| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Off topic:
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess that if a detail is important today but not next week, it probably wasn't very important at all to begin with.
Well, we're talking about RPGs; none of it is very important to begin with. :P
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The gm isn't a public utility.
Indeed, I object to being defecated on.
Off topic: ** spoiler omitted **
I keep this up I'm going to be the Kevin Bacon of the Paizo forums.
I do find it strange when a GM says, "Everyone is told humans are 9 foot fire breathing monsters." And then says they would immediately be able to correctly identify a human, that doesn't fit that description. Wouldn't they assume the human was some other type of humanoid more similar to what they are familiar with? "It looks like one of those rare weak pink skin offsprings that shows up in that orc tribe over there" (due to having half-orc blood in their line).Nope, never said they would immediately recognize them. Thanks for the straw man though, they are rather easier to knock down I know, but I really do have a warehouse full at this point.
The statement was, there are none, period. As in, it don't exist. Kind of like a snipe. You can go on a snipe hunt all you want, it doesn't exist. There you go. Strawman disassembled, please return it where you found it, I'm sure there is a straw woman and straw children somewhere worried about it and eager to put it back together again for some other argument.
See but then you had made posts like:
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?
Which seems to imply that the inhabitants would know that the humanoid rogue with the big nose and only stands 5'4" is somehow a human. Why wouldn't they think that creature was something else, but clearly not human. You can't really have it both ways. You can't say that everyone believes humans are these crazy scary creatures and then say that when the humans are seen that don't match that description they are somehow immediately recognized and thus ruining the setting. They can go on telling their stories of the spooky humans, why should rat nose creature effect that?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, you should not vote to play on that continent should you? Nor should you play in a game I run if you don't want to play in a world where that continent exists. And that is perfectly fine. If you find it unfun, don't play. Run the game instead, put in whatever rules you want, in whatever setting you want. But have the decency to allow players to demand to play any character in any setting, since you wish to enforce this on the person GMing when you play. Remember that, if you insist on every option being available on the table when you play, you should GM and have no restrictions either. Otherwise, you are the unfun one. And if you don't GM, you really do have very little in the way of a leg to stand on. Because you are criticizing the way people GM, without ever having been in their shoes.So yeah, to be more clear, it's that to add a houserule that the Druid class needs an actual, particular deific entity backing them (even if that entity can be different for each Druid) in a campaign taking place on a continent where the gods aren't in play, strikes me as needlessly un-fun.
I think you may be misreading his argument. From where I stand, here's the deal:
You say that in your setting, there are no specific individual Deities. Therefore, you assert, there are no classes that depend on such Deities like Clerics, Druids, Paladins, or Inquisitors. There are, however Oracles (Presumably given their visions by the collective of Celestials/Emperyal Lords or an indistinct "Light" like in Warcraft).
But what claymade is pointing out is that not all Druids are connected to a specific Deity. Much like Oracles, they gain their power from the collective power of Nature itself (and possibly it's spirits). The Iconic Lini, for example is a devotee of the Green Faith, which has no Deity. So, he asks, What about these... well, "Non-Denominational" Druids?
Furthermore (and this is me speaking), The rules state that Clerics, Paladins, and Inquisitors don't have to have specific Deities either. They can draw power from their belief in patriotism or in an ideal. So by your setting's rule, it's still possible to have them, too (just not, one presumes, nearly as prevalent as they are in Golarion).
So the problem he's bringing up is not in your rule, but the fact that the supposition it's based on is incorrect, or at least incomplete. It would probably be simpler to just say "No Divine Spellcasters other than Oracles because that's the way this place developed" and leave it at that.
Which seems to imply that the inhabitants would know that the humanoid rogue with the big nose and only stands 5'4" is somehow a human.
Thanks for the new strawman, but as I said, I have plenty.
Once again, it doesn't imply that. What it flat out states is you cannot have a human in the city that has no humans. Perhaps if I bold it you can read it clearer? It is like saying that we are going to have a room with only whites and blacks and grays, but then putting a giant blue couch in it.
You cannot have a white room with a blue couch. You cannot have a city where the premise is that there are no humans if you have a human secretly living in it.
Is that really hard for you to understand?
I think you may be misreading his argument.
Not really, but that's ok, you misread both his argument and my statements, I'll correct below.
From where I stand, here's the deal:You say that in your setting, there are no specific individual Deities. Therefore, you assert, there are no classes that depend on such Deities like Clerics, Druids, Paladins, or Inquisitors. There are, however Oracles (Presumably given their visions by the collective of Celestials/Emperyal Lords or an indistinct "Light" like in Warcraft).
No, that is not what I said. What I said was, that within the world setting, there is a continent that the gods cannot reach to. They do not manifest powers there, they do not answer calls from there, they do not interact with it in any way. There is a reason, but they do not tell mortals, and only explain it to the highest ranking followers of their religion (15th level or higher clerics, paladins, etc).
The Oracles draw on the concepts, not the deities themselves, so they can still draw on their power, since the concept of Water is actually rather powerful in that area, so is the concept of Ancestors, or other Mysteries.
But what claymade is pointing out is that not all Druids are connected to a specific Deity. Much like Oracles, they gain their power from the collective power of Nature itself (and possibly it's spirits). The Iconic Lini, for example is a devotee of the Green Faith, which has no Deity. So, he asks, What about these... well, "Non-Denominational" Druids?
And I answered that within this world setting, there are no non-affiliated Druids, because all Druids have to worship one of about 9 gods. Just as all clerics must. It's a setting specific limitation.
Furthermore (and this is me speaking), The rules state that Clerics, Paladins, and Inquisitors don't have to have specific Deities either. They can draw power from their belief in patriotism or in an ideal. So by your setting's rule, it's still possible to have them, too (just not, one presumes, nearly as prevalent as they are in Golarion).
Again, setting specific on the clerics. Paladins, however, do have to have a deity, per the RAW. They do not have the statement like Clerics do, even in the RAW, about worshiping concepts. Inquisitor's also have this same limitation, they cannot, RAW, be without a deity. Again, the one paragraph in Cleric (which is at the GMs option), does not exist in those two classes.
So the problem he's bringing up is not in your rule, but the fact that the supposition it's based on is incorrect, or at least incomplete. It would probably be simpler to just say "No Divine Spellcasters other than Oracles because that's the way this place developed" and leave it at that.
Again, that is not his argument. His argument was, you shouldn't have that in your setting. Not, you should just get rid of everything but Oracles, because as it was in the original post, there are gods and clerics and druids and inquisitors. But there isn't any on that one continent where the gods cannot reach.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I answered that within this world setting, there are no non-affiliated Druids, because all Druids have to worship one of about 9 gods. Just as all clerics must. It's a setting specific limitation.
Is there an internally-consistent reason for it, or is that just something you decided because it sounded cool?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I answered that within this world setting, there are no non-affiliated Druids, because all Druids have to worship one of about 9 gods. Just as all clerics must. It's a setting specific limitation.Is there an internally-consistent reason for it, or is that just something you decided because it sounded cool?
Isn't that enough of a reason?
More seriously, the thing I see with the back and forth about mdt's stuff is that he said "No God-related stuff in this place here" and immediately got a host of "But what if .." Maybe it's me, but I look at that and say "There must be a reason why God stuff is restricted" instead of "how can I manage to get one in there." Same for the humans/humanoid thingy in disguise argument. It isn't playing in the framework, it's trying to challenge whatever restrictions exist for the sake of doing it and cramming a restricted race/class/whatever in.
And that, in my mind, is what a lot of this is. The question was put to mdt of why he did what he did or was it something that just sounded cool. Turn that around and ask that of a player: is there a game related reason you want to play X, or just because it sounded cool? Many people would consider that insulting a bit, and I imagine many a GM would as well. People on both sides usually believe they have a good reason for what they are doing, and that doesn't always translate well to others.
The short version that we keep circling in the hundreds of posts in this thread is that GMs usually has a reason for what they are doing just like a player usually has a reason, even if that reason on either side is because it sounded cool or is something I like/want.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I answered that within this world setting, there are no non-affiliated Druids, because all Druids have to worship one of about 9 gods. Just as all clerics must. It's a setting specific limitation.Is there an internally-consistent reason for it, or is that just something you decided because it sounded cool?Isn't that enough of a reason?
More seriously, the thing I see with the back and forth about mdt's stuff is that he said "No God-related stuff in this place here" and immediately got a host of "But what if .." Maybe it's me, but I look at that and say "There must be a reason why God stuff is restricted" instead of "how can I manage to get one in there." Same for the humans/humanoid thingy in disguise argument. It isn't playing in the framework, it's trying to challenge whatever restrictions exist for the sake of doing it and cramming a restricted race/class/whatever in.
And that, in my mind, is what a lot of this is. The question was put to mdt of why he did what he did or was it something that just sounded cool. Turn that around and ask that of a player: is there a game related reason you want to play X, or just because it sounded cool? Many people would consider that insulting a bit, and I imagine many a GM would as well. People on both sides usually believe they have a good reason for what they are doing, and that doesn't always translate well to others.
The short version that we keep circling in the hundreds of posts in this thread is that GMs usually has a reason for what they are doing just like a player usually has a reason, even if that reason on either side is because it sounded cool or is something I like/want.
To answer your question: sort of.
The longer answer is that mdt clearly has something in mind, but because he doesn't share that it comes off as dissonant to others.
To me, I'm on the side that GMs have more power. But, you all know the Spiderman saying by Uncle Ben...
So, to me, that means that, as a GM, when someone asks me, "Why?" I have to answer, even if the answer is, "I don't know... it just seems interesting." I'll also have to deal with the fact that some people don't like it and won't play. And if they don't like it... okay. If someone thinks that doesn't sound fun, or they're curious or surprised about something, I'll have to come up with an answer for them. It comes with the power of creating a whole world. They might not like it, or they might. I might have to say, "I'll get back to you on it, after I think." or "I have a reason, but you'll have to trust me." or "It really messes with my creativity, and I just can't summon enthusiasm otherwise." or whatever the case may be. All of those are valid answers and reasons.
Similarly, though, I've got to realize that when I create a setting, when I tweak stuff, it's going to not come off "right" to other people. It's a thing that happens. People don't like the idea, or they go off on their own direction. They critique, criticize, or question. The first and last are great (even if I don't accept the critiques or have a good answer for the questions). The middle can be good or bad.
Again, I'll point to my own threads, as examples of "here's my high idea, now let's refine it" type things.
mdt's world has a consistent setting history, from what I understand. It makes sense to them. But to outsiders, like us, it doesn't. We don't have the background that he and his group do. We don't know what's going on that created that stuff. So it leaves us with metagame questions that bother us.
Why oracles? Why are they the exception? What makes them different?
In a setting where Druids need gods, why don't oracles?
For me, for almost any reason I can come up with, I have a "work around" that I can come up with that would allow other classes, or disallow the oracle. For me, it would make more sense to disallow the oracle on the same grounds as the druid. I don't have mdt's reasons. I have only my own thought process and what I can comprehend from his words, separated by the impersonal wall of text we've got for a forum.
Maybe it makes sense there. I generally leave it at that.
Again, in his setting he can rule things differently.
But, mdt, please, please hear me: you are making presumptions on claymade because he's disagreeing with you... presumptions that are, purposefully or not, insulting.
claymade is saying, "This strikes me as off, because you're house-ruling two things, but not a third which is, to my way of thinking, similar to the first two."
You are replying, "You probably haven't GM'd then."
Your reply is in the error, here, man. It would be more reasonable to simply say, "I have reasons that make sense to me, but I don't want to share it here because I don't want to give spoilers to players who are on these boards." or something.
Similarly with the human in the city of no humans. Again, I'm all for you coming up with reasons. I'm all for you saying, "not in my setting", but the way you portray that in your reply to pres man isn't flattering to you. I don't think pres man was making straw figures at you. I think he was questioning, and I think he had a real dissonance with words that you were saying. I know I did.
Whereas I kept my mouth shut and let it go, he just explained what he felt and why.
That's the thing, though. You're not wrong for mandating something out (at least not in my opinion), but the way you're coming off is... well, it seems a bit like the high-horse you don't like.
To me, questioning the premise of a setting isn't a sign of rudeness (though I can see, now, that it could be seen that way) so much as a sign of interest. And while I'm not able to share all my reasoning, I don't see the problem with sharing some. And if people don't like it... okay. I'll have to accept that. Doesn't make them bad people (or GMs or players), even if I do, personally, feel hurt, sad, or annoyed that they rejected (and even opposed) my premise. Doesn't make me bad either. Just different.
Which seems to imply that the inhabitants would know that the humanoid rogue with the big nose and only stands 5'4" is somehow a human.Thanks for the new strawman, but as I said, I have plenty.
Once again, it doesn't imply that. What it flat out states is you cannot have a human in the city that has no humans. Perhaps if I bold it you can read it clearer? It is like saying that we are going to have a room with only whites and blacks and grays, but then putting a giant blue couch in it.
You cannot have a white room with a blue couch. You cannot have a city where the premise is that there are no humans if you have a human secretly living in it.
Is that really hard for you to understand?
It is more like you saying you can't have a white room if there is a blue napkin that is hidden in a drawer and nobody can see it. The only people that are aware of it are blind and are told that everything is white and so they believe it is white, because they lack the ability to perceive it for what it truly is.
You can tell stories IN-GAME that the city is human free. Now if you have a human NPC or PC in the city, then yes the METAGAME STORY you are telling is not going to be able a totally human free city. I am less worried about the METAGAME STORY being 100% accurate as long as the IN-GAME story is consistent.
And I answered that within this world setting, there are no non-affiliated Druids, because all Druids have to worship one of about 9 gods. Just as all clerics must. It's a setting specific limitation.Is there an internally-consistent reason for it, or is that just something you decided because it sounded cool?
There is an internally consistent reason. If you really want to know, I'll PM you. I don't like to post my backgrounds on the boards because I have players (or may have future players) reading.
And before someone flames, it's not the 'ooh, must keep secret'. It is that I don't want to spoil the surprise and story for the players.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me, questioning the premise of a setting isn't a sign of rudeness (though I can see, now, that it could be seen that way) so much as a sign of interest. And while I'm not able to share all my reasoning, I don't see the problem with sharing some. And if people don't like it... okay. I'll have to accept that. Doesn't make them bad people (or GMs or players), even if I do, personally, feel hurt, sad, or annoyed that they rejected (and even opposed) my premise. Doesn't make me bad either. Just different.
Questioning is fine, and it is how we learn. On message boards, it is a little harder because of text crippling the conversation. Black and white words can come across a little harsher than people may have intended, and intent can get lost.
Standing on the sidelines watching, some of the conversation has gotten heated, some of the questioning bordering on "is it a good reason for what you are doing?" The whole bad GM thing is in poor taste, in my opinion, but that's neither here nor there. There are a lot of ideas on what makes someone good or bad as a game master and ten people will give you twelve opinions on it.
Anyway, the point I was hoping to make and probably lost in the last post was that GMs tend to have ideas that they are as fond of as the player is of wacky fish out of water character idea #21535. Finding a place where both can exist or bending the world to fit both is where the challenge is.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can tell stories IN-GAME that the city is human free. Now if you have a human NPC or PC in the city, then yes the METAGAME STORY you are telling is not going to be able a totally human free city. I am less worried about the METAGAME STORY being 100% accurate as long as the IN-GAME story is consistent.
I think mdt is more concerned with the fact that the story agreed upon is 'non-humans with folk tales of mythical humans exploring the wild' while the player has suddenly suggested making the story 'lone human and companions surviving in a non-human society that has no experience with humans'.
It is more like you saying you can't have a white room if there is a blue napkin that is hidden in a drawer and nobody can see it. The only people that are aware of it are blind and are told that everything is white and so they believe it is white, because they lack the ability to perceive it for what it truly is.You can tell stories IN-GAME that the city is human free. Now if you have a human NPC or PC in the city, then yes the METAGAME STORY you are telling is not going to be able a totally human free city. I am less worried about the METAGAME STORY being 100% accurate as long as the IN-GAME story is consistent.
It is not hidden in a drawer if it's out wiping up spilled tea, sitting on the coffee table, and hanging on the corner of the TV.
If the human does exist and is hidden away, then he's not running around being a hero. See how that works?
I think mdt is more concerned with the fact that the story agreed upon is 'non-humans with folk tales of mythical humans exploring the wild' while the player has suddenly suggested making the story 'lone human and companions surviving in a non-human society that has no experience with humans'.
*ding ding ding ding*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To me, questioning the premise of a setting isn't a sign of rudeness (though I can see, now, that it could be seen that way) so much as a sign of interest. And while I'm not able to share all my reasoning, I don't see the problem with sharing some. And if people don't like it... okay. I'll have to accept that. Doesn't make them bad people (or GMs or players), even if I do, personally, feel hurt, sad, or annoyed that they rejected (and even opposed) my premise. Doesn't make me bad either. Just different.Questioning is fine, and it is how we learn. On message boards, it is a little harder because of text crippling the conversation. Black and white words can come across a little harsher than people may have intended, and intent can get lost.
Standing on the sidelines watching, some of the conversation has gotten heated, some of the questioning bordering on "is it a good reason for what you are doing?" The whole bad GM thing is in poor taste, in my opinion, but that's neither here nor there. There are a lot of ideas on what makes someone good or bad as a game master and ten people will give you twelve opinions on it.
Anyway, the point I was hoping to make and probably lost in the last post was that GMs tend to have ideas that they are as fond of as the player is of wacky fish out of water character idea #21535. Finding a place where both can exist or bending the world to fit both is where the challenge is.
That's several points I entirely agree with. I actually don't think you were wrong in your other post, either.
I also think mdt received too much heat.
What I was attempting to do myself was redirect things from a "he said she said" or "how could you mean" when that seemed like it was building toward.
It's weird how easy it is to get irritable with someone when they're trying to be honest and straight forward. :/
I like mdt's most recent post, though!
EDIT: now there's an even more "most recent post"!
I think mdt is more concerned with the fact that the story agreed upon is 'non-humans with folk tales of mythical humans exploring the wild' while the player has suddenly suggested making the story 'lone human and companions surviving in a non-human society that has no experience with humans'.*ding ding ding ding*
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
T3h 3v1ls!! BURN IT! BURN IT WITH FIRE!
EDIT 2:
Heck, I'd tend to PM you even if I was going to be a player! I know, I know. Most people hate that. But, you know, I've never really cared about spoilers. I knew how Harry Potter ended before I ever read the book. A page-turner. I'll read all about a story before I read the story itself. I find it helps with comprehension and absorption with what's really going on, having the context or a short version in my head first. It generally enhances my enjoyment. Similarly, I've never loved getting Christmas presents as much as when my wife and I have started going, "Hey, you want this? Okay, I'll buy it." Yeah, I'm weird that way.
EDIT 3: "The EDITING"
If you don't live in FL, mdt, I'll totally ask you for a PM. If you DO live in FL, I'll ask you to PM me if it doesn't bother you if a player knows who would totally buy into the story.
Multiple things
Well, to be perfectly honest, I really don't care how I sound on the internet. I long ago figured out that no matter how I try to sound, someone will take offense, someone will decide I am walking on water, and most everyone else will fall somewhere inbetween. :)
I'd rather try to give my honest opinion, of both other things, and other people, and let the chips fall where they may. I do try to be a *bit* more diplomatic in person, but I think ToZ would probably agree even in person, I'm pretty blunt. :)
If Presman is honestly just not understanding, that's cool. But he really does seem to understand, but can't agree that anything other than 'player has right to do everything' is the way to go. Any sort of setting that doesn't cater to this seems to be an issue, based on his posts. Maybe I'm mis-reading him, but it honestly does seem like that's his stance, based on his boldings.
And in my experience (which may not be correct), people who insist the GM must cater to everything and allow everything and that any setting can be changed to cater, usually haven't GM'd extensively. That's not an insult, it's an observation. I haven't extensively repaired Lamborghini's, I haven't extensively dated Supermodels. That means on those subjects, my opinion has less weight, and I have less experience, than the girl who works on Jay Leno's cars, and Jay Leno on dating Supermodels. There's nothing wrong with having little experience in something, but it should be something we recognize when we're telling others that they are having badwrongunfun. :)
I'd ask for that PM you mentioned but I don't know if I want to spoil it should I ever land back at your table again. :P
No problem. Like I said, if you ever want the PM, I'm happy to hand it out. And it does have a tie in with your little dragon issues you guys were having. :)
You can tell stories IN-GAME that the city is human free. Now if you have a human NPC or PC in the city, then yes the METAGAME STORY you are telling is not going to be able a totally human free city. I am less worried about the METAGAME STORY being 100% accurate as long as the IN-GAME story is consistent.I think mdt is more concerned with the fact that the story agreed upon is 'non-humans with folk tales of mythical humans exploring the wild' while the player has suddenly suggested making the story 'lone human and companions surviving in a non-human society that has no experience with humans'.
Like I said, that is an issue of the metagame story, not the in-game description that the inhabitants are aware of. Which is fine. As Kirth has pointed out ad nauseum if everybody wants to play a certain type of game except for one douchebag, then that douchebag is a douchebag.
It is not hidden in a drawer if it's out wiping up spilled tea, sitting on the coffee table, and hanging on the corner of the TV.
If the human does exist and is hidden away, then he's not running around being a hero. See how that works?
LOL, funny you should phrase it like that, considering I already addressed it with my blind people analogy. Yes, a human running around being a hero is seen. But what is perceived by the viewers? A human? Nope. Humans are 9 foot tall fire breathers, this is a 5'4" big nosed nimble wimp. Surely no human. See, the people observing the human don't perceive a human, they perceive what they expect to perceive, some strange looking humanoid. Maybe it some type of goblinoid or orc. Whatever it is, it sure as hell ain't a human. Hell, depending on the backstory of the character, the character may not themselves realize they are in fact human. The old ugly duckling story.
Basically just this on a bigger scale. People see exactly what they expect to see. Perception is the vessel that reality is poured into.
Now, just so we are clear, since you obviously are confused about my "position" in this discuss. I am not saying a GM HAS to allow a player to play a human in that situation. I just think if the GM is actually willing to try to work it out, there are ways they can do it that would be totally consistent with the setting. Now maybe that changes the METAGAME story line the group was initially going to play, but that is a separate issue.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I think gets missed - the GM isn't just the person facilitating the Player's fun. He should have fun himself. He doesn't get anything to play that is really his - NPCs aren't. But for someone who put a serious homebrew together, especially with a particular tone and theme in mind, that is his as much as any character is the player.
I use homebrew worlds. I make them detailed and allow for many options, but when the world has existed for 20 real years, and certain concepts and ideas are core to the shared experience of players within that world - players that may be playing in a new campaign - a new player coming into that game will not be able to play something that has been banned for 20 years, as that is how it has been done for the other players.
I never let a character into a world I GM without speaking with the player first. I have race, class or other limitations. I lay that out for them - what is allowed in my world is "the rules" they play by. Just like house-rules that my group has played by for 12 years. I won't willy nilly change a houserule that has worked with the group for over a decade for the whims or opinions of 1 new player (I will consider it), I do the same for class and race choices. It is my world, just like your character is your character and I won't change it just because.
As an example - the elves in my world (and this has been this way since first edition came out with Oriental Adventures) are the "generic Asian culture" Katana's, chucks, martial arts and such are "elven weapons". If someone wants to play an elf that isn't normal for that world will be a "Gaijin Elf" and treated as such by the elves of the world.If he doesn't want that prejudice, he shouldn't play an elf. Because that is how the culture has been for decades (in real time) in this world, and the other players are already invested the that culture, history and such, including past player characters.\
If someone wanted to play in a pure Golarion game and wanted to worship Thor or Zagyg, the player couldn't because that is not in Golarion. I expect the same respect for my already existing campaign world.
If you want to do something new, sure, I'll work with you - but not if it is the opposite of established world reality.
But I always lay out what the world is like and tone and such to a new player so he can make what choices he wants within the structure of my world. I would never let a character not built for my world to play in it. If a player wanted to play an "elseworlds" version of a character with a history and approach that fits mine, but not the same one (barring no issues in tone and I'll let dimensional ruptures happen, but the character would be brand new landed in my world kind of thing).
I'm sure the fact that the core of my game group has been together since '89 and played in a continues campaign world (even with different characters) that whole time, likely colors my view.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I figured we probably were, TOZ was too enamoured of your GMing style for us to be that far apart. :)Cyzzane says you used a few more maps than Kirth and that was about it. :P
B..B...Bu..Buttttt!
MAPS!
How can you not like maps!
:)
mdt wrote:
It is not hidden in a drawer if it's out wiping up spilled tea, sitting on the coffee table, and hanging on the corner of the TV.If the human does exist and is hidden away, then he's not running around being a hero. See how that works?
LOL, funny you should phrase it like that, considering I already addressed it with my blind people analogy. Yes, a human running around being a hero is seen. But what is perceived by the viewers? A human? Nope. Humans are 9 foot tall fire breathers, this is a 5'4" big nosed nimble wimp. Surely no human. See, the people observing the human don't perceive a human, they perceive what they expect to perceive, some strange looking humanoid. Maybe it some type of goblinoid or orc. Whatever it is, it sure as hell ain't a human. Hell, depending on the backstory of the character, the character may not themselves realize they are in fact human. The old ugly duckling story.
I feel like I'm stuck in an Abott and Costello routine about telling her in the bank.
It doesn't matter whether anyone could or would recognize the *$#& human, he don't $#*&#$ exist to be recognized or mistaken because his race died out 1000 $#*#$& years ago. Apparently this is a concept you simply can't get through your pupils.
It is not the case that they are rare, like a four leaf clover. It is not that they are exceedingly rare, like an honest politician. They have the same population in that city and the surrounding countryside that a rainbow maned, silver horned, platinum hoofed, gum drop bodied, gold defecating, wine urinating, singing flying unicorn has in the real world. ZERO.
So there is no human running around being confused for a pale orc, there is no human running around in body paint with fake vulcan ears pretending to be a drow, there is no human. Period. Stop. End.
If you want to play a human, we'll run a game in a different part of the world, or we'll start off on that continent as shipwreck victims and everyone starts as a core race and everyone is fish out of water.
But there is no freaking special snow flake last human who somehow survived for 1000 years in hiding because it does not exist.
EDIT : Tacticslion, do you still think Pres Man is misunderstanding posts?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like I'm stuck in an Abott and Costello routine about telling her in the bank.
It doesn't matter whether anyone could or would recognize the *$#& human, he don't $#*&#$ exist to be recognized or mistaken because his race died out 1000 $#*#$& years ago. Apparently this is a concept you simply can't get through your pupils.
It is not the case that they are rare, like a four leaf clover. It is not that they are exceedingly rare, like an honest politician. They have the same population in that city and the surrounding countryside that a rainbow maned, silver horned, platinum hoofed, gum drop bodied, gold defecating, wine urinating, singing flying unicorn has in the real world. ZERO.
So there is no human running around being confused for a pale orc, there is no human running around in body paint with fake vulcan ears pretending to be a drow, there is no human. Period. Stop. End.
If you want to play a human, we'll run a game in a different part of the world, or we'll start off on that continent as shipwreck victims and everyone starts as a core race and everyone is fish out of water.
But there is no freaking special snow flake last human who somehow survived for 1000 years in hiding because it does not exist.
Nobody said they were hiding and surviving for 1000 years. So as you say, straw-man go home.
As you say here, humans exist in the setting, and as you point out it is possible for humans and other core races to reach the continent. So claims that it is 100% impossible for a human to reach the city is a flawed premise WITHIN THE GAME SETTING. Of course you as the GM can feel free to ignore all of the other elements in the game setting, I don't know if I'd call that true to the setting, but you are free to be as internally inconsistent in order to protect your divided entirely different worlds that you call "continents" as you wish.
Now as a game group, if you want to play a last good city non-core races adventures and one douche-bag wants to play a core race and refuses to accept that premise, then feel free to call that douche-bag a douche-bag and boot them from you group. I and others have been saying that this entire discussion. But please at least be intellectually honest with yourself that this is not ultimately an issue of the setting, but of the metagame adventure the group wants to play.
I think you're both on opposing sides of something.
I don't think he's purposefully misrepresenting you. I think you're taking umbrage to something that he's not trying to goad you with.
At this point, I'd just encourage the two of you to stop talking for a little while.
He's made his case, and, to me, it makes sense. To you, it doesn't. Probably for the reasons Lord Mhoram gave (a great post, by the way, Mhoram).
Anyway, I don't think he's trying to goad you. I think you each have conflicting views and aren't seeing what the other is.
EDIT: but no, seriously, are you in Florida? And if you are, does it bother you if I know anyway? 'Cause I really wanna know. I'll even roll up a 16th level cleric, just so I can!
EDIT 2: SWEEEEEEEEEEEEEET!
Here's an interesting one.
I have a setting where humans were created artificially using genetic magic, blending traits of elves and dwarves. There weren't any humans before this project.
Should I accomodate someone who wants to play a human that's not a descendant of the initial batch produced by this magic?
Here's one.
When I ran the Rise of the Runelords back in 3.5, I changed Varisians into straight up halflings and Shoanti into orcs (the sheriff was a half-orc while his brother was a full orc). Was deviating from a published setting, one made before the people playing it ever started designing a character, wrong?
Here's an interesting one.
I have a setting where humans were created artificially using genetic magic, blending traits of elves and dwarves. There weren't any humans before this project.
Should I accomodate someone who wants to play a human that's not a descendant of the initial batch produced by this magic?
Are you adamantly set on running that setting and no other?
)Does the group, as a whole, go along with it?
Do you really want that one guy to play? Can he not come up with a concept he likes within the confines of the world as-presented?
Does the group generally go along with the idea?
Is there no one else to GM?
If the answer to all these questions is "yes" than probably. If not, I recommend more talking and probably another solution.
He's made his case, and, to me, it makes sense. To you, it doesn't. Probably for the reasons Lord Mhoram gave (a great post, by the way, Mhoram).
Not really, his case makes no sense, since he's trying to say 'Here is how you can have a human in the campaign setting designed for non humans and not have it really affect things' when it really really does, since it invalidates the entire concept of 'there are no humans here, explore as non humans'. I honestly don't get how anyone can say that having a human in a campaign designed around the idea that there are no humans doesn't invalidate the entire concept.
I didn't say humans could never set foot on the continent, about a dozen times, I said they can't be in the campaign set in that city. A different campaign about shipwreck survivors in the 'Evil North' yes, sure, done it before, will eventually do it again. But a human in the city where no humans are, and no way to get them there without a thousand things going exactly right to get that one human there, and then somehow integrated in without anyone ever noticing he's human? Uh, yeah, no, again, it invalidates the entire concept of a campaign without humans.
Anyway, I don't think he's trying to goad you. I think you each have conflicting views and aren't seeing what the other is.
We can disagree on that, but I think it's useless to argue with him further, so in that we agree. I might as well keep shouting 'He is third base' at the top of my lungs. It'll be as useful.
EDIT 2: SWEEEEEEEEEEEEEET!
Sorry, in Texas, but I take the second edit to mean you noticed I sent you the deific specifications for the world, and that you like the extremely tangled web that doesn't have a single 'minor thread' woven into it? :)
Another potentially controversial point: Only five of my fifteen gods grant divine magic. :P
Is there an internally-consistent reason for it, or is that just something you decided because it sounded cool?Isn't that enough of a reason?
Possibly no. Pretend I decide it just sounds cool that all halflings wear sunglasses all the time. No real reason, the fancy just struck me one day. My friend Biff comes along and wants to play a halfling, but he thinks fantasy heroes with sunglasses are stupid, so he says he'll pass on that particular item of equipment. I tell him, "Sorry, Biff. There are no halflings in my world that don't wear sunglasses." He says, "Well, my halfling maybe lost his, or they got destroyed in a fight, so he's between pairs."
If I had an ounce of respect for Biff, I'd probably let him go with that, and maybe work in having him always looking for new shades as a recurring gimmick, and have NPC halflings all the time asking him where his sunglasses are, and we all get what we want.
If I were a douchebag, I'd say, "You can't play something that doesn't exist! THERE ARE NO HALFLINGS WHO DON'T WEAR SUNGLASSES. You can accept that or leave, but don't try to ruin all MY fun by trying to weasel your way around having to wear them, because that won't fly with me!"
Now, if you have a plot device planned that requires halflings to be hyper-sensitive to light, and that's why they're all wearing shades, then at least you have a modicum of defensibility for your hard-line stance. But if not, if you just made it up randomly because you happened to think it sounded cool, then really you need to re-evaluate your priorities.
Possibly no. Pretend I decide it just sounds cool that all halflings wear sunglasses all the time. No real reason, the fancy just struck me one day. My friend Biff comes along and wants to play a halfling, but he thinks fantasy heroes with sunglasses are stupid, so he says he'll pass on that particular item of equipment. I tell him, "Sorry, Biff. There are no halflings in my world that don't wear sunglasses." He says, "Well, my halfling maybe lost his, or they got destroyed in a fight, so he's between pairs."
If I had an ounce of respect for Biff, I'd probably let him go with that, and maybe work in having him always looking for new shades as a recurring gimmick, and have NPC halflings all the time asking him where his sunglasses are, and we all get what we want.
If I were a douchebag, I'd say, "You can't play something that doesn't exist! THERE ARE NO HALFLINGS WHO DON'T WEAR SUNGLASSES. You can accept that or leave, but don't try to ruin all MY fun by trying to weasel your way around having to wear them, because that won't fly with me!"
But as we all know, this is a straw DM. Nobody is arguing in favor of either DM or player being an unreasonable t~**.
I think this thread, while going round-and-round, is really just a bunch of people saying "I hate jerks at the table" to which we can all agree.
Some of us differ at where we draw the line for jerk Player and jerk DM. But that's just because we're all different people.
Nobody is arguing in favor of either DM or player being an unreasonable t%%&.
Good to know -- but it pays to remember that everyone's definition of "unreasonable" is different from everyone else's.
P.S. As an experiment, try going back and reading the statements I'm replying to, and see how that brief exchange would sound to you, if you were concerned about playing with an overly-restrictive DM:
"Why did you ban X, again?"
"Because I felt like it. That's a good enough reason!"
Nobody is arguing in favor of either DM or player being an unreasonable t%%&.Good to know -- but it pays to remember that everyone's definition of "unreasonable" is different from everyone else's.
Yep,
I actually had a player who thought wearing lime green pants and a royal purple shirt to my games was perfectly reasonable. Can you believe it? Some people...
I actually had a player who thought wearing lime green pants and a royal purple shirt to my games was perfectly reasonable.
In this case, if he's still alive, you're a far more reasonable person than I am!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually had a player who thought wearing lime green pants and a royal purple shirt to my games was perfectly reasonable.In this case, if he's still alive, you're a far more reasonable person than I am!
Alive, yes. Unscarred.. not really. Turns out polyester is very flammable...
"I love those new hairsyles. I LOVE that polyester look!"
--The club DJ from Saturday Night Fever.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there an internally-consistent reason for it, or is that just something you decided because it sounded cool?Isn't that enough of a reason?Possibly no. Pretend I decide it just sounds cool that all halflings wear sunglasses all the time. No real reason, the fancy just struck me one day. My friend Biff comes along and wants to play a halfling, but he thinks fantasy heroes with sunglasses are stupid, so he says he'll pass on that particular item of equipment. I tell him, "Sorry, Biff. There are no halflings in my world that don't wear sunglasses." He says, "Well, my halfling maybe lost his, or they got destroyed in a fight, so he's between pairs."
If I had an ounce of respect for Biff, I'd probably let him go with that, and maybe work in having him always looking for new shades as a recurring gimmick, and have NPC halflings all the time asking him where his sunglasses are, and we all get what we want.
If I were a douchebag, I'd say, "You can't play something that doesn't exist! THERE ARE NO HALFLINGS WHO DON'T WEAR SUNGLASSES. You can accept that or leave, but don't try to ruin all MY fun by trying to weasel your way around having to wear them, because that won't fly with me!"
Now, if you have a plot device planned that requires halflings to be hyper-sensitive to light, and that's why they're all wearing shades, then at least you have a modicum of defensibility for your hard-line stance. But if not, if you just made it up randomly because you happened to think it sounded cool, then really you need to re-evaluate your priorities.
It's a case of don't get your ketchup in my peanut butter. If I'm playing RotRL and some other player shows up and wants to play a mecha pilot using the synthesist summoner rules, I HOPE the GM will say, "not no but HELL NO." I want that GM to be uncompromising about that (not about synthesisists, but about no mecha laser beams in Sandpoint). But, as in all matters of taste, YMMV.
The polite thing to do as a player is accept, rather than attempt to circumvent, the GM's setting restrictions and guidelines. You don't always get to play exactly what you want. I might really, really want to play a holy gun paladin in PFS, but it's not allowed. So instead of blowing up Mike Brock's inbox complaining about GM dbaggery, I just play something else.
Besides, campaigns don't last forever. You will finish one and move on and maybe it'll be somebody else's turn to GM, in a different setting, with different restrictions. Eventually you will get a chance to play your half-drow vampire dragon disciple gunslinger--or you will experience the joy of anticipation of the future time in which you do.
That's all these GM-instituted character restrictions amount to. It's not "never," it's "not right now."
I have plenty of character ideas kicking around in my head, just waiting for the right campaign. I'm currently enjoying the pleasure of finally getting to play a samurai in my buddy's Jade Regent game, where it's super campaign-appropriate and awesome. Probably wouldn't have been so awesome if I had tried to shoehorn it into Carrion Crown, for instance.
It is absolutely the purview of the GM to establish the game's tone. All the details that many posters upthread consider trivial combine to produce that tone. There's wiggle room to accommodate player desires, but only to a point--if I invite people over for burgers and somebody wants onion on theirs, OK. But if they want fried chicken instead, sorry, it's not that kind of party. Conversely, if I invite everybody over for burgers and 5 of 6 people reply, "yeah, we did burgers last week and we're burgered out, but Bob says he wants to do a fried chicken party," well, we should all go over to Bob's and bring biscuits.
Nobody is arguing in favor of either DM or player being an unreasonable t%%&.Good to know -- but it pays to remember that everyone's definition of "unreasonable" is different from everyone else's.
P.S. As an experiment, try going back and reading the statements I'm replying to, and see how that brief exchange would sound to you, if you were concerned about playing with an overly-restrictive DM:
"Why did you ban X, again?"
"Because I felt like it. That's a good enough reason!"
I think it's a straw DM quote. You literally have the DM shouting at the player.
Normal human DM would more likely say, "My world doesn't have X. I can't tell you why." Which some might still say is unreasonable. But it isn't a shouting jerk.
Don't play games with people who won't have a civilized conversation with you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Possibly no. Pretend I decide it just sounds cool that all halflings wear sunglasses all the time. No real reason, the fancy just struck me one day. My friend Biff comes along and wants to play a halfling, but he thinks fantasy heroes with sunglasses are stupid, so he says he'll pass on that particular item of equipment. I tell him, "Sorry, Biff. There are no halflings in my world that don't wear sunglasses." He says, "Well, my halfling maybe lost his, or they got destroyed in a fight, so he's between pairs."
If I had an ounce of respect for Biff, I'd probably let him go with that, and maybe work in having him always looking for new shades as a recurring gimmick, and have NPC halflings all the time asking him where his sunglasses are, and we all get what we want.
If I were a douchebag, I'd say, "You can't play something that doesn't exist! THERE ARE NO HALFLINGS WHO DON'T WEAR SUNGLASSES. You can accept that or leave, but don't try to ruin all MY fun by trying to weasel your way around having to wear them, because that won't fly with me!"
But as we all know, this is a straw DM. Nobody is arguing in favor of either DM or player being an unreasonable t$&~.
I think this thread, while going round-and-round, is really just a bunch of people saying "I hate jerks at the table" to which we can all agree.
Some of us differ at where we draw the line for jerk Player and jerk DM. But that's just because we're all different people.
Right. And there is a marked difference in doing something for thematic reasons, even if that is just because it is cool, and doing something you think is cool and being a douche when questioned about it. It doesn't appear people in this thread have been doing that when questioned, so painting that picture of them is out of character.
It's sort of like talking to your kids: you can say "Because I said so" or you can explain it a bit more, like "Because you'll set your hair on fire and I don't have time to go to the ER today."
Communication is key, as we've said before. That said, when someone pounds the "why" button over and over again, just like with a child, you get irritated and say "Because." That isn't being a douchebag GM, that's being a frustrated human.
It's a case of don't get your ketchup in my peanut butter. If I'm playing RotRL and some other player shows up and wants to play a mecha pilot using the synthesist summoner rules, I HOPE the GM will say, "not no but HELL NO." I want that GM to be uncompromising about that (not about synthesisists, but about no mecha laser beams in Sandpoint). But, as in all matters of taste, YMMV.
The polite thing to do as a player is accept, rather than attempt to circumvent, the GM's setting restrictions and guidelines. You don't always get to play exactly what you want. I might really, really want to play a holy gun paladin in PFS, but it's not allowed. So instead of blowing up Mike Brock's inbox complaining about GM dbaggery, I just play something else.
Besides, campaigns don't last forever. You will finish one and move on and maybe it'll be somebody else's turn to GM, in a different setting, with different restrictions. Eventually you will get a chance to play your half-drow vampire dragon disciple gunslinger--or you will experience the joy of anticipation of the future time in which you do.
That's all these GM-instituted character restrictions amount to. It's not "never," it's "not right now."
I have plenty of character ideas kicking around in my head, just waiting for the right campaign. I'm currently enjoying the pleasure of finally getting to play a samurai in my buddy's Jade Regent game, where it's super campaign-appropriate and awesome. Probably wouldn't have been so awesome if I had tried to shoehorn it into Carrion Crown, for instance.
It is absolutely the purview of the GM to establish the game's tone. All the details that many posters upthread consider trivial combine to produce that tone. There's wiggle room to accommodate player desires, but only to a point--if I invite people over for burgers and somebody wants onion on theirs, OK. But if they want fried chicken instead, sorry, it's not that kind of party. Conversely, if I invite everybody over for burgers and 5 of 6 people reply, "yeah, we did burgers last week and we're burgered out, but Bob says he wants to do a fried chicken party," well, we should all go over to Bob's and bring biscuits.
This should be stickied somewhere on this thread and referred to over and over again, as there is so much right here (in my opinion.) As Kirth keeps reminding us, people shouldn't be jerks be they GMs or players or people passing through commenting. Take those ideas and write them down, develop them in your off time for the NEXT game, or the one down the road. Ideas don't have expiration dates on them. And yes, the same can be said for settings as well; this is why I keep a default setting on hand for those occasions when running one of the homebrewed isn't going to cut it and I don't want the headache of explaining to myself later why the magma slug PC was even allowed under the rules set up on X world.
Besides, campaigns don't last foreverWhile this is an obviously true statement, it's also a little bit disingenuous. For people who get to play once every 2 weeks, at best, even something as relatively simple as an AP can last for years before the party gets tired of it, wins, loses, or events conspire to end it against the will of the players.
If I make a decision about a character, short of trying to arrange for a suicidal or heroic death (that hopefully doesn't wipe out the party), I could be stuck with that character for a Very Long Time.
I've been playing with the same group of guys for...7(?) years, and we've managed a total of 5 campaigns, I think. And 3 of those were in the first 2 years when we were younger and had more free time.
Just sayin'...it might not be forever, but in practical terms, it can feel that way.
Then couldn't you say the exact same thing about "just try that homebrew campaign later"?
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Besides, campaigns don't last foreverWhile this is an obviously true statement, it's also a little bit disingenuous. For people who get to play once every 2 weeks, at best, even something as relatively simple as an AP can last for years before the party gets tired of it, wins, loses, or events conspire to end it against the will of the players.
If I make a decision about a character, short of trying to arrange for a suicidal or heroic death (that hopefully doesn't wipe out the party), I could be stuck with that character for a Very Long Time.
I've been playing with the same group of guys for...7(?) years, and we've managed a total of 5 campaigns, I think. And 3 of those were in the first 2 years when we were younger and had more free time.
Just sayin'...it might not be forever, but in practical terms, it can feel that way.
Sure, sometimes it does take years to get through campaigns. I've either GM'd or played through several APs, including one Dungeon mag 20 level AP, start to finish, so I know that they can take a long time. If switching characters around is your thing, maybe you'd be better served by playing modules instead of long-term homebrew games or APs. There's nothing wrong with wanting to try something different--but it's not always an appropriate time to do so.
APs take forever.