It went in because the players that wanted it made it sing to me in harmony with the setting.
Oh, I certainly don't think that it's just the DM's job to make players' characters fit in the setting. If I gave that impression, I am sorry. I did not intend to convey that. The DM certainly should be involved, since ultimately, they are the one in charge of the setting, but of course players should develop their characters' backgrounds.
But there are things that are intentionally left out and that there is a REASON they are left out.
I really want to hear why catfolk not existing is vital to a setting.
A: they thematically don't fit with the setting mythology ... yet. b: I'm not saying here because the players might be reading, and why spoil the future? Plot point. Which they share with several other unusual things. If you want to go MMO, consider possibly something's ... Unlockable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
. The DM certainly should be involved, since ultimately, they are the one in charge of the setting, but of course players should develop their characters' backgrounds.
Yes. They should develop their backgrounds .... In harmony with the setting they bought into playing in. If they want to change the tune, or introduce a kazoo solo into the string quartet, then they are responsible for providing me the sheet music and convincing me its not going to sound ridiculous.
I honestly have no clue what you are trying to say.
b: I'm not saying here because the players might be reading, and why spoil the future?
Put it in a spoiler box.
In other words, if the setting has been out forth in a certain way and you've agreed to play in it, if you want to violate one of the precepts of the setting then it is incumbent upon you, not the gm, to make it fit. What I generally don't get is why there are some people where it seems they have to pick out whatever areas the gm doesn't like or has left out and home in on that as the only thing they want ... Instead of just choosing from the nearly infinite options that are going to be left in almost any reasonably developed campaign world.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know what this weird motive you are assigning to players is. Are you suggesting that they are intentionally picking character concepts to vex the DM? Maybe they want to play a catfolk because they have an idea for a catfolk character, not because they know you don't like catfolk. Anyway, what's wrong with players liking something you don't like?
Pathfinder campaigns can last quite a long time---months or even years. What this means is that for a lot of people, being told they may not play a certain character is really telling them they cannot play a character they want to play for months or even years.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And for a gm, being told 'well just dont run that world this time' - they might not get a chance to run that concept for months, or years ...
Anyway, whats wrong with a GM NOT liking something the player likes?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And for a gm, being told 'well just dont run that world this time' - they might not get a chance to run that concept for months, or years ...
Unless not having catfolk is really essential to the world, it's not comparable. A closer comparison would be telling a player that a certain feat is banned. It might slightly change the character, but it's not nearly as essential a component as race.
Anyway, whats wrong with a GM NOT liking something the player likes?
Nothing. Doesn't mean you should ban the player from doing it, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And for a gm, being told 'well just dont run that world this time' - they might not get a chance to run that concept for months, or years ...Unless not having catfolk is really essential to the world, it's not comparable. A closer comparison would be telling a player that a certain feat is banned. It might slightly change the character, but it's not nearly as essential a component as race.
Anyway, whats wrong with a GM NOT liking something the player likes?Nothing. Doesn't mean you should ban the player from doing it, though.
Neither does it mean you should insist on doing it as a player, no?
Well, if your DM is the sort of petty tyrant who needs to control the choices of everyone around them, then yeah, you might avoid pressing them on the issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, if your DM is the sort of petty tyrant who needs to control the choices of everyone around them, then yeah, you might avoid pressing them on the issue.
And if the player is the sort of petty tyrant that always has to get their way ? Why are players immune to having to compromise, might I ask?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless the player is telling everyone else what to play and what not to play, it's not the same. Let me repeat myself yet again:
Wanting to play a dwarf isn't the same kind of thing as wanting everyone else to not play a dwarf.
And its no less unreasonable to insist on that ONE option out of all the possibilities available to you. Really telling me there would be no way to have fun or be satisfied without playing a dwarf?
I'm more annoyed at the type who always grab a different exotic race every time, yet manages to make the same character in every game, even across different genres. Really, it's the second part that bothers me more than the first.
Unimaginative people are generally not fun to roleplay with.
Well generally i would say that you tell me what it is you want about a dwarf that fulfills your desires and i try to find a way to fit it in that doesn't violate the setting(although the dwarf example wouldn't apply to mine; they are there - although the culture is very un-tolkien)
I i don't however go for the 'your setting has no x's, I want one, change it now!'. I'll move heaven and earth to try to hlp you fill your concept, but its not going to add something that it has been decided doesn' exist.(as opposed to something I just didn't bother to add)
That specific example can easily apply generally. Tell me what it is you truly desire or like about 'x' and I'll try to find a way to help you fulfill as much of 'x' as possible. Fill in the blank for any given value of 'x'. I'll work with someone, but not if you go under the presumption that you shouldn't have to work with me.
And its no less unreasonable to insist on that ONE option out of all the possibilities available to you. Really telling me there would be no way to have fun or be satisfied without playing a dwarf?Two people want directly conflicting things. How to resolve?
Honestly? The one I like better wins (be that the player I like better, or the idea I like better).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, one person must give, but the other must not?
That is exactly what happens id you make it exist where it oreviously didn't. Finding different ways to fulfill what is wanted IS compromise. So you view the gm totally surrendering and inserting something that didn't exist previosly as being the compromise position? Interesting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would including a single element that doesn't necessarily effect any other elements in a setting be classified as "totally surrendering"?
The issue is really about control. A GM has practically total control on a setting. A player only has control over their own character. A GM should be very hesitant to apply control over the one area the player has control over.
Now does that mean there is never a case for a GM saying, "I don't want that character in the game." No. But this should be the exception and not the rule.
Why would including a single element that doesn't necessarily effect any other elements in a setting be classified as "totally surrendering"?
The issue is really about control. A GM has practically total control on a setting. A player only has control over their own character. A GM should be very hesitant to apply control over the one area the player has control over.
Now does that mean there is never a case for a GM saying, "I don't want that character in the game." No. But this should be the exception and not the rule.
You are being rather presumptuous in saying that it wouldn't effect any other element if the game, aren't you? Generally if i've chosen to remove something, I didn't just do it for the hell of it to be mean.
So you view the gm totally surrendering and inserting something that didn't exist previosly as being the compromise position? Interesting.Nope, not at all what I said.
Pretty much is. Please describe how 'player gets everything and you abandon the race not existing' is something other than that?
Pretty much is. Please describe how 'player gets everything and you abandon the race not existing' is something other than that?So you view the gm totally surrendering and inserting something that didn't exist previosly as being the compromise position? Interesting.Nope, not at all what I said.
The GM controls 90% of the game world and everything in it.
The player gets to control the other 10% (if that).
Giving up another .1% of the control to allow something you hadn't thought of allowing will not kill you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are being rather presumptuous in saying that it wouldn't effect any other element if the game, aren't you? Generally if i've chosen to remove something, I didn't just do it for the hell of it to be mean.Why would including a single element that doesn't necessarily effect any other elements in a setting be classified as "totally surrendering"?
The issue is really about control. A GM has practically total control on a setting. A player only has control over their own character. A GM should be very hesitant to apply control over the one area the player has control over.
Now does that mean there is never a case for a GM saying, "I don't want that character in the game." No. But this should be the exception and not the rule.
Maybe you just didn't consider it and when it is mentioned you didn't want to bother to deal with it. That is also a possibility, and a pretty strong one given that four minds are bound to think of things that one mind might not have from time to time.
And as I said, there are times when a GM is perfectly fine saying they don't want a particular character in the game. It just should be the exception and not the rule.
EDIT: Also in a game with things like Owlbears, if a GM can't come up with a reason why a particular creature (character race) could not exist, even if just as an individual, I got to question the GM chops on that person.
Pretty much is. Please describe how 'player gets everything and you abandon the race not existing' is something other than that?So you view the gm totally surrendering and inserting something that didn't exist previosly as being the compromise position? Interesting.Nope, not at all what I said.The GM controls 90% of the game world and everything in it.
The player gets to control the other 10% (if that).
Giving up another .1% of the control to allow something you hadn't thought of allowing will not kill you.
Hadn't thought of allowing is very different from specifically removed or disallowed.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And as I said, there are times when a GM is perfectly fine saying they don't want a particular character in the game. It just should be the exception and not the rule.
I had to think over allowing my one player to play an ifrit. It's unusual after all, and could maybe be part of some powergaming.
But this is the players first time back since 2.0, and he picked a monk, despite his race having a Wis penalty. I want to give him something cool to play. The only other non-Core race is an aasimar, so it's not exactly a freak show.
Plus I already have an idea of him being mistaken as a chosen of Pele sent to scourge the Razor Coast of the foreigners. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I, as a DM, state that we are going to be playing in Middle Earth during the 3rd age - a player would be rude to bring a Catfolk. They don't exist in ME and make no sense being there.
If instead I'm running a game in the world of Freeforallion where creatures from across all of the multiverse come to congregate, a player should feel free to fly the freak flag.
If a pre-generated world is presented to the player it is on that person to either be respectful of the world or opt to not sit at the table.
I had to think over allowing my one player to play an ifrit. It's unusual after all, and could maybe be part of some powergaming.
Oh no, he might be having badwrongfun!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People keep bringing this up like it's a valid argument. It's not.
Catfolk don't exist in Middle Earth, yes. So yeah, it'd be silly for them to be there (though I'm a big fan of refluffing within the world, if say a tribe of men or Elves who worshiped the spirits of the Great Cats or summat existed and/or could reasonably be said to have existed, similar mechanics, sort of similar "appearance", s'all good).
But they do in Golarion. So it's not really the same scenario at all.
And "GM Homebrew Setting #3" is not Middle Earth. It's a whole lot more mutable than something somebody else made up years and years before and wrote novels around. Re-fluffing, at the very LEAST is a lot easier there, and introducing a new race isn't all that much harder.
Oh no, he might be having badwrongfun!
Yes, he might be. Badwrongfun is something we can't define at the level of the overall publication or at the hobby as a whole. But we certainly can define it at the individual table level. And if the character is incompatible in any number of ways with the group or GM, then the player is having badwrongfun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People keep bringing this up like it's a valid argument. It's not.
Catfolk don't exist in Middle Earth, yes. So yeah, it'd be silly for them to be there (though I'm a big fan of refluffing within the world, if say a tribe of men or Elves who worshiped the spirits of the Great Cats or summat existed and/or could reasonably be said to have existed, similar mechanics, sort of similar "appearance", s'all good).
But they do in Golarion. So it's not really the same scenario at all.
And "GM Homebrew Setting #3" is not Middle Earth. It's a whole lot more mutable than something somebody else made up years and years before and wrote novels around. Re-fluffing, at the very LEAST is a lot easier there, and introducing a new race isn't all that much harder.
So the homebrew setting I have been using now for close to twenty years and through multiple editions back through AD&D should be infinitely mutable, and the flavor and extended background should not matter?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So the homebrew setting I have been using now for close to twenty years and through multiple editions back through AD&D should be infinitely mutable, and the flavor and extended background should not matter?
If you've been using it for 20 years and still adamantly refuse to make any changes to it to allow any number of the countless new options, races, and so forth that have appeared in the past 2 decades, then yes, you should learn to be more flexible.
Did i ever say no changes have been made? There is a difference between carefully adding some things that fit and "everything goes"
Are the only two options 'allow everything' or 'allow nothing'?
Are the only two options 'allow everything' or 'allow nothing'?
Thank Norgorber! Someone finally understands the argument I've been trying to make all along! :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
[plants Freakflag in thread, just to be sure. Checks pocket to make sure is a card-carrying member of Open-minded Grognards Conspicuous. Realises own ears aren't pointy and this perhaps makes flag relevant, ironic, obsolete or all three.]
Are the only two options 'allow everything' or 'allow nothing'?Thank Norgorber! Someone finally understands the argument I've been trying to make all along! :P
Well, since I've never said 'allow nothing' but instead 'there are a few specific exclusions here, and some normal things are a bit different ...'
Adding what I have made no comment on is very different thqn adding what specifically has been stated not to exist.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Apples and oranges. You are arguing about two different styles of game / setting. One is defined by the setting / GM and the other is a wide open free for all. Both are OK. Both can be fun. And a lot of games land in between there. If you don't like one style then don't play it. Simple. If you're in a game and you find yourself too far on one side or the other of this line, adjust or go. Don't expect the GM / other players to accommodate something that's too far away from the game they enjoy. In a wide open game you shouldn't be whining about the ethnic / cultural freak show your lone human Fighter is forced to play with. In a more restrained setting you shouldn't be whining that your choice was infringed on when you couldn't play your multi ethnic aasimar / tiefling / catfolk Ninja. Just play the game or find another. If you're not having fun playing within the structure or chaos of the game you're playing, then you are doing something wrong. Play, and run, what you like. Anything else is a waste of time. My 2 cp.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So the homebrew setting I have been using now for close to twenty years and through multiple editions back through AD&D should be infinitely mutable, and the flavor and extended background should not matter?If you've been using it for 20 years and still adamantly refuse to make any changes to it to allow any number of the countless new options, races, and so forth that have appeared in the past 2 decades, then yes, you should learn to be more flexible.
That's the kind of entitled talk that players should watch. If I've put that much effort into a game world perhaps the player should respect this. Not sure why people think that a single player's whims are more important than that of the GM, the other players, and years of world building.
Sounds much more like a petulant child than an adult who takes the concerns of other people into account.
It's this lack of courtesy that I hate to see at the game table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's the kind of entitled talk that players should watch. If I've put that much effort into a game world perhaps the player should respect this. Not sure why people think that a single player's whims are more important than that of the GM, the other players, and years of world building.
Sounds much more like a petulant child than an adult who takes the concerns of other people into account.
It's this lack of courtesy that I hate to see at the game table.
"Entitled" is a word that's thrown around entirely too often. It's the low hanging fruit in any GM vs Players argument, and it works both ways as well.
"The GM is being an entitled brat. Everything has to be his way in the game and setting and he won't budge an inch. It's always about him."