| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed. How dare the DM spend years building a rich and detailed world. The hubris!
And all the other players at the table who have bought-in to play in this world, what jerks they must be.
Indeed. How dare the DM spend years building a rich and detailed world. The hubris!
Someone can make the biggest, best hamburger in the world, but if they gripe and moan when I want to put any sort of condiment on it (my preferred is barbecue sauce, for future reference) on it, I'm probably not going to eat at their table again.
And if they do it when their hamburger is alright, but certainly not amazing (even though they think it is), I'll be even less inclined to do so.
Someone can make the biggest, best hamburger in the world, but if they gripe and moan when I want to put any sort of condiment on it (my preferred is barbecue sauce, for future reference) on it, I'm probably not going to eat at their table again.
If I make the biggest, best hamburgers in the world, and you insist that I change my recipe by mixing your favorite condiment into the ground beef before I grill it up and serve it to everyone at my table, I don't see how you leaving when I refuse to change my recipe is somehow punishing me.
And if they do it when their hamburger is alright, but certainly not amazing (even though they think it is), I'll be even less inclined to do so.
Everyone was thinking it, you said it.
Budging on details like races and world culture shatters the illusion that one's game world is A Work of Literary Genius and therefore immutable.
EDIT: That's not to say that every GM is consciously or unconsciously thinking this, but I think it's the most obvious reason that someone would be so adamant that there could be not a single fire human.
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.
For the love of words, please reread this post. Everyone. And Favorite it. Thank you.
For the record (and because I love talking about myself):
a) in general, in most games that I run as GM I have a "please, yes" policy in which the player gains the options of pulling from anything they so desire whatsoever. This is me as a GM. If that's not enough, I generally award templates during games for things because PF (and the 3.X d20 system before it) is crazy cool and I love templates;
b) I also build specific worlds with specific limitations. One of the interesting things about these latter two are that I haven't played with them yet, though I'm likely to very soon. (It's worth noting: these are by no means the only two worlds that I've created. I've created any number of worlds, adapted others, and completely run roughshod over others still.)
Now, allow me to talk for a few moments here. It's really one of the only things I do well*, so please: indulge me.
In the worlds that I create, there is a character built by certain themes - something about the limitations that I've imposed that defines them and makes them interesting. If I pitch them to someone else, and I think I communicate well, and they build something not allowed than most of you here are of the opinion that either the GM must change or the player must change. But this is a false dichotomy.
Please don't misunderstand. Those homebrew worlds? They're not perfect. By any stretch. (They're not even complete, yet!) But if a player comes to me with something that doesn't fit in one it's not time for me to immediately change or them to either. It's time to do something rather peculiar. TALK.
You see, Kirth has a nifty idea: getting a group consensus. Giving everyone equal rights doesn't always work in practice (though sometimes it does: the dynamics of social interaction vary wildly), but the basic concept that everyone has at least some say is usually valid (there are, of course, exceptions - some of you know "that guy"; some probably are "that guy"!).
So in this case (one of my settings), I'd tell the guy that his character doesn't fit the setting.
What happens next is highly variable and everyone here is generally making assumptions about everyone else.
1) The player might decide to change aspect of the character that doesn't work (I did in the first game I ever played).
2) The player might explain that they're really attached to the idea of the character and can't alter it. In that case, a few options arise:
- 2a) I might change the setting. If the setting can support it and it could make sense and the game I'm planning on running can support it with me running it I might change the setting and the game I'm planning to run accordingly.
- 2b) the player might choose a new character. They may create a new one on their own, or I might help them, but either way a new character is created.
3) The player might explain that they're not interested in playing the world as-pitched. This could be for any number of reasons. And any number of responses could come. The player could walk, could sit this one out, or something else. This, more than anything, is disruptive to the group. The problem is that it's not something that you can necessarily predict. Naturally, it's best if you object immediately. But if you didn't because of <insert any number of valid and invalid reasons here**>, well, it's basically up to your group social contract what happens next.
And none of these things are inherently wrong.
And, you know, the GM is finite, despite their role. They have inherently limited creativity and interests. If I have a set of ideas in my head, it can be very hard to change those. Very hard.
Not being able to adjust their Tolkien head-canon is less a sign of lack of creativity in general, and more a sign of attachment. If you're able to, great! Good job! If you're not... okay! Nothing wrong with that, either!
Really, what's easy for some is difficult for others. Not everyone has the right set of circumstances.
For all the talk of "GMs should respect the players!" and "Players should respect the GM!"... you're right. All of you. Both parties should respect the other one. Also, everyone's sounding entitled right now.
And sit down and talk about it and resolve it like sensible people instead of endlessly bickering about who's privilages are more important.
It's been difficult to comment here since I agree with parts of each of you.
Yeah the GM inherently has more power.
Yeah each party should respect the other.
Yes, both should be willing to compromise as the ideal, but in practice it can't always happen that way. Because, you know, people are limited.
So, to sum up: R Chance.
* I know, I know. But a guy's gotta have illusions, right?
** Reasons include, but are not limited to: you thought you were interested, but later weren't; you didn't want to bum your excited friends out, but simply couldn't muster enthusiasm or creativity; you didn't know how you felt at the time so said "okay" but have been completely unable to engage subsequently; etc.
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.
Alternatively, I spent a 2 hour plane flight working out with one of my players a way for him to play as a dragon in our home setting. If I can get it done in the time that it takes for me to get from Philly to Houston, then I have a hard time believing that 20 years isn't enough to find room for half-fey cat boys.
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.For the love of words, please reread this post. Everyone. And Favorite it. Thank you.
For the record (and because I love talking about myself):
a) in general, in most games that I run as GM I have a "please, yes" policy in which the player gains the options of pulling from anything they so desire whatsoever. This is me as a GM. If that's not enough, I generally award templates during games for things because PF (and the 3.X d20 system before it) is crazy cool and I love templates;
b) I also build specific worlds with specific limitations. One of the interesting things about these latter two are that I haven't played with them yet, though I'm likely to very soon. (It's worth noting: these are by no means the only two worlds that I've created. I've created any number of worlds, adapted...
I think you just won roleplaying. Good job!
Do these arguments happen in non-D&D games? How often does a GM running Exalted run into a player wanting to introduce the lone member of a new caste? Or a vampire player wanting to make up their own clan?
I'm wondering if this is mostly just a D&D/PF thing.
|
I'm wondering if this is mostly just a D&D/PF thing.
I doubt it. We're all gamers, regardless of system.
Don't believe me? Spend 30 minutes here.
Do these arguments happen in non-D&D games? How often does a GM running Exalted run into a player wanting to introduce the lone member of a new caste? Or a vampire player wanting to make up their own clan?
I'm wondering if this is mostly just a D&D/PF thing.
It happens occasionally in my New World of Darkness games. I play with a group and GM for them on smaller secondary campaigns.
I've had my request to play as a ghost accommodated, and I've seen the request to play as a boxing were-kangaroo denied. When I started to run that system and I got asked about said were-kangaroo, the quote of the day from the other GM was "Hah! That's exactly the face I made when he asked me."
eta: That said, if someone asks for something that won't make a mockery of the theme, I'll do my best to make it work. One of the ways is relaxing restrictions on backup characters. Since they'll be joining over the course of the adventure anyway, there's less reason for them to come from a similar lets-all-work-together background and instead have a reason that comes from the campaign, where various weirdness may be found.
It's not just a D&D/PF thing. A lot of players bring very, very strange character concepts to superhero games - not all of which will fit in with a GM's intended campaign style. There are a lot of Bronze/Iron Age and Golden Age concepts that won't fit with a four-color style campaign because they're simply too bloody.
And if they do it when their hamburger is alright, but certainly not amazing (even though they think it is), I'll be even less inclined to do so.Everyone was thinking it, you said it.
Budging on details like races and world culture shatters the illusion that one's game world is A Work of Literary Genius and therefore immutable.
EDIT: That's not to say that every GM is consciously or unconsciously thinking this, but I think it's the most obvious reason that someone would be so adamant that there could be not a single fire human.
I have to admit, I do think my campaign world is better when I make no false claims / assumptions about how a Flumph is believable while a homebrew race that's basically a more human-like Minotaur is somehow too absurd to be included in the same campaign world. As for those who don't know what a Flumph is, it's basically a Lawful Good aberration that looks like a yellow jellyfish and farts while it flies around. If the setting specifically has some kind of limiter on how unusual the fantasy elements are (why would there be one though?), then neither of those would be plausible.
Alternatively, I spent a 2 hour plane flight working out with one of my players a way for him to play as a dragon in our home setting. If I can get it done in the time that it takes for me to get from Philly to Houston, then I have a hard time believing that 20 years isn't enough to find room for half-fey cat boys.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.
... There isn't going tone room found for something that doesn't fit, and the assumption shouldn't be that anything anyone wants should automatically be added just because they want it. Compromise isn't the player wanting something and automatically getting the whole enchilada. Unless you are talking the politicians compromise of "you entirely give up your vision and adopt mine whole cloth"
Alternatively, I spent a 2 hour plane flight working out with one of my players a way for him to play as a dragon in our home setting. If I can get it done in the time that it takes for me to get from Philly to Houston, then I have a hard time believing that 20 years isn't enough to find room for half-fey cat boys.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.
Again, even if "half fae cat boys" and a few other options are restricted from use there is almost an infinite universe of other possibilities, and the reasonable option isn't to find one of those you might enjoy just MARGINALLY less and play it? Is anyone's creativity so poor that they can't create a character they enjoy without one specific race?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, even if "half fae cat boys" and a few other options are restricted from use there is almost an infinite universe of other possibilities, and the reasonable option isn't to find one of those you might enjoy just MARGINALLY less and play it? Is anyone's creativity so poor that they can't create a character they enjoy without one specific race?Alternatively, I spent a 2 hour plane flight working out with one of my players a way for him to play as a dragon in our home setting. If I can get it done in the time that it takes for me to get from Philly to Houston, then I have a hard time believing that 20 years isn't enough to find room for half-fey cat boys.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.
Because it's the race I want to play? It looks cool, has the stats I want for my class, and jives with the other players. Is your flexibility so poor that you can't handle an uncommon race in your party?
Maybe its because both me and my DM are new (he's running his first-ever campaign starting tonight), but it would seem to me that a player should be able to play how they want. It's the same as if World of Warcraft only let you play as a human because Blizzard didn't want you messing up their world by being a Tauren.
The players race should be the last thing you're concerned about. It may be your world but they are also spending large amounts of their time and probably money investing into your game. It's a group effort to have a fun time, not get uppity because Steve wants to play a Strix Sorcerer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's the same as if World of Warcraft only let you play as a human because Blizzard didn't want you messing up their world by being a Tauren.
WoW is pretty restrictive. If you want to play Alliance, there are seven races available and Tauren isn't one of them.
Again, even if "half fae cat boys" and a few other options are restricted from use there is almost an infinite universe of other possibilities, and the reasonable option isn't to find one of those you might enjoy just MARGINALLY less and play it? Is anyone's creativity so poor that they can't create a character they enjoy without one specific race?Alternatively, I spent a 2 hour plane flight working out with one of my players a way for him to play as a dragon in our home setting. If I can get it done in the time that it takes for me to get from Philly to Houston, then I have a hard time believing that 20 years isn't enough to find room for half-fey cat boys.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.
Because it's the race I want to play? It looks cool, has the stats I want for my class, and jives with the other players. Is your flexibility so poor that you can't handle an uncommon race in your party?
Maybe its because both me and my DM are new (he's running his first-ever...
Uncommon isnt a problem. Nonexistent in the world is.
Now imagine if you want your 5 template monster to be a gunslinger in a world without gunpowder....
Well, obviously gunpowder should IMMEDIATELY be added because any restrictions whatsoever on a players choices are evil incarnate,
Did someone just say apples and oranges?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there sulfur, charcoal, and potassium nitrate in the setting?
Most game settings have a Medieval (5th to 15th century) level of technology. Black powder was first recorded in the 9th century. Why again is it not possible to have it in a game setting?
Oh right, little snowflake setting can't handle unusual stuff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there sulfur, charcoal, and potassium nitrate in the setting?
Most game settings have a Medieval (5th to 15th century) level of technology. Black powder was first recorded in the 9th century. Why again is it not possible to have it in a game setting?
Oh right, little snowflake setting can't handle unusual stuff.
So? Why is that particularly relevant? All those things existed for quite along time without gunpowder coming into being. All the materials to make f-18 fighter jets exist too. If someone wants them should they also pop into being?
Is there sulfur, charcoal, and potassium nitrate in the setting?
Most game settings have a Medieval (5th to 15th century) level of technology. Black powder was first recorded in the 9th century. Why again is it not possible to have it in a game setting?
Oh right, little snowflake setting can't handle unusual stuff.
Also "the little snowflake player can't handle creating a character without one option out of the countless ones available."
Except a single individual could make black powder on their own for their own use. Making an F-18 all by themselves would be exponentially more difficult.
EDIT: See the bit on your message that says "EDIT"? You can change the message within the 1st hour of the post. This way you do not have to keep making 2 posts in response to the same message back to back. You could instead just edit the first one to include the second one. Just FYI.
Except a single individual could make black powder on their own for their own use. Making an F-18 all by themselves would be exponentially more difficult.
And why should it exist? And could that same person have done all of the research and painstaking development that went into creating working firearms? And ... Why should there be ay particular obligation to introduce it to a world whee you don't want it ... Instead of the player just finding one of nearly endless other options?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except a single individual could make black powder on their own for their own use. Making an F-18 all by themselves would be exponentially more difficult.And why should it exist? And could that same person have done all of the research and painstaking development that went into creating working firearms? And ... Why should there be ay particular obligation to introduce it to a world whee you don't want it ... Instead of the player just finding one of nearly endless other options?
Every invention had the person that made it first. We don't know who first invented gunpowder because it's so old, and I personally don't know who invented the first flintlock, but someone did.
Not saying that every game should allow firearms; the GM has every right to not allow them, but acting like the restriction is anything other than personal preference on the GM's part is silly.
IMO, Pathfinder really doesn't have too many races that I think are too exotic and hard to incorporate into the world. Even counting the anthropomorphic races. I'm pretty sure there aren't many races that came from anywhere other than Core and Advanced Race Guide, so I personally would not have issue with allowing races from those books.
If you want to pull some splat book from a 3PP or from 3.5 to incorporate some random race who's culture I know nothing about and we have no idea how to write your character's background or figure out how they came into existence, so you can min max your DPR, then get out. It shouldn't be on the DM to go to unreasonable bounds to have to either invent an entire culture, or just ignore any role playing aspects of your exotic race, just so you can get some crunch.
Last thing, If the DM doesn't have the means to incorporate or at least accommodate the different kinds of races readily available, then he should really do a little bit of reading. Most of the races I am seeing people have problems with (at least in my gaming experiences) are the animal races.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there sulfur, charcoal, and potassium nitrate in the setting?
Most game settings have a Medieval (5th to 15th century) level of technology. Black powder was first recorded in the 9th century. Why again is it not possible to have it in a game setting?
Oh right, little snowflake setting can't handle unusual stuff.
By that logic how is it possible native american tribes had no gunpowder before the white man. only 3 ingredients after all.....
I am of mixed opinion of gunpowder in fantasy but it is also not that hard to imagine that no one has made it, just that simple.
It's the same as if World of Warcraft only let you play as a human because Blizzard didn't want you messing up their world by being a Tauren.WoW is pretty restrictive. If you want to play Alliance, there are seven races available and Tauren isn't one of them.
And if you do play a tauren and the fluff changes so that you hate the horde you can't leave them. You can't help the alliance to win the war. All you can do is not do quests for hellscream and in return don't get the xp.
In an RPG I can tell my gm if I hate his NPCs and I can even try and kill them. There is no such thing as unattackable NPCs in roleplaying games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there sulfur, charcoal, and potassium nitrate in the setting?
Most game settings have a Medieval (5th to 15th century) level of technology. Black powder was first recorded in the 9th century. Why again is it not possible to have it in a game setting?
Oh right, little snowflake setting can't handle unusual stuff.
By that logic how is it possible native american tribes had no gunpowder before the white man. only 3 ingredients after all.....
I am of mixed opinion of gunpowder in fantasy but it is also not that hard to imagine that no one has made it, just that simple.
Because that is not what the logic says. You seem to think that a claim that it could exist somewhere means that it must exist everywhere. This is obviously illogical.
IMO, Pathfinder really doesn't have too many races that I think are too exotic and hard to incorporate into the world. Even counting the anthropomorphic races. I'm pretty sure there aren't many races that came from anywhere other than Core and Advanced Race Guide, so I personally would not have issue with allowing races from those books.
If you want to pull some splat book from a 3PP or from 3.5 to incorporate some random race who's culture I know nothing about and we have no idea how to write your character's background or figure out how they came into existence, so you can min max your DPR, then get out. It shouldn't be on the DM to go to unreasonable bounds to have to either invent an entire culture, or just ignore any role playing aspects of your exotic race, just so you can get some crunch.
Last thing, If the DM doesn't have the means to incorporate or at least accommodate the different kinds of races readily available, then he should really do a little bit of reading. Most of the races I am seeing people have problems with (at least in my gaming experiences) are the animal races.
It isn't "not having the means". Its "not having the desire" and "it not fitting right".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When you create a setting for a game, there are a few things you need to do. The first is to provide a reason to play there instead of in Generica/FR/Golarion/Eberron/whatever. This can be a style/genre, an emotional theme, a focus like certain races, a special feature like floating islands, a type of conflict like war or intrigue, using a certain ruleset, or anything else. Next, you need to decide what to include, and what NOT to include. On both counts, you make choices, for various reasons. There are tons of reasons here, but when you design a setting, you have a premise and work from it. You want certain things to take a large part in the setting conflicts. By definition, this means you have to deemphasize other things.
Let's take an example: A setting where people travel between various courts and engage in plotting, backstabbing, poisoning, flirting, dancing and manipulation. Which races? Certainly, you COULD go minotaur, flumph, goblin, otyugh and half-dragon choker as the main races... but that's not going to let you do what you want to focus on. Such a campaign would become doomed to "silly stupidity" even before you start. You have images of courtly graces, beautiful dresses, words whispered behind painted fans, moving cavalry to betray others, and so on, and otyughs wouldn't work very well (unless you WANT "silly stupidity"). Instead, you would go with races that play to the strengths of your concept. Humans, elves, drow, aasimar and tiefling, perhaps? Or a game of politically minded dwarves only? If someone then wants to play a twice-half-dragon gelatinous cube, that character's inclusion WILL ruin a vital part of what made the setting work.
Another example: An urban campaign. You want to keep the action in a very large city, and you want to focus on criminality, law, society, life in a large town, power, tyranny and freedom. Every street corner has someone who wants to interact with others, with their own plans, plots and beliefs. Sure, the players COULD all make nomad barbarians who interact with others by means of their blades, but again, they would miss out on most of what makes the setting special.
A special case is if the absence of something is a setting plot point. Perhaps part of the idea was to see what happens socially in a society where magic takes ALL the roles of technology, so that you have a democratic system, a huge population, relatively modern sensibilities... but no gunpowder. Play a gunslinger in that campaign and you raise a whole host of issues that detract from the setting, primarily: WHY DIDN'T ANYONE FIGURE OUT GUNPOWDER BEFORE? And perhaps, just perhaps, the GM wants to answer that question him/herself, by then introducing it. If so, you have not only destroyed the setting logic, but also the campaign plot. It may not be merely personal preference. It could be because gunpowder changes the setting in ways you don't want. Or, as in thousands of fantasy settings, one of the classic races have died out. Playing a dwarf in Morrowind would work pretty strangely.
There is another issue here that needs to be dealt with. When you design a setting, you have a honking big ocean of stuff you COULD include. Each of those parts is stuff you have to adapt, and deal with rules-wise and otherwise, if you choose to include them. Removing stuff from the equation means a lighter burden on you. Including everything weakens the initial premise, and makes your setting merely another kitchen sink without any particular reason to play in that setting rather than another.
In closing: Yes, the GM COULD change his setting to let you play your bizarre conglomerate of arms and legs/catfolk/winged elf, but it would be a change, and it could be one that has severe consequences that you do not know enough about. As was stated, the player may have to play another character for a good long while. The GM may have to play in a setting they don't enjoy for exactly the same time. And saying that it should be a group consensus just means that the players outnumber the GM, so that flat out doesn't work as saying that people should compromise.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because that is not what the logic says. You seem to think that a claim that it could exist somewhere means that it must exist everywhere. This is obviously illogical.
It's based on similar logic to this:
Is there sulfur, charcoal, and potassium nitrate in the setting?
Most game settings have a Medieval (5th to 15th century) level of technology. Black powder was first recorded in the 9th century. Why again is it not possible to have it in a game setting?
Oh right, little snowflake setting can't handle unusual stuff.
You're implying that if someone could mix those ingredients here in the real world, then someone should have in the campaign world (or the GM's a special snowflake). Well, just because it could exist somewhere doesn't mean it must exist everywhere... like the campaign world in which the GM doesn't want firearms.
It's the same as if World of Warcraft only let you play as a human because Blizzard didn't want you messing up their world by being a Tauren.WoW is pretty restrictive. If you want to play Alliance, there are seven races available and Tauren isn't one of them.
WoW is of course restrictive (being a video game and all), but Blizzard did manage to make it possible for players to play undead...
Well, just because it could exist somewhere doesn't mean it must exist everywhere... like the campaign world in which the GM doesn't want firearms.
You are confusing modalities and quantifiers. The claim you are responding to is that "in fantasy roleplaying settings, necessarily, if the ingredients for gunpowder exist, then there will exist someone who can make it into gunpowder". What you are saying is that "in fantasy roleplaying settings, possibly, the ingredients for gunpowder can exist but gunpowder not exist". Not only does that other claim not imply your claim, but your claim is actually equivalent to the negation of the other claim.
Play a gunslinger in that campaign and you raise a whole host of issues that detract from the setting, primarily: WHY DIDN'T ANYONE FIGURE OUT GUNPOWDER BEFORE? And perhaps, just perhaps, the GM wants to answer that question him/herself, by then introducing it. If so, you have not only destroyed the setting logic, but also the campaign plot.
Maybe this is just me, but I think it would be pretty easy to incorporate a gunslinger into a campaign where part of the plot is introducing gunpowder. The player's character gets to be one of the early adopters of guns, weaving them right into the middle of the plot. Now, true, gunpowder will probably be introduced in the middle of the campaign, not at the very beginning, so the character cannot start out with guns. There's a few ways this could be solved. They could start in another class (ranger is nice) and multiclass into gunslinger when it becomes available. Or they could just retrain their other levels into gunslinger levels. Or they could start out with the gunslinger class, but not with guns. It's not hard to tweak gunslinger so it works for crossbows. Then, once guns are available, they keep their class but just change weapons.
Is there sulfur, charcoal, and potassium nitrate in the setting?
Most game settings have a Medieval (5th to 15th century) level of technology. Black powder was first recorded in the 9th century. Why again is it not possible to have it in a game setting?
Oh right, little snowflake setting can't handle unusual stuff.
Also ... Gunpowder might have been found in 900 ... Yet it took three hundred years more for it to become a gun.
Because that is not what the logic says. You seem to think that a claim that it could exist somewhere means that it must exist everywhere. This is obviously illogical.It's based on similar logic to this:
You're implying that if someone could mix those ingredients here in the real world, then someone should have in the campaign world (or the GM's a special snowflake). Well, just because it could exist somewhere doesn't mean it must exist everywhere... like the campaign world in which the GM doesn't want firearms.Is there sulfur, charcoal, and potassium nitrate in the setting?
Most game settings have a Medieval (5th to 15th century) level of technology. Black powder was first recorded in the 9th century. Why again is it not possible to have it in a game setting?
Oh right, little snowflake setting can't handle unusual stuff.
Actually I said it was possible for someone to have done so. Not that they had to have done so.
Actually I said it was possible for someone to have done so. Not that they had to have done so.
Because that is not what the logic says. You seem to think that a claim that it could exist somewhere means that it must exist everywhere. This is obviously illogical.It's based on similar logic to this:
You're implying that if someone could mix those ingredients here in the real world, then someone should have in the campaign world (or the GM's a special snowflake). Well, just because it could exist somewhere doesn't mean it must exist everywhere... like the campaign world in which the GM doesn't want firearms.Is there sulfur, charcoal, and potassium nitrate in the setting?
Most game settings have a Medieval (5th to 15th century) level of technology. Black powder was first recorded in the 9th century. Why again is it not possible to have it in a game setting?
Oh right, little snowflake setting can't handle unusual stuff.
Then if someone ever makes the argument that its impossible for it to have happened you will have some ammo. Haven't seen tht argument but ...
Vivianne: Again, in my experience, a player who argues in this situation is NOT ready to accept a crossbow gunslinger. They might consider it if you agree to let all crossbows use touch attacks, especially if only they can do that. It just doesn't work. You know why? Because players like that consider it their right to play Any Character They Want (tm), and they will not compromise. Such a player would see every single one of your suggestions for compromise as "Vivianne is a bad GM because she won't let me play the exact character I want, as I want it, right from the start. If she were a good GM she would change her setting to fully accomodate every single character any player wants to play."
I think you just won roleplaying. Good job!Good stuff!Way too much stuff!
Thank you!
Vivianne: Again, in my experience, a player who argues in this situation is NOT ready to accept a crossbow gunslinger. They might consider it if you agree to let all crossbows use touch attacks, especially if only they can do that. It just doesn't work. You know why? Because players like that consider it their right to play Any Character They Want (tm), and they will not compromise. Such a player would see every single one of your suggestions for compromise as "Vivianne is a bad GM because she won't let me play the exact character I want, as I want it, right from the start. If she were a good GM she would change her setting to fully accomodate every single character any player wants to play."
I've never DMed for a player who wanted everything to be in place for their character starting from the first session. Part of the game is leveling up and gaining abilities. No one expects to start the campaign with Wish and a +10 greatsword. When players have wanted things for their characters, it's something we've talked about and they've known would be showing up, even if they don't start with it. For example, in the last campaign I ran, one of my players wanted his kobold paladin to have a flying mount. He didn't start out with it, but I knew he wanted it and he got it in later in the campaign at a plot-important moment.
I guess since I've never DMed with a player like you are describing, I assume good faith on the part of my players. I'm willing to be flexible and open-minded with what I allow because I assume that my players have earnest desires regarding their characters. This has worked out for me so far. Some of my favorite bits of the campaigns I've ran and the homebrew setting I use have come from players.
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.
Interestingly Gnomes (Petty-dwarves) did exist in Middle Earth but were hunted to almost extinction by elves.
Catfolk (Mewlips ) aren't mentioned much in Middle Earth but Badger Folk, Otter folk, Swam Folk, etc are. Turtle-fish are also mentioned.
Beorn was Bear Folk maybe?
There are Were-worms (people that can turn into dragons)) as well as Were Wolfs and vampires
Mewlips (Catfolk) aren't very well received: "live in fortress beyond Merlock Mountains and the Marsh of Tode (although its not clear if these are actual places or alternate names for places). They live in the dark, and ring a bell when ever anyone tries to enter their door, and count gold in the cellar. They capture their victims and drag them down into the fortress to feast on."
Vivianne: Again, in my experience, a player who argues in this situation is NOT ready to accept a crossbow gunslinger. They might consider it if you agree to let all crossbows use touch attacks, especially if only they can do that. It just doesn't work. You know why? Because players like that consider it their right to play Any Character They Want (tm), and they will not compromise. Such a player would see every single one of your suggestions for compromise as "Vivianne is a bad GM because she won't let me play the exact character I want, as I want it, right from the start. If she were a good GM she would change her setting to fully accomodate every single character any player wants to play."I've never DMed for a player who wanted everything to be in place for their character starting from the first session. Part of the game is leveling up and gaining abilities. No one expects to start the campaign with Wish and a +10 greatsword. When players have wanted things for their characters, it's something we've talked about and they've known would be showing up, even if they don't start with it. For example, in the last campaign I ran, one of my players wanted his kobold paladin to have a flying mount. He didn't start out with it, but I knew he wanted it and he got it in later in the campaign at a plot-important moment.
I guess since I've never DMed with a player like you are describing, I assume good faith on the part of my players. I'm willing to be flexible and open-minded with what I allow because I assume that my players have earnest desires regarding their characters. This has worked out for me so far. Some of my favorite bits of the campaigns I've ran and the homebrew setting I use have come from players.
... But being flexible and open minded doesn't imply that you need to let everything and anything in.
Vivianne: Again, in my experience, a player who argues in this situation is NOT ready to accept a crossbow gunslinger. They might consider it if you agree to let all crossbows use touch attacks, especially if only they can do that. It just doesn't work. You know why? Because players like that consider it their right to play Any Character They Want (tm), and they will not compromise. Such a player would see every single one of your suggestions for compromise as "Vivianne is a bad GM because she won't let me play the exact character I want, as I want it, right from the start. If she were a good GM she would change her setting to fully accomodate every single character any player wants to play."I've never DMed for a player who wanted everything to be in place for their character starting from the first session. Part of the game is leveling up and gaining abilities. No one expects to start the campaign with Wish and a +10 greatsword. When players have wanted things for their characters, it's something we've talked about and they've known would be showing up, even if they don't start with it. For example, in the last campaign I ran, one of my players wanted his kobold paladin to have a flying mount. He didn't start out with it, but I knew he wanted it and he got it in later in the campaign at a plot-important moment.
I guess since I've never DMed with a player like you are describing, I assume good faith on the part of my players. I'm willing to be flexible and open-minded with what I allow because I assume that my players have earnest desires regarding their characters. This has worked out for me so far.
I did not claim the player did not want to start at first level. Just that they would not accept starting out as a ranger or anything but gunslinger with guns. And if you have been blessed not to have to deal with this type of player, well, let's just say it doesn't come as a surprise to me that you still think it is only the GM's responsibility to adapt to the players' characters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
... But being flexible and open minded doesn't imply that you need to let everything and anything in.
Nope, just the things wanted by players. Which, as there are only so many players per game and only so many games one can run, is not actually that much. And again, I want to add things to the setting to support players because that is where some of the best material comes from. For example, again from the last game I ran, one of my players wanted to play a runaway half-orc princess. A princess requires a nation to be princess of, so I talked with this player about what his ideas for the nation were. Together, we worked out the details for this nation and how it fit into the setting.
Players can have good, creative ideas for the setting. By letting them use those ideas, as DM you can save yourself a lot of work.
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.
Interestingly Gnomes (Petty-dwarves) did exist in Middle Earth but were hunted to almost extinction by elves.
Catfolk (Mewlips ) aren't mentioned much in Middle Earth but Badger Folk, Otter folk, Swam Folk, etc are. Turtle-fish are also mentioned.
Beorn was Bear Folk maybe?
There are Were-worms (people that can turn into dragons)) as well as Were Wolfs and vampires
Mewlips (Catfolk) aren't very well received: "live in fortress beyond Merlock Mountains and the Marsh of Tode (although its not clear if these are actual places or alternate names for places). They live in the dark, and ring a bell when ever anyone tries to enter their door, and count gold in the cellar. They capture their victims and drag them down into the fortress to feast on."
Okay...tangent but...Mewlips I have heard as always described as more ghoul-esq than cat-like. I also don't recall any mention of Badger Folk, Otter Folk, or Swan Folk
... But being flexible and open minded doesn't imply that you need to let everything and anything in.Nope, just the things wanted by players. Which, as there are only so many players per game and only so many games one can run, is not actually that much. And again, I want to add things to the setting to support players because that is where some of the best material comes from. For example, again from the last game I ran, one of my players wanted to play a runaway half-orc princess. A princess requires a nation to be princess of, so I talked with this player about what his ideas for the nation were. Together, we worked out the details for this nation and how it fit into the setting.
Players can have good, creative ideas for the setting. By letting them use those ideas, as DM you can save yourself a lot of work.
yes they an have good creative ideas fr the setting.m but not every idea is good and creative FOR THE SETTING - sometimes that idea just needs to be tried elsewhere.
Okay...tangent but...Mewlips I have heard as always described as more ghoul-esq than cat-like. I also don't recall any mention of Badger Folk, Otter Folk, or Swan FolkPeople 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.
Interestingly Gnomes (Petty-dwarves) did exist in Middle Earth but were hunted to almost extinction by elves.
Catfolk (Mewlips ) aren't mentioned much in Middle Earth but Badger Folk, Otter folk, Swam Folk, etc are. Turtle-fish are also mentioned.
Beorn was Bear Folk maybe?
There are Were-worms (people that can turn into dragons)) as well as Were Wolfs and vampires
Mewlips (Catfolk) aren't very well received: "live in fortress beyond Merlock Mountains and the Marsh of Tode (although its not clear if these are actual places or alternate names for places). They live in the dark, and ring a bell when ever anyone tries to enter their door, and count gold in the cellar. They capture their victims and drag them down into the fortress to feast on."
It is part of Tom Bombildil's tales.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I did not claim the player did not want to start at first level. Just that they would not accept starting out as a ranger or anything but gunslinger with guns.
Eh, I suppose I think completely irrational players are extremely rare, as completely irrational people are extremely rare. I mean, there's the issue of how you explain your position to the player. There's a lot of difference between saying something like
Oh, your idea for a gunslinger would actually fit really well into this campaign! Spoilers, so don't share this with the other players, but part of my idea for this campaign was to introduce gunpowder and guns. This makes your character fit really well in the campaign! I have some NPCs you might consider working into your backstory. You won't be able to start with a gun at the beginning of the campaign, but you'd be able to get one soon. My original plan was to introduce guns late in the campaign, but it'd be easy to move that to earlier in the campaign so you don't have to wait until the very end to have guns. Here's a few ways we can handle how to do this: [things]
versus saying something like
You want to play a gunslinger? No. Oh, you are giving me ways it could fit into the setting because you really want to play this character? Still no. I already have an idea for introducing guns in this campaign and you should respect my setting and not ruin my idea. Oh, now you are giving me ways your character could fit in a campaign where guns are introduced? Well, I suppose I could let you have guns once I introduce them, but you wouldn't start out with guns. You'll have to wait until I introduce them. I was planning on gunpowder showing up late in the campaign.
I am definitely caricaturing rather a lot here, but if a player got a response that was more like the latter and less like the former, I can understand why they wouldn't want to "compromise".
And if you have been blessed not to have to deal with this type of player, well, let's just say it doesn't come as a surprise to me that you still think it is only the GM's responsibility to adapt to the players' characters.
Oh I don't think only DMs have responsibility. However, I view the game as a group thing, where the game world and campaign belongs to everyone, not just the DM. But since the DM is arbiter, then yeah, I do think they have a responsibility to incorporate the ideas of others. Players can't really have that same responsibility, because they don't have the necessary power. It would be absurd to say that players have a responsibility to fit the ideas of others into the campaign they are running: players aren't running the campaign!