Talk me down: Exotic Race Antipathy


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1,051 to 1,100 of 1,827 << first < prev | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Solomon Grundy want Furry Magi TOO!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MYTHIC TOZ wrote:
Poe's Law.

Welcome to the Mythic fold brother. *hands over basket of muffins*

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vivianne Laflamme wrote:

The Mushroom Bard sounds like an amazing idea. I'm imagining this homebrew race looks like the picture for the fungus leshy from Bestiary 3. They live deep underground in vast caverns filled with giant fungi. The Mushroom Bard didn't like living in this dark, damp, and quiet place; ze wanted to explore the world! When a dwarven bard wandered through the region, ze left with him as an apprentice. It turns out the Mushroom Bard has a fine baritone voice. Ze traveled and trained with him until ze ended up in [place where campaign takes place].

Wait I'm sorry, was the point that DMs ought forbid a player from playing this?

If he was a myconid, he could inspire courage/competence/etc, using psychoactive spores.

Mushroom Bard: "Come on, everybody. We can take these guys.."
<waggles head>
Allies: "F*** yeah!"
<charge>

Scarab Sages

I now want to make a Mystaran Tortle, multiclassed piano-playing bard, with a sideline in the martial arts.
Chelonious Monk.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

This thread has long since reached the point that any reasonable post is ignored. People just want to grind their ax or wave their pitchfork or whatever other idiom you please.

Which is sad because this does touch on some real issues regarding the social contract between the various people at the game table.

All people at the table (hopefully) have a common goal to have fun and tell a great story. Each should take into consideration the other people at the table and not consider themselves more important than the others.

At the same time the DM is in a different an unique position due to the nature of his task at the table as adjudicator and primary storyteller. The weight of this onus depends greatly on how much preparation and time the DM has put in beforehand.

It also varies depending on the nature of the "table". Is it a group of strangers at a gaming convention or a cadre of friends who have known each other for decades?

I think the best any of us can do - when trying to be rational - is to state the dynamics at our own tables and why we think it works (or doesn't work) for us. At least then this thread would serve as a litmus for all of us to compare our own situations.

Scarab Sages

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Democratus wrote:
...the DM is in a different an unique position due to the nature of his task at the table as adjudicator and primary storyteller. The weight of this onus depends greatly on how much preparation and time the DM has put in beforehand.

Why is the GM putting effort into a setting people aren't interested in playing in?

This is why you and Sissyl are butting heads with Kirth, on this thread. Because you are approaching the setup of a new campaign from different directions.

Kirth knows the general likes and dislikes of the people in his group. When the current campaign is coming to a close, he asks them in more detail what they would like to play next, and builds the next campaign around those paramenters.
The campaign fits the likes and dislikes of the players, and there is no need for anyone to bring a character that doesn't fit.
If anyone wanted to try a different genre, a different game system, or couldn't get excited about specific character creation restrictions that the majority agreed to play under, they would have already excused themselves, with no hard feelings.

Your statements appear to describe a process, where the GM holes themself up in their room for months, working on a setting, in isolation, with no input from the players.
The setting is presented to them, and because the GM has expended time, effort and money, the players are then obligated to take part, and knuckle under the restrictions that have been set, regardless of their own preferences.

You talk of 'weight', 'onus', the burden of the 'task' of being GM.
These are the words of a martyr, not someone taking part in an enjoyable pastime with friends.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mythic +10 Artifact Toaster wrote:
MYTHIC TOZ wrote:
Poe's Law.
Welcome to the Mythic fold brother. *hands over basket of muffins*

MYTHIC MUFFINS!


Snorter wrote:
Democratus wrote:
...the DM is in a different an unique position due to the nature of his task at the table as adjudicator and primary storyteller. The weight of this onus depends greatly on how much preparation and time the DM has put in beforehand.

Why is the GM putting effort into a setting people aren't interested in playing in?

This is why you and Sissyl are butting heads with Kirth, on this thread. Because you are approaching the setup of a new campaign from different directions.

Kirth knows the general likes and dislikes of the people in his group. When the current campaign is coming to a close, he asks them in more detail what they would like to play next, and builds the next campaign around those paramenters.
The campaign fits the likes and dislikes of the players, and there is no need for anyone to bring a character that doesn't fit.
If anyone wanted to try a different genre, a different game system, or couldn't get excited about specific character creation restrictions that the majority agreed to play under, they would have already excused themselves, with no hard feelings.

Your statements appear to describe a process, where the GM holes themself up in their room for months, working on a setting, in isolation, with no input from the players.
The setting is presented to them, and because the GM has expended time, effort and money, the players are then obligated to take part, and knuckle under the restrictions that have been set, regardless of their own preferences.

You talk of 'weight', 'onus', the burden of the 'task' of being GM.
These are the words of a martyr, not someone taking part in an enjoyable pastime with friends.

And I want to meet the player who just can't possibly play in a campaign without elves(dwarves, kitsune, whatever) and have fun. And that wouldn't be willing to find something else to play just so that work that went into his friends pet project wouldn't be wasted because he doesn't have the ability to be creative outside of a small box.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arssanguinus wrote:
And I want to meet the player who just can't possibly play in a campaign without elves(dwarves, kitsune, whatever) and have fun. And that wouldn't be willing to find something else to play just so that work that went into his friends pet project wouldn't be wasted because he doesn't have the ability to be creative outside of a small box.

So your response to the question as to why don't you ask the people you are going to play with what they are interested before dedicated enormous energy and time, is to say that if they were real friends they would be fine with you acting as if their interests are irrelevant and only your own matter.


pres man wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
And I want to meet the player who just can't possibly play in a campaign without elves(dwarves, kitsune, whatever) and have fun. And that wouldn't be willing to find something else to play just so that work that went into his friends pet project wouldn't be wasted because he doesn't have the ability to be creative outside of a small box.
So your response to the question as to why don't you ask the people you are going to play with what they are interested before dedicated enormous energy and time, is to say that if they were real friends they would be fine with you acting as if their interests are irrelevant and only your own matter.

And does that same question not apply to them? If they were real friends they would make sure it fit in before they out a bunch of work into the character?

Sorry, I still don't buy that someone is going to have all the fun sucked out of the game unless they can play one specific race or class. I don't buy it even a little bit.

And if you are creating a detailed campaign sandbox, it takes quite a while to build it. You generally don't want to say "in a month or two I might run a campaign, think about it. Ok? The idea comes up when the idea comes up, and you build it when the idea is in your head.

You are saying that only the players interest in playing an 'x' matters?


Arssanguinus wrote:
You are saying that only the players interest in playing an 'x' matters?

Not to answer for pres man, but I would say that does matter, but it's not all that matters: the DM's option also matters; and the opinions of the other players ALSO matter. Everyone gets a say.

I have a very hard time with "I'm the DM so it's all up to me and you can all just take it or leave it."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
You are saying that only the players interest in playing an 'x' matters?

I would say that does matter, but it's not all that matters: the DM's option also matters; and the opinions of the other players ALSO matter. Everyone gets a say.

What I can't wrap my head around is the concept of "I'm the DM so it's all up to me and you can all just take it or leave it."

Well, if you want me being the gm, yeah. Otherwise volunteer yourself. The gm is not a public utility. If I run a game its going to be in one of these worlds. These worlds have certain features that are integral parts of them. If you don't want to play in that fine. Don't. Just find a different gm.

The fact that you lack any ability to create anything other than class x race x and have fun with it is NOT my particular problem. I'll just roll up my character, after asking whoever volunteers to gm what HIS requirements for the campaign are and go from there. As a player.

Edit:

And "there are certain immutable things about the setting" is not the same as "it is ALL up to me. Its 'these specific things aren't negotiable. Most other things are.


Yep (to Arssang).

No elves means there is a reason or a series of reasons there are known elves (such as, there are other major and minor groups of demihumans, and the elves are not there).

Class restrictions also set the type of game that is going to be played, and can push the players in certain directions, e.g. no wizards in a players vs wizards campaign to prevent the evil wizard guilds taking over.


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.

1b/c

I play with 2 different groups of friends (one group being so large we have 2-3 tables running)... in both groups half the people DM, usually taking turns (the others feel they are to "new" to RPing or have too busy lives).

Quote:

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 what direction the DM allows.
(c) All players must be allowed to play anything.

2b

as we have multiple DMs, we'll (I also DM) usually offer what new cool idea they have and people will show interest (and then the DM will actually flesh out his idea) or not (and the DM will dump the idea without putting time into it).

The best thing: we all agree to use the same houserules. And if one DM is irked about one thing, all DMs usually talk it over together and apply the same rules across all tables. :-D


Arssanguinus wrote:
pres man wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
And I want to meet the player who just can't possibly play in a campaign without elves(dwarves, kitsune, whatever) and have fun. And that wouldn't be willing to find something else to play just so that work that went into his friends pet project wouldn't be wasted because he doesn't have the ability to be creative outside of a small box.
So your response to the question as to why don't you ask the people you are going to play with what they are interested before dedicated enormous energy and time, is to say that if they were real friends they would be fine with you acting as if their interests are irrelevant and only your own matter.
And does that same question not apply to them? If they were real friends they would make sure it fit in before they out a bunch of work into the character?

Absolutely, that is why many of us say that both the GM and the players should discuss what their interests are and where common ground can be found PRIOR to making the setting AND the characters.

Arssanguinus wrote:
Sorry, I still don't buy that someone is going to have all the fun sucked out of the game unless they can play one specific race or class. I don't buy it even a little bit.

All the fun? No. Some of it? Probably. But then again, do we really care about the player's fun? I mean they are lazy punks that just show up and gripe about all the stuff us GM's have sacrificed so hard to do. Ungrateful whippers-snappers! That is why I ban the whipper-snapper class.

Spoiler:
That was sarcasm just in case someone didn't notice.

Arssanguinus wrote:
And if you are creating a detailed campaign sandbox, it takes quite a while to build it. You generally don't want to say "in a month or two I might run a campaign, think about it. Ok? The idea comes up when the idea comes up, and you build it when the idea is in your head.

Aren't you the one that said limitations breed creativity? Perhaps the GM should practice a little of what he preaches, hmm?

Arssanguinus wrote:
You are saying that only the players interest in playing an 'x' matters?

I think you meant, "Are you ..." And the answer is no. The GM's AND the players' interest matter. I would hope that was true in any social gathering, that not only the host's but also the guests interest matter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arssanguinus wrote:
Well, if you want me being the gm, yeah.Otherwise volunteer yourself.

I most definitely wouldn't, and so, yeah, I already do volunteer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pres man wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
pres man wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
And I want to meet the player who just can't possibly play in a campaign without elves(dwarves, kitsune, whatever) and have fun. And that wouldn't be willing to find something else to play just so that work that went into his friends pet project wouldn't be wasted because he doesn't have the ability to be creative outside of a small box.
So your response to the question as to why don't you ask the people you are going to play with what they are interested before dedicated enormous energy and time, is to say that if they were real friends they would be fine with you acting as if their interests are irrelevant and only your own matter.
And does that same question not apply to them? If they were real friends they would make sure it fit in before they out a bunch of work into the character?

Absolutely, that is why many of us say that both the GM and the players should discuss what their interests are and where common ground can be found PRIOR to making the setting AND the characters.

Arssanguinus wrote:
Sorry, I still don't buy that someone is going to have all the fun sucked out of the game unless they can play one specific race or class. I don't buy it even a little bit.

All the fun? No. Some of it? Probably. But then again, do we really care about the player's fun? I mean they are lazy punks that just show up and gripe about all the stuff us GM's have sacrificed so hard to do. Ungrateful whippers-snappers! That is why I ban the whipper-snapper class.

** spoiler omitted **

Arssanguinus wrote:

And if you are creating a detailed campaign sandbox, it takes quite a while to build it. You generally don't want to say "in a month or two I might run a campaign, think about it. Ok? The idea comes up when the idea comes up, and you build it when the idea is in your head.[/spoiler]

Aren't you the one that said limitations breed creativity?

...

Having some immutable exclusions does not come even remotely close to being in the vicinity of the same zip code of "the players opinion not mattering". You are not only getting any choices if absolutely everything ever is available and on the table.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Well, if you want me being the gm, yeah.Otherwise volunteer yourself.
I most definitely wouldn't, and so, yeah, I already do volunteer.

Yup. Because unless there isn't anything in existence which isn't available to you at the beginning all of your fun is squashed.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Well, if you want me being the gm, yeah.Otherwise volunteer yourself.
I most definitely wouldn't, and so, yeah, I already do volunteer.

http://img.pandawhale.com/post-16985-Hunger-Games-I-Volunteer-gif-T9A4.gif

Keh keh.

No need to be so harsh on him though, he likes to set the setting and the game and lay out the options for the players. Some of the best dms I've known are just like him: "here is the game setting, this is what you are doing at first, here is some pre-gens/these are the party roles, let's roll some dice".

Nothing wrong with the dm setting the game up. lol.


Arssanguinus wrote:
Yup. Because unless there isn't anything in existence which isn't available to you at the beginning all of your fun is squashed.

Nope. Because in setting what things are available, you can't be bothered to ask the players their opinions first.


Immortal Greed wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Well, if you want me being the gm, yeah.Otherwise volunteer yourself.
I most definitely wouldn't, and so, yeah, I already do volunteer.

http://img.pandawhale.com/post-16985-Hunger-Games-I-Volunteer-gif-T9A4.gif

Keh keh.

No need to be so harsh on him though, he likes to set the setting and the game and lay out the options for the players. Some of the best dms I've known are just like him: "here is the game setting, this is what you are doing at first, here is some pre-gens/these are the party roles, let's roll some dice".

Nothing wrong with the dm setting the game up. lol.

Not even pregens. Its just "create anything you like so long as it isn't on of this rather short list of things."

But ... I suppose any limitation whatsoever is rank tyranny and being inconsiderate, so .l.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Yup. Because unless there isn't anything in existence which isn't available to you at the beginning all of your fun is squashed.
Nope. Because in setting what things are available, you can't be bothered to ask the players their opinions first.

And because in deciding what to play, the player can't be bothered to ask what things won't work in the setting.


Arssanguinus wrote:
But ... I suppose any limitation whatsoever is rank tyranny and being inconsiderate, so .l.

any limitation whatsoever that isn't agreed to by the majority of the participants is rank tyranny and being inconsiderate, yes.


Arssanguinus wrote:

And because in deciding what to play, the player can't be bothered to ask what things won't work in the setting.

??? Are you saying you have a setting, but no players, and are now casting around looking for them, so you expect them to comply? Because, in most cases, the players will pre-date the campaign.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:

And because in deciding what to play, the player can't be bothered to ask what things won't work in the setting.

??? Are you saying you have a setting, but no players, and are now casting around looking for them, so you expect them to comply? Because, in most cases, the players will pre-date the campaign.

Actually, when you have been playing twenty plus years? This is absolutely true. Setting can be much older than they players. And you still somehow think "I can only play a dwarf" is a reasonable position?


Arssanguinus wrote:

1. Actually, when you have been playing twenty plus years? This is absolutely true. Setting can be much older than they players. 2. And you still somehow think "I can only play a dwarf" is a reasonable position?

1. I reboot my homebrew setting with each new group of players. Saves having a bunch of former PCs clogging the streets. In the last iteration, I added a tribe of orcs to one the far north provinces, at the request of one of the players who wanted a half-orc viking. No harm done, and indeed the setting seems richer for the inclusion. Canon is for chumps!

2. (Counter: 40,004) If the rest of the players also only want to play dwarves, then, yes, it is. If the other players agree with you that a dwarf is no good, then no, it's not.


Arssanguinus wrote:
Immortal Greed wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Well, if you want me being the gm, yeah.Otherwise volunteer yourself.
I most definitely wouldn't, and so, yeah, I already do volunteer.

http://img.pandawhale.com/post-16985-Hunger-Games-I-Volunteer-gif-T9A4.gif

Keh keh.

No need to be so harsh on him though, he likes to set the setting and the game and lay out the options for the players. Some of the best dms I've known are just like him: "here is the game setting, this is what you are doing at first, here is some pre-gens/these are the party roles, let's roll some dice".

Nothing wrong with the dm setting the game up. lol.

Not even pregens. Its just "create anything you like so long as it isn't on of this rather short list of things."

But ... I suppose any limitation whatsoever is rank tyranny and being inconsiderate, so .l.

Yes, you should be able to play a rocketeer if you want, in a boots on the ground investigative game. Because jetpacks and legitimating player entitlement!

:D
No. If something is made before the players and it is set up and set to be run, that is what the dm wants to run and has put the time into making. No mecha? No fumoffu mini mecha either.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Yup. Because unless there isn't anything in existence which isn't available to you at the beginning all of your fun is squashed.
Nope. Because in setting what things are available, you can't be bothered to ask the players their opinions first.

And this displays a misunderstanding of the creative storytelling impulse many DMs employ.

As a DM, I have a handful of worlds that I have either already established or that I have created on the side in my free time. I'm doing all this while running active campaigns.

When I create a new campaign world, it is because I have a new idea and a story to tell. I don't ask my players what stories it is okay for me to imagine. I imagine them, develop them, and if they seem like a fun place to go I take my players there.

Being that the players are normal and decent human beings they are nearly always delighted to take part in something new that I have cooked up. They embrace the concepts and limitations inherent in the new campaign and run with it.

They make their characters to fit within the world I have created. And then together and collectively we tell the story.

In this case, it has nothing to do with being "bothered to ask the players first". They are happy to have someone be the creative engine to drive new stories. Anyone who turns their nose up at the care and effort I put into these things certainly isn't in my group of friends.

The other case is when I run games at a convention or FLGS. In that case it isn't possible to "bother to ask the players their opinions" as there are no players until we all sit at the table with the pre-generated adventure.

Reasonable people are reasonable. Others aren't invited.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:

1. Actually, when you have been playing twenty plus years? This is absolutely true. Setting can be much older than they players. 2. And you still somehow think "I can only play a dwarf" is a reasonable position?

1. I reboot my homebrew setting with each new group of players. Saves having a bunch of former PCs clogging the streets. Canon is for chumps!

2. (Counter: 40,004) If the rest of the players also only want to play dwarves, then, yes, it is. If the other players agree with you that a dwarf is no good, then no, it's not.

If it is a dwarf game about being dwarves and very focused on what this will mean in game: related quests, dwarven honour, hierarchy, responsibilities, then it is no place for non dwarves.


Democratus wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Yup. Because unless there isn't anything in existence which isn't available to you at the beginning all of your fun is squashed.
Nope. Because in setting what things are available, you can't be bothered to ask the players their opinions first.

And this displays a misunderstanding of the creative storytelling impulse many DMs employ.

As a DM, I have a handful of worlds that I have either already established or that I have created on the side in my free time. I'm doing all this while running active campaigns.

When I create a new campaign world, it is because I have a new idea and a story to tell. I don't ask my players what stories it is okay for me to imagine. I imagine them, develop them, and if they seem like a fun place to go I take my players there.

Being that the players are normal and decent human beings they are nearly always delighted to take part in something new that I have cooked up. They embrace the concepts and limitations inherent in the new campaign and run with it.

They make their characters to fit within the world I have created. And then together and collectively we tell the story.

In this case, it has nothing to do with being "bothered to ask the players first". They are happy to have someone be the creative engine to drive new stories. Anyone who turns their nose up at the care and effort I put into these things certainly isn't in my group of friends.

The other case is when I run games at a convention or FLGS. In that case it isn't possible to "bother to ask the players their opinions" as there are no players until we all sit at the table with the pre-generated adventure.

Reasonable people are reasonable. Others aren't invited.

Yeah, you bring them into what is already made, and then you hopefully all have a great time as a group inside the setting and the adventure.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Democratus: If the purity of the (imaginary) setting matters more to you than the (real) players' preferences, I submit that writing fiction is a better outlet.


Immortal Greed wrote:

No need to be so harsh on him though, he likes to set the setting and the game and lay out the options for the players. Some of the best dms I've known are just like him: "here is the game setting, this is what you are doing at first, here is some pre-gens/these are the party roles, let's roll some dice".

Nothing wrong with the dm setting the game up. lol.

Usually, not always, usually the amount of restriction the DM sets at character creation is an indicator for how railroaded a campaign will be... and, for me, a railroaded campaign is not as much fun as a more freedom/freeform/sandbox game.

If it's only "no elves/kitsunes this time, but you get aasimar/tieflings instead" I'm fine.

If it's "only humans and half-humans allowed", I'll say thanks, but no thanks.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If the purity of your original concept for your character matters more to you than ...

Then I respectfully submit that maybe you should just write fan fiction.


Kyoni wrote:
Immortal Greed wrote:

No need to be so harsh on him though, he likes to set the setting and the game and lay out the options for the players. Some of the best dms I've known are just like him: "here is the game setting, this is what you are doing at first, here is some pre-gens/these are the party roles, let's roll some dice".

Nothing wrong with the dm setting the game up. lol.

Usually, not always, usually the amount of restriction the DM sets at character creation is an indicator for how railroaded a campaign will be... and, for me, a railroaded campaign is not as much fun as a more freedom/freeform/sandbox game.

If it's only "no elves/kitsunes this time, but you get aasimar/tieflings instead" I'm fine.

If it's "only humans and half-humans allowed", I'll say thanks, but no thanks.

I have to disagree. Railroading and setting based restrictions are too very different things. From a dm that has run sandboxes with some heavy initial restrictions (and gloves off later once they are genned up).


Arssanguinus wrote:

If the purity of your original concept for your character matters more to you than ...

Then I respectfully submit that maybe you should just write fan fiction.

Misrepresentation. Please address my actual position, not this made-up one that you keep bringing up.

EDIT: You know what? Never mind; I've made this request to you individually at least three times now, and you've wilfully ignored it every time. Please do not address me again, and I'll do the same.


Arssanguinus wrote:
What appears to be a rude gesture and/or image.

Just so it's clear, I flagged your post. Not for the words used, though. I'm flagging this one, too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kyoni wrote:
Immortal Greed wrote:

No need to be so harsh on him though, he likes to set the setting and the game and lay out the options for the players. Some of the best dms I've known are just like him: "here is the game setting, this is what you are doing at first, here is some pre-gens/these are the party roles, let's roll some dice".

Nothing wrong with the dm setting the game up. lol.

Usually, not always, usually the amount of restriction the DM sets at character creation is an indicator for how railroaded a campaign will be... and, for me, a railroaded campaign is not as much fun as a more freedom/freeform/sandbox game.

If it's only "no elves/kitsunes this time, but you get aasimar/tieflings instead" I'm fine.

If it's "only humans and half-humans allowed", I'll say thanks, but no thanks.

In my experience they are almost completely decoupled from each other. The worst railroader I ever knew allowed you to create anything you ever brought a book for. The most open I ever had was restrictive in what you could start with so, no. Not in y experience.


No need to get narky guys. Happy players and stories retold years later are the mark of a good dm, not an online opinion of a stranger.

Remember, we are all in it for the GP.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:

If the purity of your original concept for your character matters more to you than ...

Then I respectfully submit that maybe you should just write fan fiction.

Misrepresentation. Please address my actual position, not this made-up one that you keep bringing up.

And perhaps you can return the favor?


Tacticslion wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
What appears to be a rude gesture and/or image.
Just so it's clear, I flagged your post. Not for the words used, though. I'm flagging this one, too.

gesture? There is an ellipses, can't think of anything else other than mirroring words back?


An ellipsis is just a coin trail, not rude at all. It is promising!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Democratus: If the purity of the (imaginary) setting matters more to you than the (real) players' preferences, I submit that writing fiction is a better outlet.

The "real players" I game with have a preference for an engaging and self-consistent world wherein we can explore and expand on its history and base assumptions.

I don't have any friends who have a "preference" for demanding to break my campaign. Not sure what kind of magical contrary straw men you game with but as I said in my earlier post:

Reasonable people are reasonable. Others aren't invited.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arssanguinus wrote:
And you still somehow think "I can only play a dwarf" is a reasonable position?

Whether it's reasonable or not is a somewhat subjective question, but at the very least I don't consider there to be a particular difference in reasonability between the player absolutely saying "I can only play a dwarf" versus the GM absolutely saying "I can only run a campaign if it doesn't have dwarves in it." The latter seems just as odd (to the extent that it is odd) an opinion to me as the former.

As I mentioned before, I agree there is a caveat if the campaign setting is a continuing, pre-existing one from previous sessions, and the GM didn't want to contradict what had already been established to the players. That's indeed a different situation.

But for fresh, from-scratch-for-this-group campaigns (which are the only ones I've ever played, myself) that particular caveat doesn't apply.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Excluding one option out of many is indeed different than insisting on one option out of many.


Arssanguinus wrote:
The worst railroader I ever knew allowed you to create anything you ever brought a book for. The most open I ever had was restrictive in what you could start with so, no. Not in y experience.
Immortal Greed wrote:
I have to disagree. Railroading and setting based restrictions are too very different things. From a dm that has run sandboxes with some heavy initial restrictions (and gloves off later once they are genned up).

Could you two then give me a quick example?

I'll give you the rest of the example I already started with the red-haired-weretiger group:

So as I said: we all had to be red-haired humans/half-elves...
we found out that we were hunted by our country's baron because he was pissed about were-everythings and weretigers especially (and we were weretigers... daddy was a weretiger, no getting cured). So we flee because we were getting sent wave after wave of cavalier squads trying to imprison us again after we broke out (before getting executed, no negotiating). Running to another country: nope, they'd send us back. Running to the king: not his problem, unlikely we'd even be able to talk to him since we are hunted and "dangerous" weretigers. Hiding... sure, how long will we survive the tracking? only viable option: assassinate the baron to stop the hunting... sure we were not told how we go about the killing, but we still pretty much only had a single cours of action...
Oh and talking with villagers was a 50-50 bet on whether it'll be mistrust/pitchforks or grudging help/but-don't-tell-or-we'll-die.

Needless to say our group characters decided to disagree on what to do...
after we spent 3 sessions arguing whether we hide (which our DM told us would never work forever), flee to a very far away country (which our DM told us would never work forever) or just go on a rampage (which our DM told us would never work forever). At some point we did try to find our daddy to tell him what an a*****le he is for putting us in this sh***y situation, but we never could find any trail of him (having only 1st level spells at our disposal and being level 6?).
That's pretty much when this adventure broke appart (1-2 sessions after I quit).

edit: little info on the side, the baron was pissed at weretigers especially since our daddy had sex with his wife AND (adult) daughter.


Easy enough. I played in an all fighters(and one cleric) allowed campaign. We made characters, he described the setting ... And then from that point on, we pretty much just went after whatever we found interesting, and the plot would warp to go in that direction.

The other one admittedly didnt last long because I didn't enjoy it, but it was a "as long as its published, its good.(third party included). Of course, the characters were about the last bit of freedom had. From that point on it was all

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ButThouMust


Kirth Gersen wrote:

Misrepresentation. Please address my actual position, not this made-up one that you keep bringing up.

.

You know, requests like this are a lot easier to respect if you're not constantly doing the same to the people you're arguing against. There are a lot of amplified and, I believe, deliberate misrepresentations of both sides' arguments in this thread, just like there were the last several times this topic was discussed. I don't suppose we could ask everyone to just drop it, could we?


Bill Dunn wrote:
You know, requests like this are a lot easier to respect if you're not constantly doing the same to the people you're arguing against.

How have I done so? Arss and Democritus have independently explained to me that their settings are generally set in stone before the players' opinions are solicited, or even before the players are recruited -- and therefore that the setting limits are not subject to discussion. How is that misrepresenting their position?


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
You know, requests like this are a lot easier to respect if you're not constantly doing the same to the people you're arguing against.
How have I done so? Arss et al. have told me their settings are generally set in stone before the players' opinions are solicited, or even before the players are recruited -- and therefore that the setting limits are not subject to discussion. How is that misrepresenting their position?

No. I did a whole long post on how that is handled, which it seems like you just glossed over. Yes, if elves don't exist in a campaign setting they don't suddenly pop into existence. However, if its something I just didnt included but didn't exclude either? Cool. Make an effort to make it fit in and I'll do the same. Once the campaign is decided on, however, yes, the hard and fast limits are indeed hard and fast.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
You know, requests like this are a lot easier to respect if you're not constantly doing the same to the people you're arguing against.
How have I done so? Arss and Democritus have independently explained to me that their settings are generally set in stone before the players' opinions are solicited, or even before the players are recruited -- and therefore that the setting limits are not subject to discussion. How is that misrepresenting their position?

Moreover ... Its if they are going to play in that world, then it is indeed a hard and fast setting. I might switch to one of my other settings. I might just chose to play. But if setting x has no elves, they are not playing in setting x with elves. Is just not going to happen. We will play in a different world from among those I have prepared, or someone else will gm.

1,051 to 1,100 of 1,827 << first < prev | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 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.