| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the Exotic Races in the ARG, except maybe Merfolk, Strix, and Svirfneblin are inferior to humans and dwarves outside of a few niche builds, and 85% of them, either have a dexterity bonus, a charisma bonus, or both.
the only 2 that boost 2 physical stats, are the Hobgoblin, which gets Dex and Con, and the Merfolk, which gets a Bonus to Dex, Con and Cha with a racial natural armor bonus, darkvision, a 30 foot swim speed, immunity to trip maneuvers, and amphibious with a 15 foot move speed and light sensitivity being it's only drawbacks. what makes merfolk overpowered, is not so much the swim speed or amphibious quality, but the fact they boost 3 attributes without penalty, gain a racial natural armor bonus and are immune to a whole popular combat maneuver. Merfolk are slightly weaker than bestiary 1 drow nobles, but they are still powerful.
Svirfneblin Racial modifiers are large in both penalty and bonus, plus they get a racial dodge bonus, a mountain of SLAs, and all the things that made the Drow Noble in bestiary 1 overpowered
Strix Get a Fly Speed, which they pay for by having a lack of a second attribute bonus, with a prechosen bonus and penalty, with a lack of major racial traits, it doesn't pay for the priceless advantage of permanent natural flight, in fact, you could take a race with -10 to every attribue and a fly speed, and a munchkin would still play if, because the fly speed is such a huge advantage of its own.
Humans Get a bonus feat and bonus skill points, they can literally start and finish whole feat chains earlier, qualify for non-casting oriented prestige classes more easily, in addition, they can trade that bonus feat for up to 3 free skill focuses, making eldritch heritage and certain skill focus based feat chains more attractive, such as hellcat stealth.
dwarves gain +2 to 2 key defensive stats with a penalty to a martial dump stat, they get +2 to 80% of the saving throws they make, which can increase by an additional 2 with a feat tax, or an additional 1 by means of a trait tax. for 1.5 feats, you get +5 to every saving throw you make. dwarves also get, more hp per level, a dodge bonus against a common mid level creature type with large attack bonuses, and an attack bonus against 2 common low level creature types. the only penalty dwarves have is their 20 foot speed.
All in all, the ARG's point system is flawed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder how well people would take to playing a game set in Lorwyn. There are no humans at all.
The races are:
Kithkin (psychic halflings)
Elves (who have hooves and horns)
Boggarts (goblins)
Duergar (more like regular dwarves)
Faeries (tiny and insect-like)
Merrow (merfolk)
Flamekin (fire elemental humanoids)
Changelings (derpy shapeshifters)
Treefolk (large)
Giants (larger)
I'd try out Lorwyn Elves or the Flamekin.
All in all, the ARG's point system is flawed.
it is, a 10 point race can with a bit of optimization, outshine a suboptimal 25 point race, with or without flaws. and with enough custom flaws, a 5 point race, can outshine a 30 point race.
At the moment, latest game they are playing is a fantasy sci fi game. Stuck in a game as you will, and everyone starts of the same race (but some made some heavy cosmetic changes) and there are only five classes. Sounds restrictive yeah? Well the focus is on adventure, dungeons, what you do in these fantasy worlds, finding new monsters, capturing them (players chose to do this), setting up adventurer guilds and any relationship stuff they want to get into. It started with a high level of initial restrictions (no orcs, elves, etc, it isn't Tolkien) and has expanded out heavily from there. As they try to beat this game, the players are part time leaders of the largest guild going.
If your players can do anything they want, why was the initial restriction necessary?
Everyone is the same race and only 5 classes reminds me of old D&D... might as well run the red/blue box then?
I guess I would be stuck with finding no class I really want to play and multiclass right at level 2... not sure my character would actually have any deep personality too.
Playing yet another fighter... meh...I'm mercenary number 274.
Yet another wizard... let me guess you also restrict what spells I can get my hands on?
Clerics... I don't like/play clerics any more, since they replaced spheres with domains.
Rogue. I get skills, that's good, but it's the same skills as always for rogues: been there, done that. Stabby Urchin number 392.
Do you ask your players to have 1 of each class? Or could they decide to be all fighters/rogues, but no spellcasters and you'd try to make it work? Or would you run encounters normally and those who die have to roll the cleric/wizard?
I wonder how well people would take to playing a game set in Lorwyn. There are no humans at all.
The races are:
Kithkin (psychic halflings)
Elves (who have hooves and horns)
Boggarts (goblins)
Duergar (more like regular dwarves)
Faeries (tiny and insect-like)
Merrow (merfolk)
Flamekin (fire elemental humanoids)
Changelings (derpy shapeshifters)
Treefolk (large)
Giants (larger)
So, I wanna play either a plain ol' human, or an elf that doesn't have those hooves and horns but just normal feet and is really pretty. It's the absolute only way I can fit my visual concept of the character.
So, your elf is a mutant with odd feet and no horns. That could work.
|
So, I wanna play either a plain ol' human, or an elf that doesn't have those hooves and horns but just normal feet and is really pretty. It's the absolute only way I can fit my visual concept of the character.I wonder how well people would take to playing a game set in Lorwyn. There are no humans at all.
The races are:
Kithkin (psychic halflings)
Elves (who have hooves and horns)
Boggarts (goblins)
Duergar (more like regular dwarves)
Faeries (tiny and insect-like)
Merrow (merfolk)
Flamekin (fire elemental humanoids)
Changelings (derpy shapeshifters)
Treefolk (large)
Giants (larger)
We actually played a game set in the Lorwyn setting once. It was hella fun.
This is what I'm talking about though when it comes to curation. There is a specific feeling that the setting is trying to convey by not having humans and by making elves hooved and horned.
If a player can't or won't find anything fun in any of the above options then that's that. The player is saying he doesn't want to play in that game. Play without him or her and enjoy the game with the people who think that the setting is rad. If nobody wants to play in the setting then shelve it. There's plenty of other options.
There's extremes on both sides of the screens, but people shouldn't confuse characteristic with character.
In an above example there is no reason why the concept of an open-minded paladin who judges people on their actions couldn't be a half-orc, or a particularly ugly human or elf.
In the standard Pathfinder Campaign Setting Drow a both evil AND secret. So if a player ONLY wanted to play a Drow, knowing those two things then something is up.
I tell my players: Restriction breeds creativity. Find a hook that makes the choices in front of you unique. Maybe you want to be the world's strongest elf or want to become it by the end of the campaign? What if you're the only halfling who can't read minds (choosing a non-psychic class)? Find the hook.
And if one or two races rent there really, your choices AREN'T restricted that much.
Choose or Die! (NSFW)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As to your orc example, I don't know what you mean by "the existence of orc blood (orc or half-orc) would unmake the universe by its very presence". Does this mean that if a single orc or half-orc exists, the universe would explode? Or does there have to be something more? Does someone have to take some sort of action with the orc-blooded person? Is there an angry god who would kill everyone if they discovered an orc exists?
Excelent questions. Exactly the sort of thing the characters in the campaign might investigate. Since the campaign is far enough along that this isn't a spoiler I can answer this in part. Your first guess is correct. If a single orc or half-orc existed the universe would indeed be destroyed.
The true reason behind this has yet to be revealed in the campaign so I will keep that card close to my vest. The mystery of orc blood is the first of three major truths about the universe that might be uncovered by the characters.
I don't feel a compulsion to change everything for a player because they want to play an orc because 1) nothing else would work as well given the 'backstory' of this universe and 2) it's a slippery slope. If I say, "Okay...it's not orcs but lizard men." what do I do when a player wants to play a lizard man? "Okay...not really lizard men but kobolds."
I've written what I feel to be a good and compelling story. The players can take part in it or not as they please. Having developed trust with my players they all bought in without anyone demanding to break the premise. That's how things usually work out with real people rather than internet forum straw men.
ven funnier if the rest of the world doesn't actually take on the same cartoonish ethos, and we're the only oddballs. So the forces of Good are used to dealing with the sort of actual, honestly-brutally-horrifying evil that Golarion has so much of... and then they come smack up against this group of complete and total loons who rant and rave about the power of Eeeeeeevil and their brilliant plans to take over the world by gathering all the MacGuffins and attaining Ultimate Cosmic Power... but who wouldn't actually be able to so much as kick the proverbial puppy should the opportunity present itself, and who'd probably throw in for an Enemy Mine should any of those aforementioned actual nasties show up and attack.So they'd play the Amoeba Boys?Pretty much, yeah. Or maybe a cross between the Amoeba Boys and Señor Senior, Senior.
Not that they couldn't be competent enough in their own way, just that "their way" would, when they tried to be "evil" involve fiendish deeds that were less along the lines of slaughtering and pillaging, and more along the lines of linking people directly to TV Tropes articles, thus ruining their productivity at whatever they were doing before.
Mwahahahaha.
So, somewhere between Dr Horrible and Professor Chaos.
At the moment, latest game they are playing is a fantasy sci fi game. Stuck in a game as you will, and everyone starts of the same race (but some made some heavy cosmetic changes) and there are only five classes. Sounds restrictive yeah? Well the focus is on adventure, dungeons, what you do in these fantasy worlds, finding new monsters, capturing them (players chose to do this), setting up adventurer guilds and any relationship stuff they want to get into. It started with a high level of initial restrictions (no orcs, elves, etc, it isn't Tolkien) and has expanded out heavily from there. As they try to beat this game, the players are part time leaders of the largest guild going.If your players can do anything they want, why was the initial restriction necessary?
Everyone is the same race and only 5 classes reminds me of old D&D... might as well run the red/blue box then?
I guess I would be stuck with finding no class I really want to play and multiclass right at level 2... not sure my character would actually have any deep personality too.
Playing yet another fighter... meh...I'm mercenary number 274.
Yet another wizard... let me guess you also restrict what spells I can get my hands on?
Clerics... I don't like/play clerics any more, since they replaced spheres with domains.
Rogue. I get skills, that's good, but it's the same skills as always for rogues: been there, done that. Stabby Urchin number 392.Do you ask your players to have 1 of each class? Or could they decide to be all fighters/rogues, but no spellcasters and you'd try to make it work? Or would you run encounters normally and those who die have to roll the cleric/wizard?
It isn't the original red box. I am a bit inspired by AD&D though.
If your character does not have a deep personality, that is up to you. You don't need a race or class to give your character personality. That isn't how it works.
Why is your fighter just another fighter? Why is your fighter without identity? Because they are human? That is some odd dehumanisation you have going there.
They could be whatever they wanted from what was available (that is how I've run it for years, with some games giving a lot of options, others a lot less). They ended up all going melee, with some tanks builds and some skirmishers. You don't need spells to have fun, memorable characters by the way (but I've met some spellcaster players that seem to think this, and have a very low opinion of barbs and fighters, to their later detriment).
The best parts of fantasy rpg games aren't the unbalanced monster races or a large range of classes. Removing so much to consider initially has actually freed them up to make their characters as they adventure (less, I have this design for 15 levels, don't worry, it is all planned out) and prove their actual adaptability.
As to your orc example, I don't know what you mean by "the existence of orc blood (orc or half-orc) would unmake the universe by its very presence". Does this mean that if a single orc or half-orc exists, the universe would explode? Or does there have to be something more? Does someone have to take some sort of action with the orc-blooded person? Is there an angry god who would kill everyone if they discovered an orc exists?Excelent questions. Exactly the sort of thing the characters in the campaign might investigate. Since the campaign is far enough along that this isn't a spoiler I can answer this in part. Your first guess is correct. If a single orc or half-orc existed the universe would indeed be destroyed.
The true reason behind this has yet to be revealed in the campaign so I will keep that card close to my vest. The mystery of orc blood is the first of three major truths about the universe that might be uncovered by the characters.
I don't feel a compulsion to change everything for a player because they want to play an orc because 1) nothing else would work as well given the 'backstory' of this universe and 2) it's a slippery slope. If I say, "Okay...it's not orcs but lizard men." what do I do when a player wants to play a lizard man? "Okay...not really lizard men but kobolds."
I've written what I feel to be a good and compelling story. The players can take part in it or not as they please. Having developed trust with my players they all bought in without anyone demanding to break the premise. That's how things usually work out with real people rather than internet forum straw men.
Bwahahaha! That last line. You are quite a funny Dwarf. I like you, I won't even try to break into your vault tonight.
As a long time dm, I along with other dms set up the setting, take our inspiration and run with it. We create the games and tell and recruit from the player pool. Then we have a good time and usually finish the game. They play in the game and gen according to the initial restrictions. There is very rarely a problem, and this has centred around someone wanting to play something when they have been clearly informed it is not in. In the most recent game, they actually got two characters sheets for each character they played, now that is a lot of space for customisation (they were playing a sword art, trapped in a game, "game", so there was who was plugged into the hardware, and who they were fashioning in game).
I think Immortal Greed that ultimately that is an opinion (which is fine...we all have them). For some people, playing around with different classes or races is a large part of the fun.
More to the game than character design, or having all of the vanilla options open.
Vanilla? Why not Dwarven strawberries and lizardman lime?
I don't feel a compulsion to change everything for a player because they want to play an orc because 1) nothing else would work as well given the 'backstory' of this universe and 2) it's a slippery slope. If I say, "Okay...it's not orcs but lizard men." what do I do when a player wants to play a lizard man? "Okay...not really lizard men but kobolds."
You don't have an interest in doing it. No big deal. My point was there is a difference between not having an interest in making a change and saying you CAN'T make a change. Of course at some point in a campaign you might not be able to make a change because something has been established as a 100% truth in the game. But until that point, it is still the GM's decision to do something or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't feel a compulsion to change everything for a player because they want to play an orc because 1) nothing else would work as well given the 'backstory' of this universe and 2) it's a slippery slope. If I say, "Okay...it's not orcs but lizard men." what do I do when a player wants to play a lizard man? "Okay...not really lizard men but kobolds."You don't have an interest in doing it. No big deal. My point was there is a difference between not having an interest in making a change and saying you CAN'T make a change. Of course at some point in a campaign you might not be able to make a change because something has been established as a 100% truth in the game. But until that point, it is still the GM's decision to do something or not.
This is a game of make believe and you can always fiat anything. I could always just say "everyone gets syphilis and dies" and it will happen. There's no such thing as "can't" at any point in any game. So this is essentially a non-statement.
Everything that happens at the table happens because someone has "an interest in doing it."
But when you are having a game there is an understood contract: the DM will try to be fair and consistent with the players and the players will buy into the universe that you have created for them.
How this contract is built and executed is what interests me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But when you are having a game there is an understood contract: the DM will try to be fair and consistent with the players and the players will buy into the universe that you have created for them.
Or sometimes: "The DM will try to be fair and consistent with the players, and vice versa -- and with the universe that the DM and the players are creating together," as often is the case in my campaigns.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But when you are having a game there is an understood contract: the DM will try to be fair and consistent with the players and the players will buy into the universe that you have created for them.Or sometimes: "The DM will try to be fair and consistent with the players and the universe that he and the players are creating together," as often is the case in my campaigns.
Makes sense.
When you are co-creating the universe with the players the buy-in is on both sides. Negotiating reality can be a very fun exercise. Whenever I run a "Type 3" game we often throw stuff up on a white board until we're out of ideas and then try to tie it all together into a cohesive mass.
Sometimes we get a grand unified vision. Sometimes we are eaten by the Snarl from OOTS.
But when you are having a game there is an understood contract: the DM will try to be fair and consistent with the players and the players will buy into the universe that you have created for them.Or sometimes: "The DM will try to be fair and consistent with the players, and vice versa -- and with the universe that the DM and the players are creating together," as often is the case in my campaigns.
And i have run one of those as well as a message game. Put players in charge of developing the broad and overarching themes of the various regions, mentioning what they absolutely had to have, and then said 'give me a month or so to fill in the details and twist things. It worked alright, just wouldnt want to do it every time and definitely not with just every goup of players.
Even minor stuff -- for example, in my homebrew, mountain dwarves and hill dwarves are presented as being geographically and culturally distinct, and originally I really only considered the latter to be "suitable" for PCs (I'd pictured mountain dwarves as being too mysterious and insular).
This is another case of player input making the setting far richer and more "realistic" seeming, because sometimes one person't input alone starts to show, like looking at a map of a planned city when you're expecting one that grew organically around a castle, ford, or port.
For people who want "planned-city" campaigns, by all means keep the players out of it, and likewise, if the players aren't really interested, I'm not advocating dragging them into the world-building at gunpoint. But if they are interested, I find that my campaign settings are better/more immersive the more input I allow them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even minor stuff -- for example, in my homebrew, mountain dwarves and hill dwarves are presented as being geographically and culturally distinct, and originally I really only considered the latter to be "suitable" for PCs (I'd pictured mountain dwarves as being too mysterious and insular). ** spoiler omitted **
This is another case of player input making the setting far richer and more "realistic" seeming, because sometimes one person't input alone starts to show, like looking at a map of a planned city when you're expecting one that grew organically...
And if the element exists, and hasnt specifically been excluded or defined, im down withthat. As said.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, I wanna play either a plain ol' human, or an elf that doesn't have those hooves and horns but just normal feet and is really pretty. It's the absolute only way I can fit my visual concept of the character.I wonder how well people would take to playing a game set in Lorwyn. There are no humans at all.
The races are:
Kithkin (psychic halflings)
Elves (who have hooves and horns)
Boggarts (goblins)
Duergar (more like regular dwarves)
Faeries (tiny and insect-like)
Merrow (merfolk)
Flamekin (fire elemental humanoids)
Changelings (derpy shapeshifters)
Treefolk (large)
Giants (larger)
So You can be a mutant elf that everyone detests because to them you're unnatural, and all your "pretty" ness is for naught because to everyone else you're some kind of freak.
Works.
I don't feel a compulsion to change everything for a player because they want to play an orc because 1) nothing else would work as well given the 'backstory' of this universe and 2) it's a slippery slope. If I say, "Okay...it's not orcs but lizard men." what do I do when a player wants to play a lizard man? "Okay...not really lizard men but kobolds."
I've written what I feel to be a good and compelling story. The players can take part in it or not as they please. Having developed trust with my players they all bought in without anyone demanding to break the premise. That's how things usually work out with real people rather than internet forum straw men.
I should clarify what I was trying to argue in my previous post. I was in a rush to get out the door so I skimmed on details. I've noticed two similar but distinct arguments being made in this thread: (1) that a DM has no obligation to modify the setting to permit a certain character concept and (2) that there are some settings where it is not possible for a certain character concept to exist. In my post I was trying to address argument (2). While there may be settings that don't allow for some character concept, that's not sufficient to make it impossible. It must also be impossible to modify the setting to allow for the character concept. Until a DM has shared a fact of the setting with their players, it's not fixed.
Of course, if you are already partway through a campaign, it's probably a bit late. By that point there's probably been a lot that has already been canonized and could only be changed by a retcon. And this only addresses whether it's possible to adjust the setting to allow a character, not whether you ought to. If it would be a lot of effort to change things to fit some character and the player in question isn't will to put forth any of that effort, I don't think it's unreasonable for you as DM to not do their work for them. My posts have all been working from the assumption that you want the player in question to play in your game.
When you are co-creating the universe with the players the buy-in is on both sides.
Unless the campaign is railroaded start to finish, you are always co-creating the universe with your players (though usually they have much less influence). For a rather extreme example, in your orc blood campaign, the players could decide that their characters want to resurrect an orc, which would have a drastic impact on the setting. But of course they can influence the setting is less extreme ways (e.g. founding a religion, assassinating the king, forming an alliance with the settlement of kobolds, etc.). And the way high-level spellcasting works in Pathfinder, characters can have rather a lot of narrative control.
But if they are interested, I find that my campaign settings are better/more immersive the more input I allow them.
My experience is the same. I like to think that I have good world-building ideas, but I don't pretend that my players can't do the same.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nice character. This fits what I want from players very well. It most certainly doesn't hurt your role play at all. The worst I could possibly say about it is that you started with the easy stereotype as a crutch to make your role play more transparent to other players. Could this be done with a human? Absolutely. But it doesn't need to be done with a human. Just because you went with the easy stereotype doesn't mean it's a bad character, not at all. You took that stereotype and built a fully realized character around it. Nice. It doesn't hurt to be aware of the three types and which you are using. Self Awareness is a good thing. I myself love playing unusual races and it is almost always because I want the special snowflake effect before I layer all my role play on top of it.
Honestly, I question your ability to judge this as using a crutch and implying it's unoriginal or stereotypical - which is in itself hypocritical. Pretty much every facet of character development, archetypal design, or just plain ideas have already come before and been explored. Sometimes they are mixed, sometimes they are inverted, but they are there. All over the place. It's the reason that the same stories are being told over and over and over again in different forms - even when the writer feels it's totally original to them and they weren't copying anyone.
TvTropes.org is pretty much indisputable evidence of this, with countless examples of the exact same things reemerging throughout all media.
Played strait, there is no special snowflake in a D&D party. One guy is playing a Warforged? Oh, he's a machine built for war seeking to understand his soul? Cool. That's about as normal as the human being who carves godlike beings a new b~@!~&%~ in their heads.
I get it though. It irritates me to no end that there are countless people who just try to pick races to be weird. I feel you. I really do. My campaign setting has no less than 20 different playable races, including things like DRIDER; and I've had people who suddenly decided all of those were too boring and/or normal because they were pre-OK'd for the game and thus wanted something "exotic" (because to them, merely being pre-OK'd meant that they weren't different enough for them now). That gets under my skin hardcore. I feel you, I do.
But placing people who want to play something other than humans into that basket is dishonest, rude, and is painting some very ugly broad strokes over everyone who just wants to play a different race for some purpose. Even if that purpose is because they find something interesting about that race that they want to use in their character.
Even minor stuff -- for example, in my homebrew, mountain dwarves and hill dwarves are presented as being geographically and culturally distinct, and originally I really only considered the latter to be "suitable" for PCs (I'd pictured mountain dwarves as being too mysterious and insular). ** spoiler omitted **
This is another case of player input making the setting far richer and more "realistic" seeming, because sometimes one person't input alone starts to show, like looking at a map of a planned city when you're expecting one that grew organically...
Jackson DM: WHAT is in the valley?
Player: I don't know.*Jackson points pistol at player*
Jackson DM: what is IN the valley?
Player: I don't know! Er... Dwarves I guess.
Jackson DM: say Dwarves again. I double dare you.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think Sam would be a HELL of a DM.
Whole UNIVERSES of Samuel L. Muthaf#*@in' Jackson.
So, I wanna play either a plain ol' human, or an elf that doesn't have those hooves and horns but just normal feet and is really pretty. It's the absolute only way I can fit my visual concept of the character.I wonder how well people would take to playing a game set in Lorwyn. There are no humans at all.
The races are:
Kithkin (psychic halflings)
Elves (who have hooves and horns)
Boggarts (goblins)
Duergar (more like regular dwarves)
Faeries (tiny and insect-like)
Merrow (merfolk)
Flamekin (fire elemental humanoids)
Changelings (derpy shapeshifters)
Treefolk (large)
Giants (larger)So You can be a mutant elf that everyone detests because to them you're unnatural, and all your "pretty" ness is for naught because to everyone else you're some kind of freak.
Works.
So you're a 'stuck' changeling that thinks it's an elf but is bad at taking elf form (maybe it isn't really sure what elves are like). It even kind of makes sense. Changelings aren't terribly bright.
Mind you, elven culture is centred around the ideal of beauty. Anything that deviates from their vision of perfection is an 'eyeblight'. They have orders of assassins dedicated to killing eyeblights to keep them from marring this wonderful world with their ugliness.
A few scars can leave an elf outcast. Having no horns and human feet would be like the Elephant Man to the elves.
Yes, Lorwyn elves are evil.
Evil fashionistas.
I've heard of worse bad guys.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nonono... my pretty pretty elf without horns or hooves would be from ANOTHER elven culture, one that isn't EVIL and that has no horns or hooves. I need this cultural support, it is the ONLY way I can connect to the visual concept of my character.
There is a non-evil elven culture, across the 'Aurora', which is a dimension-flipping event that reverses the roles of all the races... except the faeries (it's their fault).
The good elves still have hooves and horns.
If your character does not have a deep personality, that is up to you. You don't need a race or class to give your character personality. That isn't how it works.
No, I need them to not make that same personality again. It's about having more choices because if you are playing a human fighter or human rogue for the 10th time or MORE... it gets boring.
I didn't keep all my old characters (amongst others because I moved and my new place is too small to always keep all sentimental things). But a friend of mine did... her folder with characters is this model, and the folder is falling appart because it's bursting/overfolwing. She however kept every single character, even those we only played for a fun new-year-one-off. That's a LOT of personalities.
I rarely recycle old ideas, I only do this when short on time to make a new character or out of ideas, but I don't like this because it feels uncreative to me. Same goes for recycling character-ideas from friends...
Why is your fighter just another fighter? Why is your fighter without identity? Because they are human? That is some odd dehumanisation you have going there.
Probably...
because I'd rather play an average orc thug instead of a bad-childhood-human thug. (I've got enough human thugs living in a suburb not too far away)I'd also rather play an average woodelf druid instead of a human-greenpeace/wwf/eco-freak druid. [avoids going into a rl-politics rant here/]
Am I pissed with humans? yes, I am. 8-)
That's why I like nerds/weirdos/...
They could be whatever they wanted from what was available (that is how I've run it for years, with some games giving a lot of options, others a lot less). They ended up all going melee, with some tanks builds and some skirmishers. You don't need spells to have fun, memorable characters by the way (but I've met some spellcaster players that seem to think this, and have a very low opinion of barbs and fighters, to their later detriment).
I don't _need_ spells... however I like them, especially when my DM restricts me for feats (AD&D didn't have those so pretty much all fighters were cookie-cutter).
I don't mind a different list of races or no-elves or no-dwarves...however I do mind if I can only play humans. I don't like humans (even though they are mechanically better for a lot of classes because of their bonus feat/skill points/favored class bonus, when compared to halflings/gnomes/elves).
The best parts of fantasy rpg games aren't the unbalanced monster races or a large range of classes. Removing so much to consider initially has actually freed them up to make their characters as they adventure (less, I have this design for 15 levels, don't worry, it is all planned out) and prove their actual adaptability.
That is something I never do... I don't like choosing as we go, I always plan: this also avoids my DM having a bad surprise as I'll usually also tell him upfront: ok, this character's purpose is X... if you don't like X please tell me now.
Choosing on the go will severely weaken the character as I NEVER EVER retrain. I hate retraining, it's a no-go. So if at level 8 I realize it'd make sense to take feat X or worse prestige class Y... I can't because of requirements. And houseruling requirements all the time is also something I don't do. (remember the DMs of my group apply houserules throughout all tables... that'll get messy in no time)
While some people will not mind taking feats that make sense on the spot, I've seen people taking a multiclass level in _commoner_ because we had been posing as merchants for part of the adventure and this really sucks.
So the question would be: how much is too much?
Probably...
because I'd rather play an average orc thug instead of a bad-childhood-human thug. (I've got enough human thugs living in a suburb not too far away)
I'd also rather play an average woodelf druid instead of a human-greenpeace/wwf/eco-freak druid....
Tell me what aspect of that characters personality is reliant on them not being human?
Unlike the average human being, an orc is genetically inclined towards violent behaviour.
An elf is more genetically inclined towards a positive attitude towards nature compared to a human.
Now, Arssanguinus, I ask you. Are you going to claim all humans are genetically inclined towards those things?
However, just because I use genetical inclination as a basis for my argument, I also must highlight that nature and nurture both play their parts in what makes the character who / what he or she is. So don't try to claim that I'm stereotyping when I use these examples to defend Kyoni's case here. There can be an orc who can rein in his anger, just like there could be an elf who hates nature. Sure, you can have humans doing those things, but they still lack that inclination that comes from being something other than human. And really, in my books 99% of Humanity is of some Evil alignment anyway, so I say we're genetically inclined towards being a***holes.
Unlike the average human, an orc is genetically inclined towards violence.
An elf is more genetically inclined towards a positive attitude towards nature compared to a human.
Now, Arssanguinus, I ask you. Are you going to claim all humans are genetically inclined towards those things?
However, just because I use genetical inclination as a basis for my argument, I also must highlight that nature and nurture both play their parts in what makes the character who / what he or she is. So don't try to claim that I'm stereotyping when I use these examples to defend Kyoni's case here. There can be an orc who can rein in his anger, just like there could be an elf who hates nature. Sure, you can have humans doing those things, but they still lack that inclination that comes from being something other than human. And really, in my books 99% of Humanity is of some Evil alignment anyway, so I say we're genetically inclined towards being a***holes.
I'm sorry, whatever floats anyone's boat naturally, but I just can't see being in the position of not being able to make a human character that's interesting. If you have to be a misanthrope you could make a human character who is a misanthrope. Or if you want to go with the within that 99% of humans are evil then make your good character as a human and you are doing the same thing you say that you have to have a non human to do. With a human genetic inclination is replaced by cultural inclination.
YAY, icyshadow understood me. :-D
Arssanguinus:
It's not that I could not do it with human as a race... it's just that I am tired of humans being extremists/fanatics for so many things in real life. I prefer to be an average X instead of a fanatic human.
A human thug would be "I can't control my rage".
An orc thug could be "I try to reign it in, but sometimes I burst".
I'd rather be the latter.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want to play a Human Misanthrope in D&D or Pathfinder.
You know why? Because I'm already one in real life, and that's boring too.
YAY, icyshadow understood me. :-D
Arssanguinus:
It's not that I could not do it with human as a race... it's just that I am tired of humans being extremists/fanatics for so many things in real life. I prefer to be an average X instead of a fanatic human.A human thug would be "I can't control my rage".
An orc thug could be "I try to reign it in, but sometimes I burst".I'd rather be the latter.
Then pay a non fanatic human, maybe ...?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Arssanguinus, do you have any other argument than this left?
I dunno... orcs having violent outbursts doesn't seem to be too different from what some very human people do. There are so many out there who have a hard time keeping their anger leashed. What would be different would be that since MOST orcs work that way, orc culture would have adapted to that. In all probability, they would have a very strong respect for when others show signs of annoyance, so as to either back off or take the conflict in a place where it can be had. They would have a view that a bit of rough and tumble was healthy, and also that some kind of "excuse me" was easy to make without humiliating yourself. And so on.
Huh? I generally haven't been involving myself in the never play exotics part. Only in the "I can remove specific races from my campaign world and the player doesn't get to just insist on playing that one specific race"
And just because you can't answer an argument doesn't mean it should stop being made?
I already replied to the points you brought up. They didn't convince me.
You could just accuse me of "badwrongfun" like you want to and move on now.
I already replied to the points you brought up. They didn't convince me.
You know, just accuse me of "badwrongfun" like you want to and move on.
No. You aren't having "bad wrong fun". Engrave that on a stone tablet and set it up on high, alright?
I just think you are unnecessarily limiting yourself. And you haven't answered why you can't create a human that isn't an extremist.
Incidentally, I would be making the same points to someone who insisted they could play ONLY humans so ...