell him to shape up and make something else in the no elf game. If he IS charismatic however we end up with a problem. In this case compromise between Bob and the GM better happen fast or it becomes a test of wills between the two. And in my experience a test of wills always ends badly.

There are many ways to compromise: Bob could be the GM for a while (he IS charismatic), Bob could agree to play something else with the promise that the GMs next game will feature elves, the GM could run an elf game with the promise that next game will be the no elves game, and on and on...

But what if they both have their heart set on doing their thing now and no one else wants to GM? Then one of two things happen, the group plays what the GM wants or the group breaks up.

Nothing democratic about it.

I'm not sure it's all about charisma in many cases, but rather who is willing to do the work. GMing is work, no doubt about it, and there are many good players who are smart, inventive and charismatic who simply refuse to GM.

I think this might be why GMs are perceived to be all or nothing my way or the highway sorts of people, because they are willing to get things ready for the game and do all the grunt work and then Joe the player shows up and gets upset because he watched 34 hours of a show and wants to recreate it for the game no matter what.

I love to GM. I don't mind the work and enjoy creating things for my players. I do mind when no one even wants to run a one time beer and pretzels game so I can blow off steam too. I especially mind when people get cranky when their latest creation that they just have to play doesn't correspond with the game we're trying to play.

You're correct you don't NEED charisma to GM... but it MASSIVELY helps.

I feel sorry if the GM isn't charismatic. Because if you don't it starts to look like one of Kirth's example games.

Uncharismatic GM: Guys I have been working on this campaign for ten years and I think it's time to finally try it out. It involves this Tolkinesque style epic adventure.

Bob the Charismatic: I was thinking a pirate game.

Rest of players: Yay a pirate game!

Anime Player: I just want to play a Kitsune. There could be a Kitsune in a pirate game right Bob?

Bob: Sure there can!

GM: ~sighs~ I will put my game world aside for the sixteenth time... I don't have a pirate game set up...

Player 2: There is Razor Coast!

GM: Ok I will run Razor Coast if you let me borrow it.

GM proceeds to run a lackluster game.
Players complain that GM isn't very good.
The End.


Across about the same timespan, the most GMs I've had in a single area have been two, maybe three on a very good weekend (we played for a long while at a recreation center). Outside of that, I've been the primary GM wherever I've gone.

I think there were times that others could have GMed, they just didn't feel comfortable with the idea. Heck, even in online gaming there has been a distinct lack of people willing to step up. I've heard any number of rationales from it's too hard to I don't time to I'm not creative enough and so on.

To address Kirth's first remark, the take or leave it bit .. that isn't quite my stance. I've a number of settings and things ready for people to play in, and there are changes to rules, races, monsters and so forth that go along with them. If everyone has their heart set on playing daleks or drow or a party of half-catfolk half-tengu, then I need a little warning and some time to work out what we'll be doing.

Survey answers: 1a and 2b

Dark Archive

Kirth Gersen wrote:

OK, the theme I'm seeing from the "DM picks setting, take it or leave it" people is that no one else is ever willing to DM; one person always has a monopoly on the job. Is that actually the case? In my last group, out of 7 players, six of them (houstonderek, TOZ, silverhair2008, Jess Door, Psychicmachinery, Mundane) were also accomplished DMs with one or more of their own campaigns. I have never been in a situation in which only one person is willing to run a game.

Arnwyn tells me that this is "almost wholely unique" (although it's true of pretty much all of the gaming groups I've been in, across 30 years and 6 states, so I'm inclined not to believe that continued assertion). So, am I the only person? Let's get some more data here -- please sound in, everyone!

In my group of 8 friends, 5 have GM'ed. Two much prefer to play than GM (maybe they GM 1 for every 5 they play). One stopped GM'ing when no one would play his games (he's a good guy/player, but a terrible GM). One is terribly nervous about GM'ing, and trying to build his confidence with the occasional one-off (hi :D). So, yes, effectively, in our group of 8 friends, we have one reliable, consistent GM. In our lovely Emerald Isles, we suffer a terrible shortage of willing GM's. :P

I would agree, based on my experience in my own city, and my touring of the gaming conventions of my country, that Arnwyn's experience is the more common one. Though it is anecdotal evidence, and may be incorrect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:

Player 2: There is Razor Coast!

GM: Ok I will run Razor Coast if you let me borrow it.

GM proceeds to run a lackluster game.
Players complain that GM isn't very good.
The End.

That's one possibility. Here are two more:

(2) GM reads up on Razor Coast, puts the work into implementing it, and runs a fantastic game. Said GM might even (gasp) find that he enjoys the setting!

(3) Player X says, "That's OK, I'm willing to GM it if you're not."

In order to claim your scenario is "The End," you have to first demonstrate that neither of the alternatives I've provided are possible. I'm open to evidence, but not blind assertions.

901 to 950 of 1,827 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Talk me down: Exotic Race Antipathy All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.