|
I don't want to be a stodgy, grognardian GM; which is why I'm opening this topic. I won't mince words, I cringe when a player tells me they want to play an exotic race.
What is so funny about this is that my group is pretty upset that I play humans 90% of the time. They keep asking me when am I going to do something different?
So I am playing a Dhampir in the carrion crown AP. This was not enough "off the beaten path" for them.
So I agree with you so very much. I think this is why RP suffers because it is difficult to RP when you have no frame of reference for an undead or half construct character.
And I am the one getting blamed for being a power gamer because humans get a +2 to an attribute and an extra feat.
Arg! Why do I even play with these guys anymore?
(As a reference, we have played 4 ap's, and this is the first one I am not fully human in. We also have had about 5 solo sessions doing the 32 page adventures from Paizo and I have been a human in all of those.)
I don't want to be a stodgy, grognardian GM; which is why I'm opening this topic. I won't mince words, I cringe when a player tells me they want to play an exotic race.What is so funny about this is that my group is pretty upset that I play humans 90% of the time. They keep asking me when am I going to do something different?
So I am playing a Dhampir in the carrion crown AP. This was not enough "off the beaten path" for them.
So I agree with you so very much. I think this is why RP suffers because it is difficult to RP when you have no frame of reference for an undead or half construct character.
And I am the one getting blamed for being a power gamer because humans get a +2 to an attribute and an extra feat.
Arg! Why do I even play with these guys anymore?
(As a reference, we have played 4 ap's, and this is the first one I am not fully human in. We also have had about 5 solo sessions doing the 32 page adventures from Paizo and I have been a human in all of those.)
With Weekly William we have the following
a guy who only plays greedy chaotic neutral axebeard style dwarven fighters, regardless of system
a guy who only plays orderly and disciplined and sometimes ascetic characters, regardless of system
a guy who never plays single classed characters, always sexualizes his characters, and always expects the divine casters in the party to blow resources on remove disease for every STD his character acquires. he complains when a character equals or outperforms him in any one task that his hybrid performs. despite casting 1st level spells at 8th level with a base attack bonus of +2 or +3.
a guy who plays exclusively with oddball uncommon mechanics for a given system because he likes to experiment, always bringing in a third party class or experimenting with new multiclass combinations, in new systems, he will play the most oddball possible options
a guy who only plays characters that can both dominate combat and dominate social encounters, regardless of system
a guy who has to play a male drow every campaign, regardless of system
i personally play near exclusively small framed females of any partially human, partially fey, or other cute race i can lolitafy. i occasionally play males or larger individuals, sometimes both. i refuse to play a halfling, gnome, or goblin, a pixie or kobold is fine.
we have a guy who plays particular builds and designs, purely for the cool factor, but people make jokes about his characters. hates pokemon.
our group is shoehorned into their characters often of their own accord.
@Claymade
Ok, sounds like we're not that far off. I think it's more a difference of where to draw the line. My lines get drawn very flexibly, based on what we decide we are going to do. Once it's agreed though, those lines in the sand get poured in with concrete based on where in the world the campaign is taking place, and what level the players are.
It's a very different thing to say 'I want to play a druid on the godless eastern continent, and I know I'll have issues with getting my magic to work there due to a lack of gods' when the campaign starts at, say, level 5 or 6, when it's perfectly rational for a foreign druid to have landed in the port town and is getting used to the island and hooks up with locals than it is to have a campaign that's starting out in the desert land of the Goddless Eastern Continent with 1st level characters, nowhere near a port, and someone says after everything is agreed upon that they want to play a forest druid and have no restrictions on their magic. Yes?
If the player really really wanted to play the druid, they should argue for either a higher level start, or a different setting. Arguing after the fact to change the setting to fit their character is the part I have problems with.
I'm very flexible on most things ... But there ARE specific and targeted things which are not, even a little bit, flexible. For example I will not, ever, for any reason, gm an evil campaign. I just won't do it, wouldn't have any fun doing it, and don't want to deal with evil players in world, if someone is in that world they need to be at least neutral. Sorry, that's just the way it is.
I have to be able to trust a player to allow them to play Evil characters. Done well it adds a unique element to the game. Done poorly it makes for a very unpleasant experience.
I have to be able to trust a player to allow them to play Evil characters. Done well it adds a unique element to the game. Done poorly it makes for a very unpleasant experience.
My evil characters have done more good for the world than any of my good characters.
I question whether you have ever had any good characters then.
Or if the 'evil' characters were truly evil.
I question whether you have ever had any good characters then.Or if the 'evil' characters were truly evil.
My evil characters evil acts would generally make the world a better place on a hedon scale.
All my good characters ever did was fight evil.
One of my evil character slew a whole village out of spite. A rival army was coming to sack the town. To get away with the crime, I convinced the army that I was merely doing what their war would (elves vs humans, race tensions). After witnessing the slaughter, the elf army lost their zeal and the war was ended right there. My character suffered no consequences. A police player-DM was put in the party though.
A police player-DM was put in the party though.I don't understand what this means.
DM puts an NPC with class levels and player wealth into the party to threaten an intimidate evil PCs from doing evil acts.
In my case it was an elven shaman. It is more common for a DM to put a high level paladin in the party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have zero interest in gming a world for a psycopath character. And its much easier to not have a psychopath be in the party to begin with than to later give him a babysitter to prevent his psychopathy.
DM puts an NPC with class levels and player wealth into the party to threaten an intimidate evil PCs from doing evil acts.Pretty pointless. I would have just had the elven army execute the character for his war crimes.
Seems much more likely.
Which brings me to my other problem with players wanting to play evil characters; they rarely seem to want to also suffer any consequences of their evil actions. They want to be a permanent Karma Houdini.
DM puts an NPC with class levels and player wealth into the party to threaten an intimidate evil PCs from doing evil acts.Pretty pointless. I would have just had the elven army execute the character for his war crimes.
We convinced them that would be hypocritical sense they were planning to slaughter the town anyways.
The only difference is that the village could have fought back.
Which brings me to my other problem with players wanting to play evil characters; they rarely seem to want to also suffer any consequences of their evil actions. They want to be a permanent Karma Houdini.
That's half the fun.
I am injustice manifest. Like the Warlock from LFG. He only got in trouble when he tried to do good things.
*I haven't play a CE character in ages. The concept got tired for me.
|
We convinced them that would be hypocritical sense they were planning to slaughter the town anyways.
The only difference is that the village could have fought back.
It still would have been the right thing to do, rather than let a mass murderer go free. Even if he did show them the mistake they were about to make.
Which brings me to my other problem with players wanting to play evil characters; they rarely seem to want to also suffer any consequences of their evil actions. They want to be a permanent Karma Houdini.
I tell my players if they want to play evil pcs "okay, but you can't be a mass murderer or anything of the sort" the challenge to being evil is not being a jerk about it, if that makes sense.
It still would have been the right thing to do, rather than let a mass murderer go free. Even if he did show them the mistake they were about to make.We convinced them that would be hypocritical sense they were planning to slaughter the town anyways.
The only difference is that the village could have fought back.
It was pretty touch an go. None of them felt in the moral right to take any sort of life, so the shaman decided to follow the group to keep me in line. It was a compromise.
He died somewhere along the way. I swear I wasn't involved.
Mostly the world does for evil characters. Consequences. Other times they get into a tight spot and the other PCs / NPCs don't risk too much for them. On a couple of occasions the other PCs have done them in. Would you trust a murdering psychopath with your life?
In my experience, many---if not most---PCs are murdering psychopaths, regardless of alignment. The game is largely about killing sentient creatures and taking their stuff.
If the murderous psychopath only ever murders those who are your enemies, why wouldn't you trust them? Sir Smitington may really like killing demons and the undead (edit: to make this somewhat on-topic, he also likes killing kitsune, catfolk, and half-dragons), but you probably trust him and would defend him. Evil characters don't have to backstab their comrades and why wouldn't a good or neutral person defend their friend and comrade who has saved their life multiple times?
Would you trust a murdering psychopath with your life?
You would think that is a stupid idea, but my evil characters are far less likely to turn on a party member for doing something I find disagreeable.
My evil characters tend to be more reliable than the party paladin. My evil characters need the party to thrive. Good characters tend to be more concerned about their own morality and can turn against the party for minor moral infractions.
Normally the party would do a good job convincing me not kill innocence, leaving me to just kill the slews of things a normal party kills.
The life of an adventurer is ideal for murdering psychopaths.
None of them felt in the moral right to take any sort of life...
And were marching to war? Man, this story makes no sense to me.
None of them felt in the moral right to take any sort of life...And were marching to war? Man, this story makes no sense to me.
After witnessing my work, the idea of killing the humans seemed less noble.
I was what they were about to turn into. I showed them the true nature of their actions and they shirked away from that idea. Although I was a monster, I was a monster in their place. I 'saved' them from being that monster. They both hated me and were grateful. It sickened them. They were no better than me and they knew it.
Yeah, don't see why that would stop them from killing you.
It would have been hypocritical. Some people actually strive to avoid that.
No crime was actually committed. If I didn't kill the village, they would have. The end result was the same regardless of my actions.
They might as well as killed themselves for considering the war.
They also sent me into the village thinking I would use my "winning ways" to convince the town to flee. I just promise I could handle the situation without them having to do anything.
Really the only reason to kill me was "Ah evil PALADIN SMITE BAD THING!" which the blackguard in the party might have had problems with that sentiment. (we had good and neutral members in the party, although by the end no-one stayed good).
Killing me made no logical sense. They had no right to punish evil, for they were in no place to judge. From a Utilitarian perspective, I cut the causalities of the war down to one village, limiting the suffering that would have happened otherwise. The net benefit to the world was good. The village was dead with or without my actions.
You can say they wished to prevent a psychopath's rampage, but I convinced them that I only killed the village to prevent a war. I sold my actions as some weird sort of "good" to them.
They found this disturbing. That is why they sent the shaman with the party.
In the end though, my character prevented a war and saved lives. All for the wrong reasons, but the net benefit to the world was good. I have yet had a good character perform a single act that prevented an equal or greater amount of suffering.
In my experience, many---if not most---PCs are murdering psychopaths, regardless of alignment. The game is largely about killing sentient creatures and taking their stuff.If the murderous psychopath only ever murders those who are your enemies, why wouldn't you trust them? Sir Smitington may really like killing demons and the undead (edit: to make this somewhat on-topic, he also likes killing kitsune, catfolk, and half-dragons), but you probably trust him and would defend him. Evil characters don't have to backstab their comrades and why wouldn't a good or neutral person defend their friend and comrade who has saved their life multiple times?
We play with different people then and in a different type of setting. Murderous psychopaths tend to be a bit indiscriminate in who they kill, will often get you, as a member of their party, hip deep in brown smelly stuff as a result and will find you expendable if it suits them. LE probably wouldn't backstab their party but CE? Even NE tend to view their friends as "useful" as opposed to necessary. As for defending evil, their comes a point where you are what you defend. All imo of course.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No crime was actually committed.
I'm sure your character truly believed that. Doesn't make it true.
We play with different people then and in a different type of setting. Murderous psychopaths tend to be a bit indiscriminate in who they kill, will often get you, as a member of their party, hip deep in brown smelly stuff as a result and will find you expendable if it suits them. LE probably wouldn't backstab their party but CE? Even NE tend to view their friends as "useful" as opposed to necessary. As for defending evil, their comes a point where you are what you defend. All imo of course.
There is a difference between CE and Chaotic Stupid. To a CE person there is no difference between killing bandits and killing commoners. Good adventurers do make this distinction, but to any CE psychopath, hanging around a successful adventuring party let's them do slaughter far more than they could ever do on their own.
No crime was actually committed.I'm sure your character truly believed that. Doesn't make it true.
Doesn't mean that army had any right to kill me.
Me killing the villagers they were about to kill is not generally something people take the moral high ground on.
Imagine if a sniper is about to kill a guy, but you kill him instead. Why would the sniper suddenly want to kill you for committing the sin of murder?
|
|
Doesn't mean that army had any right to kill me.No crime was actually committed.I'm sure your character truly believed that. Doesn't make it true.
Never said they did. Wouldn't have stopped them from doing it in my world anyway. After all, your character had no right to murder the village.
You play Belkar Bitterleaf quite well however.
We play with different people then and in a different type of setting. Murderous psychopaths tend to be a bit indiscriminate in who they kill, will often get you, as a member of their party, hip deep in brown smelly stuff as a result and will find you expendable if it suits them. LE probably wouldn't backstab their party but CE? Even NE tend to view their friends as "useful" as opposed to necessary. As for defending evil, their comes a point where you are what you defend. All imo of course.
There is a difference between CE and Chaotic Stupid. To a CE person there is no difference between killing bandits and killing commoners. Good adventurers do make this distinction, but to any CE psychopath, hanging around a successful adventuring party let's them do slaughter far more than they could ever do on their own.
So, you think the CE psycho has too much discipline to let his tendencies get away from him at the wrong time? He's too happy being allowed to occasionally follow his predilection for butchery to not do more of it in the wrong places? You think an adventuring party wants the psycho doing his bit around them so they can take the blame for it with him? I'd say your psycho isn't chaotic (if he reigns in his tendencies successfully) and the stupid ones are the group that keeps him around.
I think we're working off different definitions of CE which pretty much makes the discussion an "apples and oranges" thing.
One thing about your Elves though. Didn't they stop to think what else you might get up to and how many Elves might regret it in the future? The excuse for killing the villagers was a pretty thin veneer and a bit of magic would have seen through it. At which point they would take your head for both practical and moral reasons. My 2 cp.
even chaotic evil has a sense of self preservation. i doubt any evil character would advertise themselves as "i am evil" or "i am a bloodthirsty man eating psychopath."
they would advertise themselves in the least harmful manner to themselves and pass themselves off as something more acceptable. with varying levels of success.
a dragon doesn't go shouting "i'm a dragon!" everywhere he goes.
rule 1 of evil; "don't advertise the fact you are evil."
rule 2 of evil; "find ways to justify your evil. no matter how thin."
rule 3 of evil; "most people can't kill when drugged and locked inside a jail cell, and most can't kill when dead. even the most immoral of villains has a sense of self preservation."
rule 4 of evil; "there is no karma meter, you don't need to kick every puppy and slit the throat of every child you see, doing so will draw lots of retribution."
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, it turned into another alignment thread.
Yawn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, you think the CE psycho has too much discipline to let his tendencies get away from him at the wrong time?
Chaotic != uncontrollable crazy.
That would make every CG and CN character in your campaigns some sort of crazy with no ability to control their characters.
To me CE are demons. Demon Lords like Gazzit have plenty of control.
One thing about your Elves though. Didn't they stop to think what else you might get up to and how many Elves might regret it in the future? The excuse for killing the villagers was a pretty thin veneer and a bit of magic would have seen through it. At which point they would take your head for both practical and moral reasons. My 2 cp.
I didn't kill any Elves though. I saved every Elf life that would have been lost in the war.
As far as my observable behaviors went from their perspective, I only ever acted in the Elves best interest.
They did use detect alignment though. My GM had zone-of-truth prepared for later sessions. When they found out I was evil I explained that "alignments are based off means and intents not ends and intents" what I just did could be described as 'ends justify the means'. My intent was to kill the village, I had no control over whether or not this would end the war. That was why I am evil.They bought that because they assumed that anyone who murders towns of peasants would be evil regardless of intent.
Which that conclusions made them feel even more guilty, since they were about to murder a town of peasants, which they just concluded would be evil regardless of intent.
We play with different people then and in a different type of setting. Murderous psychopaths tend to be a bit indiscriminate in who they kill, will often get you, as a member of their party, hip deep in brown smelly stuff as a result and will find you expendable if it suits them. LE probably wouldn't backstab their party but CE? Even NE tend to view their friends as "useful" as opposed to necessary. As for defending evil, their comes a point where you are what you defend. All imo of course.
The point is that under the default assumptions of the game, certain creatures exist for the PCs to kill. This includes not just things like gelatinous cubes or mindless vermin, but also humanoid races. The only reason killing everything in a mite burrow (or in an orc fort or whatever) isn't murderous psychopathy is that this is the order of things in the game world. With that in mind, let's look through the Advanced Race Guide and see which races are presented as options for players to play, and which races are presented as creatures to be killed by PCs. Already established is that the core races all exist as player options.
I'll start with the art. The cover shows an elf, a dwarf, and a tengu surrounded by a large number of savage-looking kobolds. For reference, the CRB's cover shows two humans fighting a dragon and the APG's cover shows an elf and a human fighting sea serpents. Before even opening the book, we already see one race which exists to be killed.
Now we get to the 2-page splash art for Chapter 1: Core Races. The art is a human, a half-elf, and a gnome killing orcs. Two races which exist to be killed. The splash art for Chapter 2: Featured Races is two humans having a magical fight with an ifrit. In the dialogue to the side, one of the humans refers to the ifrit as an "overgrown campfire". (Also, for some reason, it was necessary for all of these (female) characters to be underdressed and oversexualized, but that's really a different issue.) Three races which exist to be killed.
Before talking about the splash art for Chapter 3: Uncommon Races, let's look first at the bit of the dialogue to the side:
"Bird men!" Harsk laughed and drew his dagger with his free hand. "So that's what the witch meant. Fair enough---I could use use a drumstick or three."
Seelah shushed him and raised her sword, letting the feral creatures see the holy symbol embedded in its hilt. "Hail, neighbors," she called. "We mean you no harm."
The image is a human and a dwarf brandishing their weapons with a few strix occupying the periphery. Back to the dialogue, it begins with the dwarf making a joke about killing and eating intelligent, humanoid creatures, which are described by the narration as "feral". Four races which exist to be killed (and apparently also cannibalized!).
The splash art for Chapter 4: Race Builder is a human cooperating with some lizardfolk to slay a dragon. Of the six non-core races in the cover and chapter art, a total of four are presented as races which exist to be killed.
Let's move on to the descriptions of the races. We'll skip Chapter 1, as all the core races are designed as player options. The other thing to note is that any race which is described as mostly evil is designed primarily to be used to be killed by PCs, not as a player option. The default assumption is that no PCs are evil. This is a rule in PFS, a common house rule (cf. any thread on alignment), and the alignment rules in the CRB advises DMs to limit or completely ban evil characters.
- Aasimars are presented as good creatures and options for players. Their fluff text, however, does contain the eye-rollingly stupid statement that half-orcs "have no patience for aasimars' overly pretty words and faces".
- Catfolk are presented as player options. There is the statement, not relevant to exotic race antipathy but related to the recent detour into alignment that "the clear majority of catfolk are also chaotic, as wisdom is not their strongest virtue". Here, alignment is directly linked to a -2 racial modifier to Wisdom. The irony is that catfolk make good paladins and that Wisdom is a great dump stat for paladins.
- "An alliance with a dhampir almost always leads to an ill-fated conclusion.... Dhampirs are scions of evil...dhampirs bear a deep-seeded loathing for living creatures, their hatred planted by jealousy and fed by frustration... Most dhampirs succumb to the evil within their blood." The items listed under Dhampir Equipment are all items used to protect from or kill vampires. Four of five dhampir feats revolve around drinking blood, which is explicitly called out as an evil act in the feat description. Five races which exist to be killed.
- Drow. Six races which exist to be killed.
- Fetchlings appear to be designed to fit the "dark is not evil" trope. This bit from the first paragraph of their fluff text, though not directly related to whether they are player options, is certainly interesting:
Some members of the race also take offense at the name fetchling, as it was given to them by humans who saw them as little more than fetchers of rare materials from the Shadow Plane. Most fetchlings instead prefer to be called kayal, a word borrowed from Aklo that roughly translates to "shadow people" or "dusk dwellers."
Part of their fluff is that there is a name for this race, imposed on them by outsiders, that most don't want to be called by and many consider offensive. The ARG, of course, uses this name to refer to them.
- Goblins. Seven races which exist to be killed.
- Hobgoblins. Eight races which exist to be killed.
- Ifrits have already been talked about in relation to the art, but their fluff text is worth a look "Ifrits not only adore flames, but personify multiple aspects of them as well, embodying both fire's dynamic, ever-changing energy and its destructive, pitiless nature... Even the best-natured ifrits tend to view other individuals as tools to use as they see fit... Ifrits are... imperious and demanding. They are often accused of being morally impoverished..." They stay in the races which exist to be killed category.
- Kobolds. We've already seen them and the text in ARG makes it quite clear they exist to be killed.
- Orcs. We've already seen them too and they still are presented as existing to be killed.
- Oreads are presented as a player option.
- Ratfolk are presented as a player option.
- Sylphs are presented as a player option.
- A tengu is portrayed on the front cover as working with an elf and a dwarf, hence elevating it to the level of player option. Their fluff text doesn't change that, though they are presented as greedy and vain CN thieves. There is one little bit of their fluff text, however, that I want to call attention to:
Few races easily tolerate tengus. Of the most common races, only humans allow them to settle within their cities with any regularity. When this occurs, tengus inevitably form their own ghettos and ramshackle communities, typically in the most wretched neighborhoods.
Here, Paizo is drawing on the real-world history of ethnic groups who have chosen to live in poverty in ghettos and impoverished neighborhoods, while the rest of society just wants them to integrate.
- Tieflings. Nine races which exist to be killed.
- Undine are presented as a player option.
It's a little difficult to determine the intended role for some of the uncommon races as they each get only a single paragraph of fluff text. I'm erring on the side of assuming that no usable details implies they were intended for player use.
- Changlings. It's hard to say the intent here. The text explicitly mentions that those who follow "the call" which is described as a "hypnotic spiritual voice that beckons them to... discover their true origins" can transform into hags. However, it also says they chan ignore this call, so it's a bit of a toss-up. None of the mechanics presented lean too far one way or the other.
- Duergar "detest all races living beneath the sun" and "few can be described as anything other vile and cruel". Ten races which exist to be killed.
- Gillmen are presented as a player option.
- Gripplis are presented as a player option.
- Kitsune are presented as a player option.
- Merfolk are presented as a player option.
- Like Changelings, nagaji are defined largely by their connection to a monster, in this nagas. Also like changelings, it's vague what the intent with them is.
- Samsarans are presented as a player option.
- Strix, as we saw before, exist to be killed.
- Sulis are presented as a player option.
- Svirfneblin are presented as a player option.
- Vanaras are presented as a player option.
- Vishkanyas are described as "serpentine" and as literally "speaking with forked tongues", "content to leave questions of morality to others". This, plus the focus on poison, really points towards vishkanyas not being intended as player options, but I'll be generous and assume they are.
- Wayangs are presented as a player option.
I'm not going to look at the races presented in the race builder chapter, as there isn't enough content to make any sort of judgement. The final count comes out to ten of thirty-six races presented in this book aren't actually presented as options for players. This isn't to say they cannot be PCs, but to do so, you have break from the presented fluff text or make changes elsewhere (especially in the alignment rules).
I actually rather like the ARG. I like how it presents mechanical options for non-core races and makes them more viable as character options. I like most of the art in it. I like that it presents options for making your fantasy worlds more fantastic, by giving you options for PC races besides human, short human, short, stout human, short human with funny-colored hair, thin, pointy-eared human, thin, slightly-pointy-eared human, and green-skinned human. The problem is that if you look a little deeper, it's clear that the book isn't entirely devoted to the mission of expanding the realm of player options (which comprise 2/3 to 3/4 of the pages).
I think the only evil campaign I ran was for Second Darkness. It worked fairly well, unfortunately real world events (people graduating and moving, getting jobs and moving, getting married and moving, etc) conspired to end it early (only got to the end of the 4th book). Though that is probably not that bad of a thing, I've found that most adventure paths pretty much started to flounder about the 5th book. Probably a problem with dealing with higher powered PCs.
We made it clear that there was to be no backstabbing. You could direct your evil at NPCs all you liked, but the PCs had your back, so you had to have theirs. Basically the group versus the world mentality.
i personally play near exclusively small framed females of any partially human, partially fey, or other cute race i can lolitafy.Take this, add furries, and you've got my reasons for steering away from the "weird race" people.
your lucky i don't play furries.
who doesn't like a half-nymph whose fashion choices resemble those a of Victorian Era Noble Scion? it's period appropriate for the medieval Europe DMs, even if today, we associate the fashion with dolls and cosplay.
i personally play near exclusively small framed females of any partially human, partially fey, or other cute race i can lolitafy.Take this, add furries, and you've got my reasons for steering away from the "weird race" people.
My fursona's a drow.
No, wait, that doesn't make any sense.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Try an experiment:
Remove all racial abilities in the game. Every race, no matter what, just gets a bonus feat and skill point, or whatever you decide. The point is to make every race mechanically identical. Then, allow any race whatsoever. Watch what happens.
I wager you're going to get three major groups of PCs:
1) People indulging fetishes and personal fantasies with their characters (furries or Mary Sue Tieflings, for example)
2) People totally into playing a particular racial stereotype (the boastful, drunk, Scottish/Viking combo Dwarf, for example)
3) HumansThe point is, the vast, vast majority of people are choosing weird races for their mechanics. I have literally never seen a Human in AD&D, for example, because they got absolutely nothing racially except a higher max level cap which everyone ignored anyway.
Skipping over 10 pages of discussion,i would just like to adress this for a moment.
First you propose an experiment, then you just give a conclusion completely out of the blue. If that is how you experiment, I don't wonder why you end up with this idea.
I for a fact almost exclusively know players who choose their race based on flavor, rather than mechanics or to play racial stereotypes/mary-sues.
In my current group in fact there are two players who have chosen their characters race for mechanical reasons. One is playing his second human character in the current campaign (out of two characters), the other, who chose his previous two character's for flavor reasons (kitsune druid and human ranger) is currently playing an orc, because he wanted to try a barbarian that is truly all muscles and no brains, just for the experience.
One character is a ratfolk witch, because the player likes rats, one is a goblin ninja, because the olayer likes goblins and ninjas, one is a samsaran druid, because the player wanted to be able to transform into other creatures to fight and likes the way samsarans looked in the artwork.
My other 3.5 group had things like gnome sorcerers, elf ranger/fighters, half-elf rogues and water genasi swashbuckler/fighters.
None of these have been made for mechanical advantages, nor are they being played as stereotypes or mary-sues.
So by your logic:
Try an experiment:
Remove all racial abilities in the game. Every race, no matter what, just gets a bonus feat and skill point, or whatever you decide. The point is to make every race mechanically identical. Then, allow any race whatsoever. Watch what happens.
I wager you're going to get two major groups of PCs:
1) people playing weird races because they like their fantasy high, and their characters exotic
2) Humans
The point is, that your experience may vary but different people have different motives for playing exotic races, and all your post managed to be in my humble opinion is prejudiced and judgmental towards a vast range of people you don't even know.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I was at Toys R Us/Babies R Us this weekend looking for baby stuff with the family and I walked down some of the toy aisles to see what they had that I might use for gaming. And I saw that some of the generic brands are actually making some pretty cool stuff. They got these cool pirate related stuff and army/police related stuff and then I noticed they now have some cool fantasy and mythology related stuff (orcs, elves, hydras, demigods, two-headed wolves, etc). I was thinking I can't wait till the little gamer gets old enough that I can get him this stuff.
Then a thought hit me. I wonder if he would try to somehow get the different types of toys to play together. Pirates and army guys, police and elves, demigods and orcs, etc. I bet he could and I bet he'd somehow have some kind of logic to why he was using them together. I wonder if that is the difference between some GMs here. Some want everything in its own category, nice and neat. While other GMs are more willing to mix it up and get crazy combinations. Did your Star Wars guys play with the G.I. Joes or did you have Star Wars day of playing and G.I. Joe day of playing?
So I was at Toys R Us/Babies R Us this weekend looking for baby stuff with the family and I walked down some of the toy aisles to see what they had that I might use for gaming. And I saw that some of the generic brands are actually making some pretty cool stuff. They got these cool pirate related stuff and army/police related stuff and then I noticed they now have some cool fantasy and mythology related stuff (orcs, elves, hydras, demigods, two-headed wolves, etc). I was thinking I can't wait till the little gamer gets old enough that I can get him this stuff.
Then a thought hit me. I wonder if he would try to somehow get the different types of toys to play together. Pirates and army guys, police and elves, demigods and orcs, etc. I bet he could and I bet he'd somehow have some kind of logic to why he was using them together. I wonder if that is the difference between some GMs here. Some want everything in its own category, nice and neat. While other GMs are more willing to mix it up and get crazy combinations. Did your Star Wars guys play with the G.I. Joes or did you have Star Wars day of playing and G.I. Joe day of playing?
So fantasy mashup is the only way to go? League of extraordinary gentlemen is the only movie type out there?
I don't mind some odd combinations; I will put odd combinations in intentionally. However, there is some like of a bit of consistency. Not everything has to be freddy vs Jason ...
So fantasy mashup is the only way to go?Did you not notice he specifically noted how Lego are marketed as separate lines? And that he referenced 'Star Wars days' and 'G.I. Joe days'?
How could you possibly draw the conclusion 'mashups are the only way' from that?
Reread that entire second paragraph, TOZ.
Also ... Legos? Where? Not in the post quoted.
Having your GI Joes play with your Star Wars guys worked really well, when it was just you.
When you were having friends over, not nearly so much.
"Flint shoots Darth Vader and blows his helmet off!"
"No he doesn't, Darth Vader blocks the laser bolt and electrocutes Flint!"
"No he doesn't! The T-Rex get's in the way! And all he did was tick off the T-Rex! RARRRR!"
"Aquaman summons up a giant squid to reach out of the puddle and jerk the T-Rex into it! So much for big and green!"
"Oh yeah? Well Optimus Prime blasts your stupid Squid!"