So, in conclusion, because tons of options do exist in Pathfinder, they ALL HAVE TO be available. In truth, they aren't options at all. Any sort of limitation means the campaign is BADWRONGFUN. In other rpgs, however, it is okay to limit options, because these rpgs aren't "high fantasy"?
Blargleargleargaraga
*Ptooie*
Sorry, just had to spit all these words out. You've gotta stop doing that, it's uncomfortable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, in conclusion, because tons of options do exist in Pathfinder, they ALL HAVE TO be available.
If the group as a whole wants them, yes, they should be. If the group as a whole doesn't, they can decide which ones are not available for that game. I don't understand why this has to be a one-person decision.
Not really. What I do is I decide which area I want, choose available races based on that, and decide which splatbooks I want to apply for my campaign. Works wonderfully. Other campaign settings are far worse about this.
I am asking this because I feel designing a campaign with all the options in is an unfocused kitchen sink mess that I find singularly unattractive. Not to mention impossible to maintain overview of.
Then vote to have a more focused one, and if the majority of your group agrees, then focus away. But I feel that unilaterally declaring "I'm running a game in historical England banning everything except human commoners!" without accepting anyone else's input somehow makes you a better DM.
If I'm the GM, and I say "How about a Western adventure next week?" and my players say "Sure!", we have all committed to obeying certain genre limitations when we start that campaign.
I can't imagine why everyone would agree, and then act as if the dicsussion never occurred. If everyone in your group ignores everyone else and has a memory span of less than a week, that's a social and/or cognitive issue, not a game-related one.
But let me ask this: are you saying "Let's play Pathfinder! How about a Western adventure next week?" and giving no other guidelines as to what you have in mind? I would take that statement alone to mean a Western-style or themed adventure in a PF game, not an edventure that takes place in a specific year in the real world and is limited to Experts, Warriors, and Commoners. A little communication goes a LONG way here.
I value limitations as an aid to immersion.
I have no problem with limitations, if everyone agrees to them. My issue is with a DM unilaterally declaring them -- often without sufficient warning, and with no willingness to reconsider them.
Not really. What I do is I decide which area I want, choose available races based on that, and decide which splatbooks I want to apply for my campaign. Works wonderfully. Other campaign settings are far worse about this.
Why can't you modify slightly the list of available races to include what your players want to play? I mean, you don't need the region to have catfolk and gripplis and strix and samsarans and vishkanya and vanara etc. You just need the region to have catfolk.
I am asking this because I feel designing a campaign with all the options in is an unfocused kitchen sink mess that I find singularly unattractive. Not to mention impossible to maintain overview of.Then vote to have a more focused one, and if the majority of your group agrees, then focus away. But I feel that unilaterally declaring "I'm running a game in historical England banning everything except human commoners!" without accepting anyone else's input somehow makes you a better DM.
I feel quite certain I never claimed to be a "better DM" or anything like it because of my preferences for limiting options. Feel free to prove me wrong on this.
Not really. What I do is I decide which area I want, choose available races based on that, and decide which splatbooks I want to apply for my campaign. Works wonderfully. Other campaign settings are far worse about this.Why can't you modify slightly the list of available races to include what your players want to play? I mean, you don't need the region to have catfolk and gripplis and strix and samsarans and vishkanya and vanara etc. You just need the region to have catfolk.
And if one wants to play a catfolk, one a grippli, one a strix, one a samsaran, one a vishkanya, and one a vanara?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And if one wants to play a catfolk, one a grippli, one a strix, one a samsaran, one a vishkanya, and one a vanara?Not really. What I do is I decide which area I want, choose available races based on that, and decide which splatbooks I want to apply for my campaign. Works wonderfully. Other campaign settings are far worse about this.Why can't you modify slightly the list of available races to include what your players want to play? I mean, you don't need the region to have catfolk and gripplis and strix and samsarans and vishkanya and vanara etc. You just need the region to have catfolk.
Say "Fantastic!" and you can't wait for how they build a fun an entertaining story together.
1. I assert the right of the GM to say, "Sorry, there aren't any orcs in the campaign world I'm running," while
2. you're asserting that in that situation the GM should make something up to arrange for one half-orc, if not an entire species (well, frequent hybrid... you get the idea). Right?
1. If everyone agreed on no orcs, then no orcs. I just assert that it's a group right, not a DM-specific right.
2. Depends. If no such limitation were agreed on, then yes, I would assert the DM should make a reasonbale effort to make an accommodation. If the limitation were agreed on, then I would assert that the DM has no right to arbitrarily overrule it, and should therefore refuse the accommodation -- as politely as possible ("I know you missed last week, Bob, and I totally forgot to email you about the fact that Billy and George are dead-set against orcs. Sorry, man, can you pick a different race and make the adjustments?")
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And if one wants to play a catfolk, one a grippli, one a strix, one a samsaran, one a vishkanya, and one a vanara?
Then you have catfolk, gripplis, strix, samsarans, vishkanya, and vanara. If you think there's too many races, you can always drop one no one is playing. Maybe redo all the human NPCs as vishkanya.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Therefore, a desire to play an "exotic" race must either be motivated by a human desire to "stand out" and be "unique" among a gaming group, or to optimize.
My desire to play exotic races, when I do, comes from the desire to play that specific race.
If I want to play a Kitsune (or insert "exotic" race of choice here), it is not because I saw the stat block for the race and said I want those stats. It is also not because I decided my character must stand out or be unique, in fact usually when I play an exotic race the most annoying aspect is GMs who feel the need to rub my face in the races exotic status. The reason I would choose to play a Kitsune is because I thought playing a Fox based race seemed cool, for example.
In short DO NO TELL ME MY OWN MOTIVATIONS! The only person who can tell me what motivates me is me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually it does. Aasimar (and Tieflings) can be of ANY humanoid race.
There are Halfling Aasimar, Half-Orc Aasimar, Lizardfolk/Catfolk/Tengu/Kitsune Aasimar, so yes...there can be Drow Aasimar.
So your intentional nerfing was unnecessary.
You are of course correct. RAW that is exactly how a drow aasimar would work. This character however is half drow and half aasimar (drow father, aasimar mother), and thus 1/4 celestial. That is why it doesn't and shouldn't exist in the rules. RAW aasimar also feel half human, half celestial to me rather than potentially a member of any race. That's just opnion, but my GM was willing to play along for the character concept.
And here's a thing that peeves me, ignoring the condescending "Wrongbadfun" arguments being thrown around (this thread started off so well, too...).Why is making a character intentionally WEAK (not just overly optimized, but legitimately weak) considered more laudable than making a strong character?
At the very least, it's just as disruptive to the party to be the guy the team has to carry, rather than the guy carrying the team.
And it doesn't make for "good roleplay" either, since logical inconsistencies abound when your "Guys out to save the world" adventuring party consists of three battle ready individuals and Chuckles the F##@ing Jester.
Picking a race for flavor is not bad. Neither is picking it for mechanical advantage. Neither is making a good character when using an exotic race.
If your Half-Drow/Half-Aasimar is outshining the party by a good chunk...he was probably gonna do it anyway just by picking "boring" Humans (I don't see Humans or any of the Core races as more or less interesting than others either, just different. Just an aside to pick on "my own side" for a second). Character effectiveness is 99% from the choices you make AFTER character creation, not during it, and that includes the race, unless we're talking something ridiculous like a Natural Lycanthrope in a group full of normal dudes.
I don't believe I've badwrongfun'd anyone so I'll ignore that bit. Asking for special GM concessions in regard to your race and then using those concessions to min/max (unless that was mutually agreed on) or break the system is poor etiquette and trying to take advantage of the person putting in tons of work on the behalf of your entertainment. That is plain bad form.
As for weakening characters, it was a good idea in this case. The character is still a wizard with an 18 starting Int. I'm not exactly limping along. Our group is mostly new players, and I have vastly more system knowledge than most of them. At 4th level, I'm already the most powerful member of the party and that's with me trying to avoid stealing the spotlight entirely.
If I'd picked human and taken better feats, I could take over completely. I consider human the strongest race in the game for nearly every class. That bonus feat is just too damned good to most builds.
Notice that although I weakened my character, my character is not weak relative to the party. Therein lies the point. I agree with you. A character with too much disparity in power from the rest of the party in either direction will hurt the game.
There are campaign worlds where a crazy menagerie is appropriate and campaigns where it is not.
When the DM builds a world for a game, players should relish in the former and respect the latter.
Man, I have to say that this post combined with your avatar's serious-looking dwarf face is SUPER appropriate!
You are of course correct. RAW that is exactly how a drow aasimar would work. This character however is half drow and half aasimar (drow father, aasimar mother), and thus 1/4 celestial. That is why it doesn't and shouldn't exist in the rules.
Nitpicky, apparently even a drop of Celestial blood can trigger you into being a full Aasimar, but overall that's outweighed by the coolness (since I didn't mention this before) that your GM actually let you make a custom race.
Notice that although I weakened my character, my character is not weak relative to the party.
Ah, gotcher. Guess I've just been in too many threads recently where that was literally the case 9Optimizing is bad, gimping your character is good RP) that I just assumed the worst here.
|
|
My desire to play exotic races, when I do, comes from the desire to play that specific race... In short, DO NOT TELL ME MY OWN MOTIVATIONS!My motivations generally motivate me to play humans*, and nobody kicks up a fuss. I agree that it'd be quite frustrating to listen to a bunch of sniping and armchair psychoanalysis if I were, say, a tengu fan.
* Except in Bunnies & Burrows, of course. (Which I am not making up.)
Funny part is I am not a fan of any specific "exotic" race. I even play many characters that are "traditional" fantasy races. I just don't appreciate the "I know you better than you know yourself, you cheesy, spotlight-hogging, scumbag," attitude expressed by many in the thread.
Funny thing is for PFS I have a Tengu, an Aasimar (not yet played), a dwarf(GM baby not yet played), and 5 Humans (4 of which have player chronicles, the last one being GM credit only so far).
I implemented this rule:
If you wish to play a non-core race you must roll a d 20. 1-12 you must play a core race. 13-17 you may play a featured race or a core race. 18-20 you may play an uncommon race, featured race, or core race. This die roll must be made in front of me.
This is to keep players in line with predominant races of Golarion. It offers a chance to play a race that is more rare without having everyone play a rare race.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I implemented this rule:
If you wish to play a non-core race you must roll a d 20. 1-12 you must play a core race. 13-17 you may play a featured race or a core race. 18-20 you may play an uncommon race, featured race, or core race. This die roll must be made in front of me.This is to keep players in line with predominant races of Golarion. It offers a chance to play a race that is more rare without having everyone play a rare race.
I just don't understand this. At all.
"On a 1-10, you can play a core class, on a 11-17, you can play a base class, on an 18-20 you can play an alternate class. Sure hope none of you were planning on being a Ninja! Also, roll for your stats, starting gold, race, background, religion, favorite color and food, height, weight...wait, guys...why are you leaving? .......Guys?"
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My desire to play exotic races, when I do, comes from the desire to play that specific race... In short, DO NOT TELL ME MY OWN MOTIVATIONS!My motivations generally motivate me to play humans*, and nobody kicks up a fuss. I agree that it'd be quite frustrating to listen to a bunch of sniping and armchair psychoanalysis if I were, say, a tengu fan.
* Except in Bunnies & Burrows, of course. (Which I am not making up.)
Seriously. Cool it with all this assigning motives.
I'm not going to suddenly stop playing my tiefling paladin if the whole party becomes tiefling paladins.
Cool: "This is why I like X"
Not Cool: "This is why you really like X"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do enjoy the more "humanoid" non-base races, though. Planetouched especially. They're "human" enough to remain familiar, but strange enough to have interesting quirks to play off of.
Then again, I also play a lot of halfling doublesling users (when I get to play), so I'm a little strange when it comes to choosing characters, base or not. Pinball Wizard.
Exotic to me is still something like a Drow. Genasi and Aasimr are probably the most common "exotic" races my players choose and I do not let a lot of them in the game.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My Razor Coast campaign looks to be an average mix. I have one guy thinking of playing an ifrit or sylph, but the only other person to mention a race has said dwarf. It's more a discussion of classes right now than anything.
Considering the campaign has minotaurs and weresharks, I'm not sweating planetouched.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay... Well that was a more ...vigorous... response than I was expecting. Thank you to those of you with constructive input. I hope these remarks won't be lost in the crossfire but I want to refocus and keep working on this issue. I urge further comments to work constructively on this, and consider how best to collaboratively tell a good story to everyone's enjoyment when each person at the table, DM included has different, sometimes mutually exclusive ideas about what's most engaging.
Before I go further, I want to share a little personal experience. I try to keep my posts setting neutral and not share too much about my table as a matter of courtesy and to keep the content applicable to other readers; but I think some of the allegations leveled at my DMing preference warrant response. I'm okaying everything that has so far been proposed for this game. One player wants to be a Fletchling Shadow Summoner, one wants to play a half-dragon vanara monk/sorcerer/dragon disciple, a third wants to be a Half-drow Dual Wielding Magus with Bloodbending (?) and a Catgirl companion with some kind of fire magic. Not one of these players has told me thing one about WHO these characters are, but they've gone all out on WHAT they are. And, if they're having a good time, sure, why not, I'll try to indulge them.
Also, I want to stress that I'm not accusing anyone of playing the wrong game. I started this specifically to examine other ways of playing the game that people enjoy; while these might be in contrast to the way I am most comfortable with, I'm not persecuting any other games.
But I digress. This is the crunchy academic part of this response.
One thing I focus on is narrative cohesion. I.E. the idea that each part of the campaign is working in concert with the others to form a bigger production. Some tables may not have a focus on this, or they may achieve it through means I am unfamiliar with or don't tend towards. This cohesion is an elastic sort of capital, the more of the party has, the bigger shake ups it can endure.
It's been my experience that an atypical character can be one of the biggest drains on the narrative cohesion. In a game of high castle intrigue, the mysterious druid strikes me as a plot hook, while the half-undead minotaur is the elephant in the room.
This is compounded as the party becomes more and more fractious. If that half-undead minotaur is the wookie, then the party can keep rolling, but if the party is indistinguishable from a furry convention [ASIDE: I am using this admittedly contentious term to give a general illustration. Please don't latch onto this. Please. By all the dark gods: don't.] then I find that I have to spend a lot more time incorporating all those disparate elements into a collective ensemble tapestry.
Last, if one of the player's big draws to this style of play is "being unique" by being exotic, then it occurs to me that much of that uniqueness is lost without something to juxtapose it to which is mundane.
I've asked one of my more experienced players to consider playing a sort of POV character to fill this role. In Farscape, for example, the crew includes a plant who is also a cleric and a two foot tall royal frog man on a hover chair, and a bear sized crab man fused into a living space ship. But, I love Farscape, in part because the POV character, the "generic" human, John Critchton turns out to be just as lunatic as the rest of the crew.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you may have reversed the point on yourself in Farscape.
In a universe with the frog emperor, plant Cleric, and Proud Warrior Race Guy with a paralytic tongue...a "generic" human IS the unique one, and I think that worked out pretty darn well for the show, and was part of its charm.
Even the other "human" character has enough physiological differences that set them apart (analogous to the things like Half-Elves and Aasimar).
First, thank you for also being a Farscape fan. Please take the Farscape analogy with salt. I'm trying to detail ways in which a character we identify as being typical can make other character's "uniqueness" more prominent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I implemented this rule:
If you wish to play a non-core race you must roll a d 20. 1-12 you must play a core race. 13-17 you may play a featured race or a core race. 18-20 you may play an uncommon race, featured race, or core race. This die roll must be made in front of me.This is to keep players in line with predominant races of Golarion. It offers a chance to play a race that is more rare without having everyone play a rare race.I just don't understand this. At all.
"On a 1-10, you can play a core class, on a 11-17, you can play a base class, on an 18-20 you can play an alternate class. Sure hope none of you were planning on being a Ninja! Also, roll for your stats, starting gold, race, background, religion, favorite color and food, height, weight...wait, guys...why are you leaving? .......Guys?"
Restricting races in no way negatively impacts the players ability to create a mechanically viable or interesting character. My group role-plays very little, and their race does not figure into the role play that they actually do. Just because the race exist doesn't mean you have access to it. To me this post smacks of player entitlement.
To boot, having everyone be a uncommon or exotic race is just ridiculous. I like my game world to present an accurate representation of Golarion. Having a party with a Drow, Dhampir, Duegrar, and Svirfneblin and having them all be good adventurers just seems so outlandishly ridiculous that it ruins any sense of plausibility.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To boot, having everyone be a uncommon or exotic race is just ridiculous. I like my game world to present an accurate representation of Golarion. Having a party with a Drow, Dhampir, Duegrar, and Svirfneblin and having them all be good adventurers just seems so outlandishly ridiculous that it ruins any sense of plausibility.
I refer you to my earlier post. With the plethora of exotic races living in Golarion it is hardly surprising to see a group of such races working together.
Before I go further, I want to share a little personal experience.
Story time with Zorajit Squared!
One player wants to be a Fletchling Shadow Summoner, one wants to play a half-dragon vanara monk/sorcerer/dragon disciple, a third wants to be a Half-drow Dual Wielding Magus with Bloodbending (?) and a Catgirl companion with some kind of fire magic. Not one of these players has told me thing one about WHO these characters are, but they've gone all out on WHAT they are.
My stance on character design (and the stance of most people I've met) is this: its the PCs' job to design one character and the GM's job to design everything else. If the GM is going to make decisions for the PCs, he should just write a novel.
That said, some of the character's you're getting are freaks. Plain and simple. If it were me, I'd want to know what sort of oddball dragon bumped nasties with a monkey-man to create a draconic bloodline vanara. That said, sorcerer/monk is a very thematic choice for the vanara, on one hand because that race is basically designed from the group up to be, "the monk race," and on the other hand because all of the vanara's setting flavor points to an appreciation for monk over fighter. Fetchling shadow summoner is also a very appropriate choice because shadow summoner is a unique fetchling archetype; he couldn't even choose those powers unless you let him pick another race.
So that said, the half-drow is the only one that I'd really look at with suspicion, but that's mostly because drow have a lot of baggage attached to them between being a predominately Chaotic Evil race and the Mary Sue that is Driz'zt Do'Urden giving a big "Forget You" to all established lore from every game ever.
And, if they're having a good time, sure, why not, I'll try to indulge them.
You are a kinder soul that 50% of the GMs in this thread. :-P
Also, I want to stress that I'm not accusing anyone of playing the wrong game. I started this specifically to examine other ways of playing the game that people enjoy; while these might be in contrast to the way I am most comfortable with, I'm not persecuting any other games.
Yup, that's the internet for you. Where everything's fightin' words. D:<
But I digress. This is the crunchy academic part of this response.
Let me get my Oreos and steampunk monocle out of the closet, then!
One thing I focus on is narrative cohesion. I.E. the idea that each part of the campaign is working in concert with the others to form a bigger production. Some tables may not have a focus on this, or they may achieve it through means I am unfamiliar with or don't tend towards. This cohesion is an elastic sort of capital, the more of the party has, the bigger shake ups it can endure.
It's been my experience that an atypical character can be one of the biggest drains on the narrative cohesion. In a game of high castle intrigue, the mysterious druid strikes me as a plot hook, while the half-undead minotaur is the elephant in the room.
Really? Because the half-undead minotaur strikes me as a BIGGER plot hook them some mysterious druid. Druids are always mysterious, they have a secret society for crying out loud! But what is the minotaur only half-undead? Why is he even in the castle in the first place? Why does everyone tolerate his presence? Those are all questions that will add more to the story than a "mysterious, brooding druid."
This is compounded as the party becomes more and more fractious. If that half-undead minotaur is the wookie, then the party can keep rolling, but if the party is indistinguishable from a furry convention [ASIDE: I am using this admittedly contentious term to give a general illustration. Please don't latch onto this. Please. By all the dark gods: don't.] then I find that I have to spend a lot more time incorporating all those disparate elements into a collective ensemble tapestry.
LATCHING ONTO IN THREE ... TWO ... ONE ...
Aren't some of the best parties in all of literary history essentially a, "Ragtag band of misfits?" Maybe instead of focusing on what makes the character different and freakish, you should focus on the story elements that bond them together? For example, are the party members loyal to one another? Are they friendly? What each person fighting for and how does each PC's goals connect together? When you get right down to it, those are the same questions that you would ask yourself if you were using an all-human party, because in most settings human philosophies differ heavily between human to human. You would not expect someone who is French to look at a problem in the same manner as someone who is Chinese. So why do they join forces? Those are all elements that a GM can weave a story around and they aren't racially dependent.
Last, if one of the player's big draws to this style of play is "being unique" by being exotic, then it occurs to me that much of that uniqueness is lost without something to juxtapose it to which is mundane.
I think people misunderstand "special snowflake syndrome" fairly often. I have a player in an online game I'm preparing who picked his race and class specifically because he wanted to be a "special snowflake." He told me this flat-out, so I asked him what attracted him to his choices. And he told me. And what it came down to was that he didn't really care if everyone else was the same or if everyone was different, he just wanted a unique style compared to everyone else. He didn't care if anyone else was a monk or if anyone else was a member of his race so long as no one else was a monk of his race, and I think that sort of mechanical image is a huge part of what drives people to make their choices. They want to be able to easily pick themselves up out of a crowd.
Some people just want to roleplay something different and bizarre because they spend every day roleplaying as a human, so their fantasies place them in a very inhuman role.
I've asked one of my more experienced players to consider playing a sort of POV character to fill this role. In Farscape, for example, the crew includes a plant who is also a cleric and a two foot tall royal frog man on a hover chair, and a bear sized crab man fused into a living space ship. But, I love Farscape, in part because the POV character, the "generic" human, John Critchton turns out to be just as lunatic as the rest of the crew.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this always sounds like you consider it as bad of a thing to be a "generic human" or a "generic elf" as it is to be a "generic half-drow."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To boot, having everyone be a uncommon or exotic race is just ridiculous. I like my game world to present an accurate representation of Golarion. Having a party with a Drow, Dhampir, Duegrar, and Svirfneblin and having them all be good adventurers just seems so outlandishly ridiculous that it ruins any sense of plausibility.I refer you to my earlier post. With the plethora of exotic races living in Golarion it is hardly surprising to see a group of such races working together.
Maybe I have a misunderstanding of what Golarion really looks like, but I think of it in much the way of the iconics. Of whom all are core races, and of the 11 or so there is one dwarf, one halfling, one elf, and one gnome. To me that is what Golarion should look like. It is dominated by the human race. Most cities are human cities with predominately human population. Most people in the world should be human. This should extend to some extent to what races players are as well.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This should extend to some extent to what races players are as well.
And that's where you lose me. Because PCs don't have to follow demographics. There are only around six PCs in any campaign world, depending on how many players you have. And they we're randomly assigned. So there is no trend, no distribution, no quota they must follow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I have to agree with most of your post. I'd like to mention why I, as a player, might be more forward with WHAT my character is, rather than WHO; because the WHAT is the part that's easiest to create. Perhaps your players are still trying to decide the WHO, while they know what sort of character they'd like to make.
It's also much easier to communicate, and implies the mechanical foundation of your character. Upthread where I describe an oddball character of mine, it took a sentence to say what race it was. It took 3 paragraphs to explain her personality and goals, and I made no mention of combat capabilities besides class. If I tell you I'm playing Ifrit fire school wizard, you have a vague picture of my character's abilities. Same with a halfling cavalier. Telling you I'm playing a snooty orphan raised by a noble family in Cheliax who really is a kind, fun-loving person but was repressed by society doesn't convey the same information. Gender-race-class levels is a statblock standard for a reason.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I see as harmful here are the preconceptions--such as some of those suggested by the OP, steve, moonwhisper, and mplindustries. Some of these are harmful, and I hope that by communicating, we can come to a better understanding. I'll also posit that this attitude exists on both "sides." I know, because I also play exotic characters from time to time, and enjoy doing so.
Now I'm curious what harmful preconceptions I have.
I'm pretty sure the main thing I said in this thread was that most people choose race based on mechanics, and I never made any kind of value judgment about people who do so. Even most people that love the "flavor" of various races really just like the mechanics that create that flavor.
For example, I, as a child, was guilty of the "I ONLY LIKE ELVES" problem that is so common among fantasy fans. But to be honest, what I really liked was the Dexterity stat in AD&D and being pretty (and in particular, the kind of pretty implied by high Dexterity).
I loathed dwarves, again, mostly because of their Con bonus and what it implied. I had a preference for avoiding hits over absorbing them, so in my young brain, Dex > Con, and being "tough" suggested a certain look that, well, certainly isn't pretty.
I grew out of that, but it definitely shaped my early roleplaying, and I wager it has had a huge effect on many people's race choices.
For example, think about your average half-orc in Pathfinder. Even though they changed the race so that you can get a +2 to any attribute, how many are still played as brutes with high physical and low mental stats? Even being generous, I'd guess that's in the 2/3+ range.
It's actually the mechanics that most people are into, more than the flavor, even if they think it's flavor.
I never claimed this applied to everyone, however, just most. I can't take into account depressing people that hate humanity (no offense, but damn that's really sad to hear), for example, or the 1% that really wants to play out a deep, romantic loss situation like Arwen (which actually can be done in a magical world with humans, just through a magical curse or something, because lifespan is generally irrelevant).
Anyway, my problem with blanket allowing anyone to play any Paizo legal race is not the small group of people who really happen to like race X or have a great concept that requires race Y or whatever, nor is it the mechanical issue (I like mechanics and have no problem with people also liking them as long as things are fair--no Aasimar, for example since they're significantly better than almost every other legal race). My problem is with the potential for joke characters in a game that is not a joke.
Out of every ratfolk, goblin, or monkey-dude character, for example, what would you suggest is the % of players that actually take the character seriously? Not as high as I'd like, that's for sure.
Restricting races in no way negatively impacts the players ability to create a mechanically viable or interesting character. My group role-plays very little, and their race does not figure into the role play that they actually do. Just because the race exist doesn't mean you have access to it. To me this post smacks of player entitlement.
To boot, having everyone be a uncommon or exotic race is just ridiculous. I like my game world to present an accurate representation of Golarion. Having a party with a Drow, Dhampir, Duegrar, and Svirfneblin and having them all be good adventurers just seems so outlandishly ridiculous that it ruins any sense of plausibility.
If you were to keep the demographics accurate to Golarion, then a party of 10 would have 9 characters playing commoners(mostly farmers craftsmen?). You must realize something: all PC characters, adventurers, are not the norm for the setting. They are individuals with finely honed combat skills or access to magic that normal men could never achieve (or hardly ever by, due to the somewhat broken economy in game; but I digress)
If you looked at adventurer demographics, you might find a large number of those "exotic races" who migrated from places where their kind may have been the majority. This is a common element in how many elves are presented: young men and women taken by wanderlust and seeking new sights in foreign lands. It presents a reasonable way in story for a non-human to find himself in a human populated area.
I get that if you let your character choices shape the entirety of the campaign, you can always make something fun for the players. At least for a while. But, a lot of the time, that just isn't what happens. You use a premade setting, adventure or both. Take Korvosa and Curse of the Crimson Throne. It is a setting that is massively human dominated. The other core races exist, but they are pretty few and far between. Now, add in a party of freaks. This means that literally everyone will react to them not only as outsiders, but truly alien weirdoes that they have no realistic way to relate to. This adventure path has serious amounts of roleplaying interaction, and ALL of that has to be scratched, unless you ignore the races the players have chosen or just deal with their alienness constantly. Both of these latter options I find seriously grating, because it breaks my sense of immersion. Doing it for an entire AP, well, I would prefer not to. And rewriting everything for the oddball characters is a massive undertaking.
So, basically, what I should do is a) not play any prewritten material, and b) play only roughly improvised material for a group not willing to compromise with me for the sake of the campaign. Because with a party of freaks, in a somewhat realistic setting, the reaction of the environment is the ONLY story that is possible to tell outside of dungeons.
I think I have to agree with most of your post. I'd like to mention why I, as a player, might be more forward with WHAT my character is, rather than WHO; because the WHAT is the part that's easiest to create. Perhaps your players are still trying to decide the WHO, while they know what sort of character they'd like to make.It's also much easier to communicate, and implies the mechanical foundation of your character. Upthread where I describe an oddball character of mine, it took a sentence to say what race it was. It took 3 paragraphs to explain her personality and goals, and I made no mention of combat capabilities besides class. If I tell you I'm playing Ifrit fire school wizard, you have a vague picture of my character's abilities. Same with a halfling cavalier. Telling you I'm playing a snooty orphan raised by a noble family in Cheliax who really is a kind, fun-loving person but was repressed by society doesn't convey the same information. Gender-race-class levels is a statblock standard for a reason.
There's the rest of what I wanted to say, but couldn't quite word together! :D
Because with a party of freaks, in a somewhat realistic setting, the reaction of the environment is the ONLY story that is possible to tell outside of dungeons.
I understand most of your concerns and would be tempted to implement some of the same policies after talking with my group and reaching a consensus. However, sweeping statements like the one I quoted are unnecessarily restrictive. Sure, the first time the locals meet your glowing-haired aasimar it would be awkward. But what if you grew up in the area? Or what if you became famous in the region as a fearless adventurer? People would acclimate to your existence and presence, and you'd have much more common interaction. In a particularly diverse environment like Absalom, you might not even draw attention. I get that it could grate after a while, but don't limit yourself by thinking in absolutes.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, basically, what I should do is a) not play any prewritten material, and b) play only roughly improvised material for a group not willing to compromise with me for the sake of the campaign. Because with a party of freaks, in a somewhat realistic setting, the reaction of the environment is the ONLY story that is possible to tell outside of dungeons.
Not really. I ran Shackled City for a party with a lizardfolk, catfolk, and changeling. NPC reactions were more wary than they would have been with less exotic races, but they were still able to follow the plot of the AP, even with all the roleplay.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still see only the player perspective here. DMs are supposed to accomodate precisely any race setup, but players aren't supposed to have to adapt in any way. Because if they have to, "hello? Hello? Why are you leaving?" Doesn't strike me as a particularly classy attitude. Especially considering how many complain about there being too few willing to put in the effort of DMing. It is very easy to forget that the point is having fun - and that definitely includes the DM.
No. Just that if they do play, they are bad DMs unless they always accomodate all races, no matter the freak show it becomes.
And tell me, did your catfolk, lizardman, changeling party have a good time at the Demonskar Ball?