| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm getting pretty smurfin' tired of this!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dragons and elves don't have even anything close to remotely the same flavor and implications to them.
"... Okay, taking it from the top.""For two thousand years, dragons ruled over all. Their sorceror-wyrms
THAT one is easy. "For two thousand years, drow ruled over all..."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer to leave enough empty space in my setting that people can play what they like to.Essentially, the only valid setting is a clone of Golarion or the Forgotten realms.
Not at all.
1. First ask yourself if you want the race included in the setting initially.
a)If your answer yes, then allow players to play it.
b)If your answer is no, then go to #2.
c)If your answer is don't care, then go to #3.
2. Ask your players if they want the race as playable.
a)If a majority of them say yes, then allow players to play it.
b)If a majority of them do not say yes (no or don't care), then exclude the race.
3. Make no mention of the race in the initial description of the setting, but leave some areas of the setting undetailed. If a player wishes to play the race, then they are a foreigner (but they don't get the belt) from one of those regions.
So you can leave it out, as long as you don't really leave it out. Got it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
HOLY FRIGGIN' SNAP! I go away for two days and OVER TWO HUNDRED REPLIES.
Also, building this post as I read, so it's probably ninja'd...
Ugh. There goes my Dragon Age play time while my toddler sleeps...
I must have missed those posts. Which is possible, I've mostly been skimming since TL knocked this thread out of the park.
Is this me you mention? If so, then thanks! :)
(Also, Kirth, though I personally disagree with him on the degree of the balance of power, has made some amazingly good points, too, which I over-all agree with.)
Are you saying elves are just like gnomes, and have similar relations across the boards with other races?
I want to pull this quote out for a moment and examine it. I'm not talking about or to Arssanguinus at all, just this concept.
It occurs to me that it's a potentially fascinating disconnect to me in the argumentation of the "side" of the debate that says that a character can be of any race just as validly (and thus doesn't need a particular character to be a particular race) and yet have such a severe problem with altering the specific race absent from their homebrew setting.
I'll point out again that this disconnect isn't an inherently bad thing, though it should be recognized as such.
Effectively, if a character is mutable enough that the concept can be emulated with any race, than a setting could be as well.
In Arss' specific setting, given that it has a full, flowing history of identity and canon that he likes to maintain through games, he might not be able to change it in the middle of things while maintaining that canonical cohesion.
But in most any other setting without that very specific concern? If you accept that any character concept can be played with any race, it is only logical that any race, then, could replace any other in the setting's history, regardless of normal thematic cultural concepts.
Again, though, the fact that people are inherently limited in the ideas that they like, find interesting, or fascinating, or so on is going to limit a given GM and player from the over-all capability of budging for a whole complicated list of factors that are too big to name. Doesn't make either of 'em bad (though they certainly might be), just finite and mortal like all of us.
Sorry about that. Got overly defensive and lashed out without reading it in the proper context.
My bad!
I'd say everyone has on this thread at least once. You're a good man to admit it, though. Some of us just keep going 'round and 'round. (And man, am I starting to get dizzy. I should probably sit still now.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
HOLY FRIGGIN' SNAP! I go away for two days and OVER TWO HUNDRED REPLIES.
Yeah, we've slacked off a bit...
HOLY FRIGGIN' SNAP! I go away for two days and OVER TWO HUNDRED REPLIES.
Also, building this post as I read, so it's probably ninja'd...
Ugh. There goes my Dragon Age play time while my toddler sleeps...
I must have missed those posts. Which is possible, I've mostly been skimming since TL knocked this thread out of the park.Is this me you mention? If so, then thanks! :)
(Also, Kirth, though I personally disagree with him on the degree of the balance of power, has made some amazingly good points, too, which I over-all agree with.)
Are you saying elves are just like gnomes, and have similar relations across the boards with other races?I want to pull this quote out for a moment and examine it. I'm not talking about or to Arssanguinus at all, just this concept.
It occurs to me that it's a potentially fascinating disconnect to me in the argumentation of the "side" of the debate that says that a character can be of any race just as validly (and thus doesn't need a particular character to be a particular race) and yet have such a severe problem with altering the specific race absent from their homebrew setting.
I'll point out again that this disconnect isn't an inherently bad thing, though it should be recognized as such.
Effectively, if a character is mutable enough that the concept can be emulated with any race, than a setting could be as well.
In Arss' specific setting, given that it has a full, flowing history of identity and canon that he likes to maintain through games, he might not be able to change it in the middle of things while maintaining that canonical cohesion.
But in most any other setting without that very specific concern? If you accept that any character concept can be played with any race, it is only logical that any race, then, could replace any other in the setting's history, regardless of normal thematic cultural concepts.
Again, though, the fact that people are inherently limited in...
The role of a specific character and an entire race are not the same.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
HOLY FRIGGIN' SNAP! I go away for two days and OVER TWO HUNDRED REPLIES.Yeah, we've slacked off a bit...
... I'd say something funny, but that may well be true. And, you know, I can't really think of anything. Well played.
:)
The role of a specific character and an entire race are not the same.
False differentiation based on a false equivocation.
Of course the roles are different. That doesn't mean holding them to different standards can't cause dissonance.
If a <race> is important for <character concept> for <RP Reasons> the <race> can be important for <world concept> for <RP Reasons>.
If a <race> is unimportant for <character concept> for <RP Reasons> the <race> can be unimportant for <world concept> for <RP Reasons>.
If a <race> is important for <character concept> for <Mechanical Reasons> the <race> can be important for <world concept> for <Mechanical Reasons>.
If a <race> is unimportant for <character concept> for <Mechanical Reasons> the <race> can be unimportant for <world concept> for <Mechanical Reasons>.
Note the "Can Be" instead of "Is".
These are not absolute statements that a race must be either, but rather that if a singular rule of measure (the race is important for X) than it can be held equally to all parties, whether to world or GM or player.
To do otherwise can be exceedingly dissonant to many. Thus the arguments of this thread.
For example, if a player "needs" to have an "elf" as a player to flesh out the core concept of a character (let's just say for the extreme exaggeration in lifespan) but wants an "elf" for other reasons as well (let's call it aesthetic, stats, and cultural associations) that "need" and "want" is as valid in its own way as the "need" and "want" of a given setting to not have those same traits for the same reasons.
To do otherwise creates a natural dissonance. It says "any given setting's needs are more important than those who would play it", whether intentionally or not. Add that to the fact that needs and wants are often conflated - unintentionally or otherwise - and it becomes exceedingly difficult for people to actually understand each other, even given the same language.
In such cases (those of difficult communication such as yourself and many others on this thread), the setting would be a stand-in for the GM (which it may or may not be). Thus, people take such a thing as, "any given <GM's> wants are more important than <all> those who would play <their game>" which is, ultimately, a false statement - a game can't be played by those who are uninterested, thus the GM's whim isn't all-encompassing.
The difficulty many have with many of your statements is based on the inherent dissonance of holding the same elements at different values for different purposes.
It happens in real life too.
However, any given, local, personal social contract can sidestep the whole issue and negate the apparent dissonance entirely. But not all social contracts can or should do that. Thus the never-ending disagreement.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ugh. There goes my Dragon Age play time while my toddler sleeps...Great Scott, man! What are you doing still in a quagmire like this thread while there's a great game like Dragon Age to be played?
Save yourself! It's too late for me; I've already failed too many Swim checks...
;-)
I failed my swim checks too, man. I failed my swim checks too. :)
No
I would have gone for the slightly more meme-able (to my taste), but, you know, that one works well to get the point across too. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally...I am hoping that if we can keep the thread going long enough, the annoyance and anger in the thread will be sufficient to fuel the birth of a malevolent artificial intelligence.
The problem we seem to be running into revolves around why something cannot be changed. A number of folks with long-running games have mentioned that they've successfully been able to change certain aspects in order to make the majority happy. But, others are saying that it is flatly impossible to do so.
The question is: why?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally...I am hoping that if we can keep the thread going long enough, the annoyance and anger in the thread will be sufficient to fuel the birth of a malevolent artificial intelligence.
We have begun Third Impact.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem we seem to be running into revolves around why something cannot be changed. A number of folks with long-running games have mentioned that they've successfully been able to change certain aspects in order to make the majority happy. But, others are saying that it is flatly impossible to do so.The question is: why?
Well, no.
The people with long running, continuously played in campaigns don't like major changes especially for one player. Like changing horses in mid stream. It's difficult, annoying and takes extra work / effort. The people who think it's easy are talking about new games, cooperative worlds and / or between games - essentially modifying settings which are dormant. In addition to which some are into world building and some are more about characters / the adventure with a minimal background as required.
Essentially two different types of campaigns and situations. At least that's what I've taken out of the reams of posts I've read in this thread...which is why the arguments are so intractable.
But the consensus of most people is that one player shouldn't dictate the whole game. So really it's more whether the majority of players want something that the DM can't/won't provide
Which is kind of what is stated...everyone is mostly arguing against each other's strawmen.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But the consensus of most people is that one player shouldn't dictate the whole game. So really it's more whether the majority of players want something that the DM can't/won't provideWhich is kind of what is stated...everyone is mostly arguing against each other's strawmen.
And this is a scientific poll? Well, no, it's not so who knows what most people think? Not me. As for this thread, going back over 1400+ posts and adding it up seems pointless. At different times one "side" or the other seems "dominant".
If you walk into a group that's been playing the same campaign for years should they suddenly, radically, change it for you? No. If a group sit down to design a campaign should one person say "my way or the highway"? No.
The people who are posting in this thread sound like extremists. Players rightsists and DM dictators. Or that's how they come across as the argument pushes each side to the extremes. The "strawman" argument marathon as you point out. Most of us probably, imo, sit happily somewhere inbetween. Playing games and having fun without worrying about the "other side".
I hope.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No
This post made me so happy; you don't even know.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Scenario :
GM : I have three main continents in my world. The first continent is the Northern Continent. It's entirely non-core races because a thousand years ago the non-civilized races rose up and in a giant war drove the humans, elves, gnomes, halflings and dwarves off the continent. They fled to the Southern Continent. Adventures on this continent will center around the last bastion of Good on the continent, a city originally defended by the last civilized races who didn't flee, but over the last thousand years, they died off, leaving the good and neutral non-core races who fled to the city to continue civilization. The city has been attacked every 30 to 75 years for the last 1000 years, the last time was 100 years ago. The campaign will revolve around a group who is sent out to explore the continent to report back on what the current situation is, as things have been too quiet.
Alternately, I have the Southern Continent. It is heavily civilized, and mostly revolves around core races plus a few exotics (catfolk, orcs, drow). Play here will revolve around groups who take up jobs as 'troubleshooters', often working for specific companies who contract out specialists in solving problems to those who need it. There will be little exploration, as most of the continent is explored, except for some areas where civilization is intentionally kept out or the terrain is too hard to control (a giant swamp, a huge mountain range, and a giant jungle range controlled by chaotic neutral barbarian elves). Non-core races will have a major issue in most parts of this continent, especially the human kingdoms.
Finally, I have an Eastern Continent. This is where most of the exotic races live, humans are the majority (but it's a slim majority), the rest are Tengu, Suli, Tiefling, Aasimar, Ratfolk, and so on, all the 'furry' type races live here. All the half-human half-outsider races are actually the products of Spirits and Humans mating (Good spirit + Human = Aasimar, Evil Spirit + Human = Tiefling, Ghost or Vampire + Human = Dhampir, Fire Elemental + Human = Ifrit, and so on). This sort of campaign would revolve around working for A master fighting the forces of Chaos (this land is more concerned about Law vs Order than Good vs Evil), it has a decidedly eastern flair. Eastern classes like Samurai and Ninja can be played only on this continent, while Barbarians are NPCs here, due to their chaotic natures. Also, there's no Gods on this continent, and no I won't tell you why, it's part of the history of the world, and one of the mysteries you may encounter, so no spoilers. This means no Clerics, Druids, Paladins or Inquisitors on this continent. They have major issues using their powers here. On the other hand, Witches, Oracles, Bards, Rangers, Wizards, Sorcerers, and Magi are just fine here.
Now, which one do you want to do?
Player A : Ok, I want to play the last human alive, who's been hiding in the city since birth.
GM : Uhm, humans died out a thousand years ago, the city has these huge legends of 9 foot tall humans who snort fire and eat babies. They scare small drow and goblin children into behaving by telling them the humans will come eat them if they don't behave. There are no humans, it's kind of the whole point.
Player A : I'm not gonna play unless I can play a human.
Player B : Ok, I'm playing a Cleric who's trying to bring the Gods back to the land.
GM : You can play a foreign cleric missionary, but you'll have to make a caster level check every day to get your spells, due to the lack of a conduit to the god.
Player B : Oh no you don't, you can't take away my powers like that, you either give me all my powers, or I'm not playing.
Player C : Ok, I'm going to play a Kitsune Ninja! I was looking at the class and race when we were going to do Eastern Continent, and I'm really psyched!
GM : Gaahhh... Fine, but you're going to be an outcast, and there will be no other Ninja's to train with, and being so exotic, you're going to have trouble in Human run areas and Elf run areas especially. Actually, the darves are pretty insular, and they don't even like humans and elves coming around, they're likely to treat you like an animal.
Player C : Hey, quit making my life hard! it's not fair you won't let me play what I want to play! They should all like Kitsune! They're cute!
------------------------------------------------------
Ok, take your sides and debate the above. If you think I'm a jerk GM for limiting things by continent, please put : D**K DM as the first line of your flame.
If you think the players are being a jerk, put D**K PLAYER as the first line of your flame.
Note, I have never had these responses myself, but I have had enough people post in response to how I set up my world telling me I'm a D**K DM for restricting humans and elves and such on the northern continent, and restricting eastern classes and archetypes to the eastern continent, and restricting barbarians on the eastern continent, and for not having every race treated normally on every continent regardless of the continent that I'm sure that if I picked 100 random board posters, I could find Player A, B and C above.
Ok, have fun, I'll drop back in about 100 posts to see how things break down and see how big a D**K DM I am, and how big a D**K players A, B, and C were.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want to play a stranded space marine! The drop pod got lost in a warp storm and ended up in your fantasy world.
if players have a particular race or class they wish to play, whether core, splatbook, third party or whatever, first, review the sheet to see if it has anything game breaking, if not, allow it. if anything seems suspicious, ask your other more experienced players, if they are fine, let it in.
just don't try to shoehorn an advanced half fire elemental vampire lord vampire minotaur in a low level party.
if players have a particular race or class they wish to play, whether core, splatbook, third party or whatever, first, review the sheet to see if it has anything game breaking, if not, allow it. if anything seems suspicious, ask your other more experienced players, if they are fine, let it in.
just don't try to shoehorn an advanced half fire elemental vampire lord vampire minotaur in a low level party.
So,
A human should be allowed into the campaign set on the continent where humans died off 1000 years ago, because the character is made properly within the ruleset?
I want to play a stranded space marine! The drop pod got lost in a warp storm and ended up in your fantasy world.
So, the GM shouldn't allow a human space marine on the Southern Continent, where humans live? Obviously, he wouldn't have his advanced weapons or pod. If he wanted cybernetics, an Android would be a good compromise.
Or, are you saying the space marine should be allowed, in all his glory, on the Northern Continent, with pod and laser rifle and advanced cybernetics?
I'm not sure if you're flaming the DM, or the Player. Please be more specific, this is why I asked for all posters commenting on it to post 'D**K GM or D**K PLAYER' so we can tell who is flaming who. It get's very confusing when you don't specify which way you're flaming.
:)
if players have a particular race or class they wish to play, whether core, splatbook, third party or whatever, first, review the sheet to see if it has anything game breaking, if not, allow it. if anything seems suspicious, ask your other more experienced players, if they are fine, let it in.
just don't try to shoehorn an advanced half fire elemental vampire lord vampire minotaur in a low level party.
So,
A human should be allowed into the campaign set on the continent where humans died off 1000 years ago, because the character is made properly within the ruleset?
the human could come from another continent
or they could come from another dimension via prominence, divine interference or whatever.
i'd rather accomodate new races, than say no and eliminate them entirely
the human could even be from a secret cabal of humans who hid in secrecy till it was time to reveal themselves.
finding excuses to say no takes too much energy, that energy is better spent finding reasons to accommodate so you can please everyone.
if players have a particular race or class they wish to play, whether core, splatbook, third party or whatever, first, review the sheet to see if it has anything game breaking, if not, allow it. if anything seems suspicious, ask your other more experienced players, if they are fine, let it in.
just don't try to shoehorn an advanced half fire elemental vampire lord vampire minotaur in a low level party.
So,
A human should be allowed into the campaign set on the continent where humans died off 1000 years ago, because the character is made properly within the ruleset?the human could come from another continent
or they could come from another dimension via prominence, divine interference or whatever.
i'd rather accomodate new races, than say no and eliminate them entirely
the human could even be from a secret cabal of humans who hid in secrecy till it was time to reveal themselves.
So,
Despite the entire concept of the game being 'no core races due to them being dead', you would insist on playing a core race? And, any GM who doesn't let you is a D**K GM?I personally put someone with this attitude into the same bucket as a GM who dictates what the Players will play. "You will play a human cleric, or you can sit this game out."
This is the same attitude in reverse. "I will play a human and you can just rearrange the entire game to suit me, because I'm more important than you."
If you want to play a human, don't vote for the game where humans aren't there.
I want to play a stranded space marine! The drop pod got lost in a warp storm and ended up in your fantasy world.So, the GM shouldn't allow a human space marine on the Southern Continent, where humans live? Obviously, he wouldn't have his advanced weapons or pod. If he wanted cybernetics, an Android would be a good compromise.
Or, are you saying the space marine should be allowed, in all his glory, on the Northern Continent, with pod and laser rifle and advanced cybernetics?
I'm not sure if you're flaming the DM, or the Player. Please be more specific, this is why I asked for all posters commenting on it to post 'D**K GM or D**K PLAYER' so we can tell who is flaming who. It get's very confusing when you don't specify which way you're flaming.
:)
I'm just faffing about. A GM I played with actually allowed this, cybernetics and all. No bolter, though. Ammo issues.
Edit to clarify: I'm on nobody's side. My posts are to be taken in jest (except when they're not; especially when they're not)
Fnord.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
if players have a particular race or class they wish to play, whether core, splatbook, third party or whatever, first, review the sheet to see if it has anything game breaking, if not, allow it. if anything seems suspicious, ask your other more experienced players, if they are fine, let it in.
just don't try to shoehorn an advanced half fire elemental vampire lord vampire minotaur in a low level party.
So,
A human should be allowed into the campaign set on the continent where humans died off 1000 years ago, because the character is made properly within the ruleset?the human could come from another continent
or they could come from another dimension via prominence, divine interference or whatever.
i'd rather accomodate new races, than say no and eliminate them entirely
the human could even be from a secret cabal of humans who hid in secrecy till it was time to reveal themselves.
So,
Despite the entire concept of the game being 'no core races due to them being dead', you would insist on playing a core race? And, any GM who doesn't let you is a D**K GM?I personally put someone with this attitude into the same bucket as a GM who dictates what the Players will play. "You will play a human cleric, or you can sit this game out."
This is the same attitude in reverse. "I will play a human and you can just rearrange the entire game to suit me, because I'm more important than you."
If you want to play a human, don't vote for the game where humans aren't there.
i typically rarely play humans, or even most core races. i like my 25 species of planetouched, samsarans, changelings, dhampir, and 0HD homebrewed fey races too much
i don't consider any DM who doesn't accomodate my options a Richard. i consider any DM who doesn't give a valid justification for the race not existing, and even dissalows valid in world workarounds to them to be one though.
i can understand humans being banned in a game where humans never existed or were truly extinct worldwide
but in a game where humans exist in one continent but not the other, but you are playing on the exotic races continent, i would still allow humans to cross over from a different continent. the concept of immigration exists in any world.
the human would be an oddity that drew a lot of attention, and many would wish to put the human on display and keep them as a pet. but continents, are not sufficient to restrict races.
if it were worldwide extinction, then i would dissallow the extinct race.
I'd say if none of your players can come to an agreement, that is the problem there. You are giving them options.
Although I generally think starting a homebrew world small and expanding from there works betters than fixing the broad view of the world a priori.
I'd say if none of your players can come to an agreement, that is the problem there. You are giving them options.
Although I generally think starting a homebrew world small and expanding from there works betters than fixing the broad view of the world a priori.
if players with to play in a homebrew world
the keys are
don't flesh out every detail from the start
be accepting of player input
learn to make your standard players actually like your world
if you had 7 players
if 4 of the players wish to play exotic races and 3 wish to play core races
you are choosing the punish either the 4, or punish the 3
homebrew worlds should take your default group into account.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This makes the assumption that the GM is there to please everyone else.
There is also the assumption that the GM has no right to GM the game or world he wants to GM or game, he must appease everyone else, regardless of the reasonableness of the others.
I find this as bad a stance to take as the idea that the GM is the ultimate god and must be obeyed and has full control over all aspects of the game, including character creation, and can dictate what people play.
What it comes down to is, if you can't, as a player, live within reasonable limits a GM sets, you should not force your views on the GM or the rest of the players. You are not a special snow flake, and the sun does not rise and set in your bung hole.
If you, as the GM, can't give your players a reasonable set of options, and work to accommodate as much as possible the Player's desires to play and enjoy a game, you are a bad GM and shouldn't be a GM. You are not a special snow flake, and the sun does not rise and set in your bung hole.
I have seen a handful of people in this thread realize that both the GM and the Players have to be comfortable with the game, but there are a lot more who seem to feel the GM is a dishrag who has to wash whatever scum they want to throw at him off their games. While others want to be the dictator of their own small countries in their own mind and lord their power over their players, or who approach the game as a 'Me vs Them'.
I've never allowed a player to dictate how I GM. I have welcomed feedback, both positive and negative (granted, probably a bit reluctantly on both, positive embarrasses me, and negative depresses me).
I have also never thrown a hissy fit if a GM wouldn't let me feel like a special snow flake and ramrod what I wanted to do down their throat.
I think most groups tend to be in the middle, the GM set's certain limits, and the players work within those limits so that everyone, GM and Players, enjoy themselves. I see no reason why the GM's enjoyment of his game is secondary to anyone elses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wasn't aware deity-to-follower powers were limited by geography
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DICK SMURF!!!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly I didn't get what the problem was in mdt's example. I mean, does this world also have no form of continent to continent travel such as boats, flying creatures or items, or teleportation magics?
Seriously, have the fun of such a campaign would be the fish out of water effect of being some guy who's a 100% normal bumpkin in his homeland, only to set out on adventure and find a land where he's seen as strange, exotic, or maybe even scary!
Soooooooooo much opportunity there. Especially if he made some friends and decided to bring them back to his homeland!
Honestly I didn't get what the problem was in mdt's example. I mean, does this world also have no form of continent to continent travel such as boats, flying creatures or items, or teleportation magics?
Seriously, have the fun of such a campaign would be the fish out of water effect of being some guy who's a 100% normal bumpkin in his homeland, only to set out on adventure and find a land where he's seen as strange, exotic, or maybe even scary!
Soooooooooo much opportunity there. Especially if he made some friends and decided to bring them back to his homeland!
i agree with you Ashiel
half the fun would indeed, be playing a "fish out of water"
you definitely need at the very minimum for such travel, boats, and the simplest of primitive boats, involves cutting trees and tying vines or hemp.
do trees, hemp and vines not exist in MDT's world?
This makes the assumption that the GM is there to please everyone else.
There is also the assumption that the GM has no right to GM the game or world he wants to GM or game, he must appease everyone else, regardless of the reasonableness of the others.
I find this as bad a stance to take as the idea that the GM is the ultimate god and must be obeyed and has full control over all aspects of the game, including character creation, and can dictate what people play.
What it comes down to is, if you can't, as a player, live within reasonable limits a GM sets, you should not force your views on the GM or the rest of the players. You are not a special snow flake, and the sun does not rise and set in your bung hole.
If you, as the GM, can't give your players a reasonable set of options, and work to accommodate as much as possible the Player's desires to play and enjoy a game, you are a bad GM and shouldn't be a GM. You are not a special snow flake, and the sun does not rise and set in your bung hole.
I have seen a handful of people in this thread realize that both the GM and the Players have to be comfortable with the game, but there are a lot more who seem to feel the GM is a dishrag who has to wash whatever scum they want to throw at him off their games. While others want to be the dictator of their own small countries in their own mind and lord their power over their players, or who approach the game as a 'Me vs Them'.
I've never allowed a player to dictate how I GM. I have welcomed feedback, both positive and negative (granted, probably a bit reluctantly on both, positive embarrasses me, and negative depresses me).
I have also never thrown a hissy fit if a GM wouldn't let me feel like a special snow flake and ramrod what I wanted to do down their throat.
I think most groups tend to be in the middle, the GM set's certain limits, and the players work within those limits so that everyone, GM and Players, enjoy themselves. I see no reason why the GM's enjoyment of his game is secondary to anyone elses
the DM is merely another player at the table, the one lone player who runs the majority of the NPCs, Arbitrates rulings the players cannot solve on their own, even if the rules allow such game breaking things without interference, and takes on many of the roles
it matters not whether you are the DM, or you are the player
your character, your last freedom as a non-DM player in most campaigns, i advocate the right to utilizr as much freedom with character as possible allowed within the world's constraints as a whole, not just one or two little continents. even if you have to deal with a fish out of water. as a player, you have an unspoken contract to cooperate with the rest of the group, including the DM, if you have an issue, seek an organized compromise in front of the group
but as a DM, i understand the secret desire to play the setting you run, but just because you supply either the venue, the snacks, or the setting, doesn't entitle you to become a dictator, whether you call yourself a deity or not. your agreement, is to provide for the players, within the constraints of the setting, to not use material you dissallow the players from using, to find a means to provide a venue and snacks
he whom provides either the venue or the snacks, on a consistent basis, promised before the DM, should get a DM boon for providing either the venue or the snacks, this could be anything from extra purchase points, a get out of death free card, to permission to play an otherwise banned race or class
neither is a lone player more important than the dm, nor is the DM more important than any player, the DM is equal to any lone player, and all players are equal. except the DM's significant other, whom is merely a monkey wrench inserted to screw things up. a DM's significant other, is worse than any DMPC.
but if multiple players collaborate against the DM in allowing a character, it is recommended the DM approve him or her. for upsetting a player means potential loss of players. and with little to no players, the DM cannot truly run a game. it would be like playing with yourself.
What I find interesting in this debate, still, is that if you allow every player to play whatever they like, so long as it's not unbalanced against the other PCs, and change everything about the campaign to fit better with what the players as a group want, then you are really only playing one specific type of campaign: A loosely defined setting that acts as a frame for action. Again and again, it has been held that "if you have planned a campaign about finding out the truth about where the elves went, and one player wants to play an elf, just change it to finding out what happened to the dragons/gnomes/drow/whatever". As I said, if a loose background for combat scenes is what you want, fine. The setting is not more important than changing the entirety of the relevant parts of it instantly - and being ready to do so. However, if I had a campaign where I wanted forest exploration and crystal towers, and had to be ready to change it into a) mountain crags, b) an airborne campaign, c) underdark delving, d) sandbox kingdom building, or e) outer planar exploration at a moment's notice, I would sincerely not see the point in preparing much of anything. And yes, some people work best when more or less improvising - I don't. I need to have time to think, to work through themes, define secrets of the setting, plan for their discoveries, chart up NPCs (that ARE affected by what race they are, so they can't just be changed willy-nilly). I have played the "loosely defined" settings a number of times, both as a GM and as a player, and each time, I have felt my attention wandering. To me, the setting and the care taken with it is integral to my experience. This was a large part of why I never liked 4th edition, because I felt it was all a loosely-defined battlemap mainly concerned with all PCs being roughly equal in power.
So... I ask the players if they have interest in playing a forest themed campaign about why the elves disappeared, including restrictions on race and such (no elves), and if they agree, then whine about it, they are the problem, not me. YMMV. I honestly don't care.
One thing that makes this even worse is when you have a situation where only a few people in the group are willing to GM (unlike the group Kirth keeps referring to, where everyone could do it). In this situation, players who have no insight into GMing keep demanding to play the SAME things every time. You literally can't EVER play a campaign without a drow ranger, meaning significant amounts of your gaming time is spent either breaking immersion or playing out scenes of pitchforks and thrown shoes, EVERY CAMPAIGN. And if you don't let the players do as they wish, what happens? Yes. You're a BAD GM. Just like the "players must be allowed to play anything they like" crowd is doing here.
Seriously, if someone willing to GM asks for an exception to the rules regarding characters, I am FAR more willing to accomodate them than if someone who would never GM did it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A huge number of very big molluscs.
(Kraken 1) YUM, I had no idea twice-half-dragon magma slurks were this tasty!!!
(Kraken 2) I dunno, I am more impressed by the tauric half-fiend drow... but the gelatinous cube nymphs are exceptional today.
(Kraken 3) Buuuuuurp...
Wait... If elves don't exist in the setting, then shouldn't there be no histories or proclivities for them in the setting? If would be silly, for example, for dwarves to have a rivalry with a non-existent race.
Ha, the great Dwarven rivalry with... no one.
In one of my games, the humans genocided them after the Dwarves took them under their wing and raised their tech level. So any left would hate humans far more than elves.
I wasn't aware deity-to-follower powers were limited by geography
General Rules vs Specific Setting. Specific trumps General.
Try casting in the Mana Wastes in Golorian, or arguing that nothing in the rules say the Mana Wastes should exist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bolters and genetic augmentation are the standard issue for Space Marines, not lasers and cybernetics. Pray the omnissiah didn't hear your blasphemies!
I would shrug, but it's hard to do over the internet. :) I have no idea which Space Marines we're talking about. :) Warhammer, VOR, Halo, Twilight 2300? :)
As to your setting, personally if you had a good reason for the continents not having continuous trade, especially if magic and such is prevalent, I wouldn't see a problem sticking to those races. There could be plenty of reasons that would be acceptable, but arbitrarily saying no seems odd.
Actually, there is. Trade via ocean ship is dangerous, as the god of the oceans attacks any ship he finds on the oceans. A sufficiently powerful cleric of the God of Rivers and Waters can hide a ship, or an Oracle of Waters can, based on the strength of their Aura, but for a big cargo ship, it takes either a really high level cleric (15th or 20th) or it takes 4-5 10th level's of such. So yeah, there's very little trade back and forth. There's a lot of coastal trading (as you can basically be within sight of land and be pretty safe) but beyond that, you need clerics or oracles.
Social circumstances make for a great base to create a character. Half-elves who are racially discriminated against play differently than those that aren't. Similarly, a true-breeding racial group of half-orc samurai might not suffer the same stigmas that the traditional orcish lot do. Races don't exist in a vacuum that you can pop them out when you have some picture in your ahead about some vague character. I've had a game where elves were evil fey-like cannibals. You could play an elf, but that's not a Tolkien elf (neither are core rulebook elves for that matter). The circumstances, the ideologies, and cultures are what matter about each racial group. It's the setting that makes the races interesting. Yeah, humans don't have claws, but vikings sure weren't boring, nor were samurais; hell, the Garamantians were a pretty interesting, if not a bit obscure, bunch too. From the spice trade controlling Aksumites to brutal, technologically advanced babylonians, humans have plenty of material to make them interesting.
And I'm fine with people wanting to play the fish out of water, or the shipwrecked freak. Heck, I had a player play a warforged reskinned as a clockwork golem that had been shipwrecked and stuck in a crate so long that it developed a personality and will of it's own. He was uncrated by the other PCs when they were shipwrecked on the same island as him.
But when they got to the Gnomish lands (Gnomes in my game are more akin to Tinker Gnomes, than fey gnomes), they had to talk fast to keep the Gnomes from doing a memory wipe on the Golem to fix it. :)
Mdt, I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but it seems obvious from your descriptions that you're willing to embrace your players preferences rather than say, "Play an elf? Sorry, no, there just aren't any on the entire planet."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly I didn't get what the problem was in mdt's example. I mean, does this world also have no form of continent to continent travel such as boats, flying creatures or items, or teleportation magics?
Seriously, have the fun of such a campaign would be the fish out of water effect of being some guy who's a 100% normal bumpkin in his homeland, only to set out on adventure and find a land where he's seen as strange, exotic, or maybe even scary!
Soooooooooo much opportunity there. Especially if he made some friends and decided to bring them back to his homeland!
And as my example stated, that was allowed, but they'd be a wierd outlandish foreign creature and treated like that.
There is trade (See above, shipping is very dangerous), and the setting has rules that make teleportation magic dangerous without the use of special teleportation node sites, so yes, travel between continents is dangerous. It's getting better, they're learning better ways to do it, but it's still a major event when a ship from another continent arrives. Each continent has 1 or 2 major ports only. Smaller ports can accept a foreign ship, but only 1 or 2 specialize in foreign trade, due to the extreme lack of it due to the danger.
On a separate note, the world is also very big. It's 3 times the size of earth, but 95% ocean. So while the Northern and Southern continents are the size of Asia each, they are also 6000 miles apart, and both are about 8000 miles from the eastern continent. And they're all on one half of the planet, the other half is ocean (or at least, nobody is sure what the rest of it is).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Scenario :In this scenario, nobody's a jerk yet. (Well, neutering the divine caster on continent B wanders close to a personal flashpoint, but that's not objective enough a measure to bring into the conversation).
In this scenario, more negotiation is required. You don't have a concensus against anyone, unless I misread the post. If all of the players had said 'oh, hey, that 'bringing the gods back to the land' thing sounds fun...let's all do divine casters!', then the DM has a couple of options ('OK, but it's not going to be easy. The following house rules will be in effect.' [the above argument then starts], 'You aren't progressed enough in the world to attempt that', 'let's start on continent A and I'll get you to C with that goal in mind about the time you're read for it', 'I don't want to play that game right now...I'm not ready for it'.)
Negotiation is part of the social contract, right? The point isn't that people get their way, the point is the whole group should have a say in what goes on at the table. If the majority of players come down on the side of the Special Flower, and are immutable, then try to find a way to accomodate, because it's a game, ultimately, and not worth pages and pages of butting heads.
The whole point of the post was to make people stop and think about what they were arguing. A lot of people, I think, had gotten on a high horse and were not coming down off it for anything short of thermonuclear war (would you like to play a game?).
Games should be something everyone can agree on. My point (and it seems to be working) is that everyone should be reasonable, and people who are unwilling to be reasonable (and I see only one example of someone still beating their 'I am the special snowflake and the GM must cater to me cause he is only another player with different duties' horse), so I think at least the thread is moving in a more positive direction. It was getting a bit mired in flaming and personal insults.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mdt, I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but it seems obvious from your descriptions that you're willing to embrace your players preferences rather than say, "Play an elf? Sorry, no, there just aren't any on the entire planet."
To a certain extent.
But there are limits in place. For example, if the PCs want to play Humans/Dwarves/Elves etc on the Northern Continent, they are going to be shipwrecked travelers, and they will have to deal with openly hostile non-core races pretty much every square mile of the way until they reach the civilized/neutral lands. No human cities to stop in and sell stuff, so a lot of scrounging. I'd say that up front (unless this was a 'surprise us' game, or a completely new game with everyone showing up having never met, which has happened before). But, in general, I try to work with the players to accommodate what they want within the limits imposed by the story we're running. Running the story of the exploration of the continent by the uber lawful insular 'Last Bastion of Good' city inhabitants that tell tales of 9 foot humans who breath fire and eat babies doesn't work so well if one of them is a human rogue with an 8 str and 20 dex who's 5 foot 4 with a nose as big as a ratfolks, you know?
To me, it's about reasonableness. If the game is taking place in the desert on the southern continent, pretty much anything goes. There's a couple of major ports, the desert is the dumping ground for other countries to exile undesirables, the three desert kingdoms are run by (A) A country where the King or Queen must be an illigitimate byblow of the former ruler (the current Queen being a half-orc Fighter who's ruling title is 'Her Magnificent Bustyness The Bastardess Queen Halflot'), (B) an Orc kingdom that's half comprised of savage barbarian tribes, and the other half heavily civilized and mercenary orcs who have a small navy and a huge military and use the barbarian hordes as shock troops, and (C) a nearly desolate kingdom with one big city that specializes in the most efficient and deadly mercinary outfits in the world.
If the game is taking place in A or C, then it's more than possible a lone Kitsune Samurai washed up, and he or she is unlikely to draw all that much attention.
On the other hand, if it's taking place in the uber-lawful, we have more Paladin's per Capita than the rest of the world combined, Lawful-Good human country where it's karmically required that all newborns have a steel rod inserted into their backbone and a nose job so they can look down on all other peoples, then that Kitsune Samurai is going to be lucky if he can get a job as a dog walker.
mdt, you... you... you magnificent tiger! It was dead! DEAD!
EDIT:
Also, nifty setting, themes, and ideas.
I'd not say anyone - GM or players - are being jerks about anything at all, though they're all being a little - very little - inflexible in their view. The players (understandably) are being more so than the GM, however Player A has a pretty decent case for "this should work", Player B has a decent case for "great idea hampered by arbitrary mechanics" (from their perspective), and Player C is just being a teensy bit silly.
The GM's inflexibility comes from the hard work and focus he's placed into a campaign and has developed the concepts for. It's entirely understandable. It's even rather reasonable. His only flaw is not exercising or holding enough creative license to accommodate them. Which, really, is a flaw most GMs share to some degree or another. It comes from being mortal. Their inflexibility doesn't make them a bad GM.
To me, given what the GM said, it would be amazing to have a human in the Northern city... because no one would recognize what he is. There are so many legends and ideas wrapped around him, he seems far more likely to be mistaken for some strange sort of mongrel (perhaps some sort of unfortunately pale goblin/drow/orc crossbreed) than for what he actually is: a human. Most likely he'd receive a lot of pity (for his obvious mixed up heritage), empathy (for being "yet another race chased out by monsters"), or complete disregard ("meh, I've seen weirder"). Only upon revealing his race on purpose would things actually come into play. If the player is rather careful about it, it wouldn't even need to be an issue... or it could, depending on what the player and GM decide.
To me, given what the GM said, the struggle to play that cleric in the Southern continent would be rewarding. However most people don't like their mechanics messed with that much. So player B is understandably frustrated at the idea. However, he has the option of changing his character concept as well. Perhaps he's not a cleric. Or his personal quest is to find what's interfering with divine magic and destroy it (or restore the gods). In any event, he's likely to take the Leadership feat (to gain followers and worshipers for the gods), which is a massive story-hook potential for the GM. It could be interesting to see what he does if people start worshiping him.
Player C just makes me laugh. "Because they're cute!" Hahah! That's classic. :)
(A kitsune could totally blend in as a human, though.)
I do have a question about no one to train with. What would that mean, game-wise?
So, in the end, while players A and B have better cases, player A has the worst attitude of the group, and player C has the weakest case for "how the world should react to me". And all three players and the GM are being inflexible.
:)