|
No. But you will be working with a wider spectrum. :)
Being an amateur (no, hobbyist is the better descriptor) artist and photographer, I actually prefer to work in Black & White.
When I am "Digitalelf the Artist", I like to use B&W "pen & ink" and/or "ink & wash" techniques. And when I take on the aspect of "Digitalelf the Photographer", I simply LOVE to take B&W photographs using a simple, basic, 35mm camera... Perhaps, in a manner of speaking, this speaks to my preferences in gaming as well? :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or are we using the old saying that if you throw enough s$~*e at the wall it will eventually stick?
it's not that i require more races
it's that, i refuse to be bound only to the core races, of which, none i will willingly touch without a heavy reskinning of the race and a heavy retooling of their culture, appearance, and other fluff related details
it's not needing more, it's being picky
imagine if there were certain colors you cannot stand with the exception of certain shades, and you would avoid those colors until you found something close to a shade you like.
i hate the Tolkein standard with a passion
at least with planetouched, i have a relatively customizable appearance, customizable series of cultures to work with, and are detached enough from humanity, that i can willingly play them, despite them being otherwise pallette swapped humans
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or are we using the old saying that if you throw enough s$~*e at the wall it will eventually stick?it's not that i require more races
it's that, i refuse to be bound only to the core races, of which, none i will willingly touch without a heavy reskinning of the race and a heavy retooling of their culture, appearance, and other fluff related details
it's not needing more, it's being picky
imagine if there were certain colors you cannot stand with the exception of certain shades, and you would avoid those colors until you found something close to a shade you like.
i hate the Tolkein standard with a passion
at least with planetouched, i have a relatively customizable appearance, customizable series of cultures to work with, and are detached enough from humanity, that i can willingly play them, despite them being otherwise pallette swapped humans
So whats wrong with simply declining to participate in the game and wait until one that you favour comes along?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Games like D&D and Pathfinder have always made it clear that everything is optional and the DM has the choice of allowing or disallowing what ever he wants if it helps him in building his campaign.
And of course truth be told, 2e gm guide is literally filled to the brim with reminders that any rule the gm wants to follow or not follow should be carefully considered so as to both make sure it won't cause game breaking problems down the line and at the same time will undoubtably not decrease the amount of fun at the table. This is now popularly referred to as the 'rule of fun'
I hear so many gms that read those lines of text and apply the decrease in the amount of fun to themselves personally, and thereby rule down anything they don't personally enjoy.
Your solution though is totally appropriate.. I love telling those gms that i'll wait for the next bus.
I don't often get to role play... But when I do... it's at a table full of people with open minds...
Thats kinda the first tool in the tabletop-gaming toolbox as far as I'm concerned...
Not to say that things can't be banned... but I prefer to only see that happen when it applies to the 2e perspective.... Will it break a mechanical aspect of the game? Will it be such a stark thematic change that everyone at the table can no longer find the campaign imaginative and immersive... If you can't draw a hard yes on those two... I don't expect an arbitrary nerf.
When a guy in a world with no catgirls says "I wanna play a catgirl".. I just ask myself... If I really really really wanted to create a catgirl in this world... regardless of if I WANT one in my world personally... Could it be done....
And in pathfinders case and 2e... We have the wish spell... so yeah.. Anything is possible. So the character background needs to include the appropriate elements that make their fluff mechanically solid... With wish spells that ain't too hard to accomplish and can create a lot of other exploitable backstory as well...
Amazes me how someone would bother picking up the mantle of gm without first having the motivation to run a game FOR the players and WITH the players... Seems like it's getting very popular nowadays to run a game TO your players.
Bare minimum I expect a gm to guarantee the WITH first, or why did you even start GMing in the first place? If the pathfinder publishers can
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Games like D&D and Pathfinder have always made it clear that everything is optional and the DM has the choice of allowing or disallowing what ever he wants if it helps him in building his campaign.And of course truth be told, 2e gm guide is literally filled to the brim with reminders that any rule the gm wants to follow or not follow should be carefully considered so as to both make sure it won't cause game breaking problems down the line and at the same time will undoubtably not decrease the amount of fun at the table. This is now popularly referred to as the 'rule of fun'
I hear so many gms that read those lines of text and apply the decrease in the amount of fun to themselves personally, and thereby rule down anything they don't personally enjoy.
Your solution though is totally appropriate.. I love telling those gms that i'll wait for the next bus.
I don't often get to role play... But when I do... it's at a table full of people with open minds...
Thats kinda the first tool in the tabletop-gaming toolbox as far as I'm concerned...
Not to say that things can't be banned... but I prefer to only see that happen when it applies to the 2e perspective.... Will it break a mechanical aspect of the game? Will it be such a stark thematic change that everyone at the table can no longer find the campaign imaginative and immersive... If you can't draw a hard yes on those two... I don't expect an arbitrary nerf.
When a guy in a world with no catgirls says "I wanna play a catgirl".. I just ask myself... If I really really really wanted to create a catgirl in this world... regardless of if I WANT one in my world personally... Could it be done....
And in pathfinders case and 2e... We have the wish spell... so yeah.. Anything is possible. So the character background needs to include the appropriate elements that make their fluff mechanically solid... With wish spells that ain't too hard to accomplish and can create a lot of other exploitable backstory as well...
Amazes me how someone would bother picking up the mantle of gm without first having the motivation to run a game FOR the players and WITH the players... Seems like it's getting very popular nowadays to run a game TO your players.
Bare minimum I expect a gm to guarantee the WITH first, or why did you even start GMing in the first place?
These are good talking points. That said, sure, anything is possible but that doesn't mean everything HAS to be possible, which is where this discussion keeps going round and round.
A catgirl or dinosaur barbarian or pony wizard or whatnot can certainly be created in virtually campaign/setting regardless of what restrictions you lay down with a Wish, with a Gate, with "a wizard did it", or however you want to handwave things to shove something in.
My contention with the above is the suggestion that not allowing such is somehow not running the game for the players and with the players. This, to me, is akin to suggesting that because I do not bend to every whim of my child I am somehow a bad parent. My kids would certainly like a great many things and some we do not allow in the house for a variety of reasons, some we just cannot get right now.
It is important as we sit here on boards making hypothetical conversation about what people are doing "wrong" that we consider how different games and groups of friends play. Not everyone does it the same way and that is great! Not every game should be a cookie cutter of the other and not everyone is going to agree in the One True Way.
Bottom line: just because things CAN be done doesn't mean they should be, or [b]have[b] to be.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ciretose, I disagree. Maybe the only way is to ask people for each scenario:
1. One player wants something, everyone else disagrees. Allow?
2. One player wants something, everyone else agrees except DM (although the players all generally like the setting/game otherwise). Allow?My answers are 1. No; 2. Yes.
Anzyr's were 1. Yes; 2. Yes.
Answering 1. Yes; 2. No is fairly schizo, so let's ignore that possibility.The remaining possibility is 1. No; 2. No. Many people's posts, especially when they start talking about the purity of their setting, tells me that this is what they're hinting at.
If people are willing to reply, I'd like to invite them to have the courage of their convictions, and come right out and say so. If so, I think you'll see that you're incorrect in saying "it's only if it's one player bucking the trend." I think, if a player wants something, and the other players agree, many DMs will still ban it if they can do so without driving off the players.
1. No
2. Yes after discussion.But more often my experience is:
3. GM proposes a setting, Players decide if they are interested in playing in the setting and submit ideas to GM of what they want to be within the framework. GM coordinates with everyone to create a party that would actually be motivated to be a party, and if enough people want to play, game happens, if not, game doesn't.
The decision to if an individual idea makes it or not is made before the game starts, in the same way the decision if the game happens or not is made before the game starts.
With backup characters, I've never really seen a problem with my group because by then everyone has a feel for the setting/campaign the GM is running and it is a group discussion of "What we want/need" and how it would make sense in the story.
And since I don't game with jerks, never been a problem aside from minor discussions of tweaks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Look at it this way.
Do you automatically paint better pictures when you have more colours?
i merely can't stand most of the core races
** spoiler omitted **...
While I can understand some of your concerns on this, I cannot help but think two things about this:
1. I think that perhaps you've run across too many stereotypical presentations of these races. There are a lot of takes on all of them, especially humans. I never quite understand when people have a great dislike for humans and liken it to going to the store or just being "boring".
2. I think a lot of your take on the races may be linked to your, um, fascination with the lolita bit. I suppose it is hard to see a dwarf in that light and getting a free tail or wings or nifty hair colour with another race is more tempting than playing something considered ordinary or not attractive.
None of this is bad, mind you, but something to consider along the way. If the GM of the game you wanted to play disallowed cute/attractive characters of the sort you like, I imagine you'd be more upset than if they disallowed say, orcs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@LazarX: Thank you.
I suppose I should qualify my point point of view because in fairness it has to work both ways...
While my idea of a good gm and a good campaign were cemented in 1989 with the zeb cook edition...
--- That if the amazing Idea you have in your head can be completely ruined by a character with free will at best, and a cat's tail at worst... you may have yourself a wonderful story but a horrible campaign... And that's great... Go write the book. I'll proof read it for you and you can publish it and make a mint and that's awesome... ---
--- Now write something someone could exist in with free will instead... And we'll call it.... a campaign... or a setting... and we will play in it... Being what we want to be and doing what we want to do... And it will be awesome. ---
Even the paizo adventure paths only suggest the path... I had a dm argue with me that our characters flat out couldn't go to riddleport in rise of the runelords whenever we wanted to because it wasn't in the particular stage of the adventure we were in.... That's not free will. That's arbitrary 'unjumpable fences' that you see in grand theft auto... You have to be level 12 to unlock that island! BS... This isn't a videogame... Freedom of this type is what separates us from videogamers.
--- On the other hand the fact that I expect my gm to buy into any non mechanic breaking concept I come up with comes with the agreement that once my character is loose in that world with the free will to do whatever I can possible come up with that's my idea of 'fun' for that character....
The dm also has the free will to decide how easy or hard it is to accomplish my chosen goal.... What obstacles he throws in my path... Those are the key words... OBSTACLES.... Not fiats and denials... and MY PATH. If the world has something in mind that I should be doing and I do something else instead... What are the consequences of me not having been there. How does the event change due to my absence from it. Life is what happens when you're making other plans. So what happened? At least I can take ownership if the world went to hell while I was looking the other way. Damned for who I am, as Picard might say, is better than success in a yoke and on rails (which he might not say)...
The gm's only jobs are to play how the world reacts to my activities, and to find a way that my plans could succeed, and how hard it will be for me to execute my plan. If its an adventure path or a planned story ahead of time... What's going on in the story while I'm off doing my own thing... Bad sh*t is brewing while I'm taking care of stuff elsewhere... That too can be awesome. And Trajic... And trajically awesome... You're the gm... Role with it.
--- At the same time I agree that any character concept that's so precious that it cannot withstand the arbitrary whim of a gm's ultimate power should probably never make it to a character sheet. If your're gonna throw a fit when your catgirl pisses off enough mages that she finds herself the subject of a permanent-polymorph-hairy-dwarf spell... welll. Then you better not put her in a world controlled by someone other than you. Nobody gets plot immunity... Not even the timelords... Not even if it's David Tennant... Who is awesome. And somewhat trajic... And trajically awesome... You're in a world that's out of your control... You do what you can... And the rest.. You role with.
So it kinda works both ways. If we had a player who wanted to play nothing but lolitas... we'd have a lolita in every game whether it was appropriate or not... What happened to the poor lolita in the course of a campaign may not be what the lolita was expecting, but there's nothing wrong with 'something unexpected' happening in a campaign... Especially one where 'anything is possible'
Disney's Beauty and the Beast taught me that a mean dude's entire estate can be ran by people polymorphed into furniture and fine china. Anything is possible.
It also teaches us that a guy who's angry and monstrous about getting his own way can only find happiness by being less of a d**che.
So yeah... Both ways... Anything's possible.. Don't be a d**che... Thems the rules. Paraphrasing here of course, but copyright 1989....
Thanks Zeb!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Games like D&D and Pathfinder have always made it clear that everything is optional and the DM has the choice of allowing or disallowing what ever he wants if it helps him in building his campaign.And of course truth be told, 2e gm guide is literally filled to the brim with reminders that any rule the gm wants to follow or not follow should be carefully considered so as to both make sure it won't cause game breaking problems down the line and at the same time will undoubtably not decrease the amount of fun at the table. This is now popularly referred to as the 'rule of fun'
I hear so many gms that read those lines of text and apply the decrease in the amount of fun to themselves personally, and thereby rule down anything they don't personally enjoy.
Your solution though is totally appropriate.. I love telling those gms that i'll wait for the next bus.
I don't often get to role play... But when I do... it's at a table full of people with open minds...
Thats kinda the first tool in the tabletop-gaming toolbox as far as I'm concerned...
Not to say that things can't be banned... but I prefer to only see that happen when it applies to the 2e perspective.... Will it break a mechanical aspect of the game? Will it be such a stark thematic change that everyone at the table can no longer find the campaign imaginative and immersive... If you can't draw a hard yes on those two... I don't expect an arbitrary nerf.
When a guy in a world with no catgirls says "I wanna play a catgirl".. I just ask myself... If I really really really wanted to create a catgirl in this world... regardless of if I WANT one in my world personally... Could it be done....
And in pathfinders case and 2e... We have the wish spell... so yeah.. Anything is possible. So the character background needs to include the appropriate elements that make their fluff mechanically solid... With wish spells that ain't too hard to accomplish and can create a lot of other exploitable backstory as well......
Isn't the person who just walks away from a table where something is removed or excised also guilty of showing a closed mind then? Why is an "open mind" ever and always in the one direction? Why is it only the GM that is supposed to 'keep an open mind' - and not the player?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a question for Kirth. Have you done any world building?
See upthread. Multiple times, from the ground up on a level of detail that most people don't approach (tectontics -> terrain, latitude, planet size -> rotation -> Coriolis -> prevailing winds, all determining climate and preciptation, which in turn drive vegetation and ecosystems; these in turn translate to resources -> trade patterns; etc; history; maps on regional, national, county, and city scales; quaint local customs; down to names and descriptions for individual units of currency).
But, again as I've already explained for people reading the thread, I'm willing to modify/expand it for each new group as needed, or even reboot the "franchise" if totally necessary. And I pretty much always find a way to incorporate most player input unless, as previously stated, the rest of the group disagrees (in whoch case the one person will have to do without).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't the person who just walks away from a table where something is removed or excised also guilty of showing a closed mind then? Why is an "open mind" ever and always in the one direction? Why is it only the GM that is supposed to 'keep an open mind' - and not the player?
I think my qualifier response above ninja'd your point...
I suppose I could have phrased it 'the beast in the disney movie learned that he could only find happiness by both being less of a d**che and also taking an interest in something other than himself for a change...
But again... that applies to players and gms... Both before and after the edit.
If things get funky, say your safe word and grab your dice. It works until it doesn't. The gm should derive his fun from running a world for and with you. You should expect that things will happen to your character that perhaps you were hoping didn't... Thats what makes it not a book. Try your best to make what the player wants to be and happen happen. Player does trump dm in this case because you want the player to play, right? Players need to understand that the generosity the gm had in letting your wierd snowflake into the campaign was a reminder that once your feet hit the ground in his world... Expect a wild ride. Remember. It's supposed to be fun. If your players love having their a**es handed to them... That's fun.... If they like kicking a** instead.... Thats fun. If you can't have fun running that... Don't run.
And on the other hand, players keep your various appendages inside the car at all times and your seat belt fastened... There's no telling where you're going today. Be up to the challenge or bake cookies for the one's that are.... Everyone likes cookies.
|
I have a question for Kirth. Have you done any world building?See upthread. Multiple times, from the ground up on a level of detail that most people don't approach (tectontics -> terrain, latitude, planet size -> rotation -> Coriolis -> prevailing winds, all determining climate and preciptation, which in turn drive vegetation and ecosystems; these in turn translate to resources -> trade patterns; etc; history; maps on regional, national, county, and city scales; quaint local customs; down to names and descriptions for individual units of currency).
But, again as I've already explained for people reading the thread, I'm willing to modify/expand it for each new group as needed, or even reboot the "franchise" if totally necessary. And I pretty much always find a way to incorporate most player input unless, as previously stated, the rest of the group disagrees (in whoch case the one person will have to do without).
Man, i wish i had enough time to do that. I even stopped doing tectonics...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't the person who just walks away from a table where something is removed or excised also guilty of showing a closed mind then? Why is an "open mind" ever and always in the one direction? Why is it only the GM that is supposed to 'keep an open mind' - and not the player?I think my qualifier response above ninja'd your point...
I suppose I could have phrased it 'the beast in the disney movie learned that he could only find happiness by both being less of a d**che and also taking an interest in something other than himself for a change...
But again... that applies to players and gms... Both before and after the edit.
The difference is, the setting has already been created; had sunk work load put into it. That character only exists in potentia.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe the setting and the characters to both be malleable both before and during play. As I said. If the setting doesn't hold up to what your players... ALL YOUR PLAYERS are in the mood for...Nobody's forcing you... Don't run your setting. Run something else...
You never know... Your players may one day get bored of what they have planned and decide your setting needs its time in the sunlight...
Every game has its moment.. Don't force it on unwilling participants or they will pump it full of cr*p and ruin everyone's fun.
Isn't the person who just walks away from a table where something is removed or excised also guilty of showing a closed mind then? Why is an "open mind" ever and always in the one direction? Why is it only the GM that is supposed to 'keep an open mind' - and not the player?I think my qualifier response above ninja'd your point...
I suppose I could have phrased it 'the beast in the disney movie learned that he could only find happiness by both being less of a d**che and also taking an interest in something other than himself for a change...
But again... that applies to players and gms... Both before and after the edit.
If things get funky, say your safe word and grab your dice. It works until it doesn't. The gm should derive his fun from running a world for and with you. You should expect that things will happen to your character that perhaps you were hoping didn't... Thats what makes it not a book. Try your best to make what the player wants to be and happen happen. Player does trump dm in this case because you want the player to play, right? Players need to understand that the generosity the gm had in letting your wierd snowflake into the campaign was a reminder that once your feet hit the ground in his world... Expect a wild ride. Remember. It's supposed to be fun. If your players love having their a**es handed to them... That's fun.... If they like kicking a** instead.... Thats fun. If you can't have fun running that... Don't run.
And on the other hand, players keep your various appendages inside the car at all times and your seat belt fastened... There's no telling where you're going today. Be up to the challenge or bake cookies for the one's that are.... Everyone likes cookies.
Also ... Having restrictions on what goes into a campaign bears little to no causal relationship to how much influence the PCs are allowed to have on it once they start acting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting how you'd chose to set up a restriction at one point and a lack of restriction at another point in the process... Still confused by your reasoning there except self gratification of the unyielding pre game world concept. This way hackles lay. No skin off my nose though... You do how you be how you do. Do be do be do.
If you got enough willing players to role with it, then you role... dissenting 5th wheel player can make cookies, get some non game time in, or sit back and watch your campaign... Maybe it's so cool he changes his mind and decides to play along...
Wouldn't that be a tasty treat for a world builder artiste...
The one guy at your table who gives you a hard time... changing his mind....
As a result of watching the awesome you created unfold from the sidelines....
and wanting to get in the game...
It could almost be a poetry of artistic vindication...
Maybe he won't... Maybe he'll just sit on the sidelines and enjoy watching.... I mean I like to WATCH womens beach volleyball... but I wouldnt want to get a genderchange and get sand in my stuff... I'll just stick with the sidelines thanks.... Play ball...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting how you'd chose to set up a restriction at one point and a lack of restriction at another point in the process... Still confused by your reasoning there except self gratification of the unyielding pre game world concept. This way hackles lay. No skin off my nose though... You do how you be how you do. Do be do be do.
If you got enough willing players to role with it, then you role... dissenting 5th wheel player can make cookies, get some non game time in, or sit back and watch your campaign... Maybe it's so cool he changes his mind and decides to play along...
Wouldn't that be a tasty treat for a world builder artiste...
Certain things go into the recipe. Others don't. The taco bar doesn't include Shark fin soup. Not every single recipe has to have infinite ingrediants to taste good..
Interesting how you'd chose to set up a restriction at one point and a lack of restriction at another point in the process... Still confused by your reasoning there except self gratification of the unyielding pre game world concept. This way hackles lay. No skin off my nose though... You do how you be how you do. Do be do be do.
If you got enough willing players to role with it, then you role... dissenting 5th wheel player can make cookies, get some non game time in, or sit back and watch your campaign... Maybe it's so cool he changes his mind and decides to play along...
Wouldn't that be a tasty treat for a world builder artiste...
The one guy at your table who gives you a hard time... changing his mind....
As a result of watching the awesome you created unfold from the sidelines....
and wanting to get in the game...It could almost be a poetry of artistic vindication...
Or that player could
A: either work to realize his vision in a way that doesn't require something that doesn't exist there
Or
B: use that immense creativity of his that demands one of the restricted things in the game to creat something that doesn't fit into that category.
He sure could... But when he doesn't... as he's free to do...
Let it go.
Not everybody likes yo sharkfin soup... They don't have to.
This isn't North Korea... Just because you're cookin doesn't mean we all have to eat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He sure could... But when he doesn't... as he's free to do...
Let it go.
Not everybody likes yo sharkfin soup... They don't have to.
This isn't North Korea... Just because you're cookin doesn't mean we all have to eat.
And not everyone likes your awakened pony sorcerer.
And no, they don't have to eat. But once they have committed to come over and agreed to the menu its in poor taste to then complain about it and try to force a change into it.
sounds like there's your problem right there....
somehow you got people in your restaurant who didnt agree to the menu
or maybe you just thought walking in the door was the same as sitting down and ordering
and if it really is your house... Dont be the guy who says
"its my house so my soup"
If that means you play a man down, then you play a man down.
Maybe he changes his mind..
Maybe he leaves arssanguinus's all you can eat sharkfin soup buffet and never comes back.
If that means you don't have enough players to game...
Put that sharkfin back on the shelf and wait for it's day to arrive...
someday you'll have enough players to run your baby your way.
and you'll enjoy serving it to folks who can appreciate it for what it is.
isnt that the definition of how you'd like your game to go?
with a table of folks committed to the campaign you want to run with zero dissenters?
I believe the setting and the characters to both be malleable both before and during play. As I said. If the setting doesn't hold up to what your players... ALL YOUR PLAYERS are in the mood for...Nobody's forcing you... Don't run your setting. Run something else...
You never know... Your players may one day get bored of what they have planned and decide your setting needs its time in the sunlight...
Every game has its moment.. Don't force it on unwilling participants or they will pump it full of cr*p and ruin everyone's fun.
You never know ...Your gm might one day get bored of what they have planned and decide your character needs its time in the sunlight ...
Every character has its moment.. Don't force it on unwilling participants or they will put it through crap and ruin everyone's fun.
I've had those campaigns... we ruin the fun of the folks we don't like and the lesson is learned and those gms and players move on. Not everyone likes your sharkfin. Not everyone likes my style... Thats how you discover who's who... By letting everyone find a table that works for them.
Thats how life works.
You don't get bonus eeps for shackling a guy up in the basement and force feeding him sharkfin soup any more than I get extra eeps for running what I like for someone who doesnt like it...
Let people choose the sharkfin soup... And when they're ready no stop choosing the sharkfin soup... they go.. they watch... they stay... they join....
It's supposed to be about choice... You choose the restrictions, and they choose to join or not.
Take a deep breath and let the sorting hat put people where they belong. Even if it means no sharkfin soup today.
I've had those campaigns... we ruin the fun of the folks we don't like and the lesson is learned and those gms and players move on. Not everyone likes your sharkfin. Not everyone likes my style... Thats how you discover who's who... By letting everyone find a table that works for them.
Thats how life works.
You don't get bonus eeps for shackling a guy up in the basement and force feeding him sharkfin soup any more than I get extra eeps for running what I like for someone who doesnt like it...
Let people choose the sharkfin soup... And when they're ready no stop choosing the sharkfin soup... they go.. they watch... they stay... they join....
It's supposed to be about choice... You choose the restrictions, and they choose to join or not.
Take a deep breath and let the sorting hat put people where they belong.
Well, gee. That sounds like my position. They don't HAVE to pick that game. They can always go with choice b or c, or, if any of the things I would enjoy running especially aren't up their alleyway they are free to run a game themselves as well. I like actually being on the players side of the screen once in a while.
But what they don't need to do is pick that game and then immediately gravitate towards whatever was removed from the setting.
That's my position too. We're not so far apart you and I....
I'm sure the sharkfin soup is awesome...
Just draw the line where you want it and the people that fit in the box will be there when it's time to start playing. And the fence sitters will be on the fence until they decide in or out... and the outs will be out.
Just be ok with however that turns out is all.
My only beef is with people who
My group games at my house and I don't draw hard lines like that.
If you have to be that kinda guy... educate your players that you run your house by your rules and let them know it's ok to jet if they dont like it.
Even if I LOVED sharkfin soup I'd hit the door the second I heard my-house my-rules.
I've had those campaigns... we ruin the fun of the folks we don't like and the lesson is learned and those gms and players move on. Not everyone likes your sharkfin. Not everyone likes my style... Thats how you discover who's who... By letting everyone find a table that works for them.
This is something I can get behind completely. That's me though, and not something I think works for everyone.
I think it has to be a democratic process. However, I prefer the democracy of "voting with your feet" to sitting around deciding what will suit the entire group. I prefer players to leave and join another game that suits their taste as opposed to trying to "vote" a change that is disliked by other players. Again, that's my preference and not what I feel is the best for everyone.
As I've mentioned before, there are two types of personality at work here, or rather two ends of a scale (with varying degrees inbetween. but I focus on the extremes for the purposes of trying to explain it).
At one end are people for whom the content of the group matters and they'll change the activity to suit it. They care that Fred, Joe, Sarah, and Jeanette all get to participate tonight.
At the other are people for whom the activity matters and they don't believe in forcing people into doing things they dislike just so everyone can tag along that evening. They'll do things that they, Fred, and Sarah like with them on Tuesday, and something else with Joe and Jeanette on Thursday (and meanwhile perhaps Fred, Joe, and Jeanette get together on another night to do what *they* prefer to do.)
One group forms stronger bonds because they do everything together. The other forms stronger bonds because they don't. The same solution doesn't fit both groups - and I think that's what the majority don't understand - that not everyone's mind works the same way as theirs, and that doesn't mean other people are wrong.
I prefer voting with your feet.. I'm also a much more liberal sandboxy improv style gm... I can pretty much run any combination of anything in any setting, so I rarely have a guy say 'here's what I want to do' and have a feeling in my gut that i'd not want to try running it. Makes it easy for us to come up with something everyone will enjoy each time if we make our campaigns and settings fit what the players feel like playing at the moment... Everyone should have fun and for me that means if I had a plot in mind that doesn't fit the folks who showed up... it just means I get another week to develop the idea further or find ways to incorporate my ideas into whatever we run instead. Gotta keep it loose....
I've just noticed a group of gms who are the opposite of that and think it's awesome that they still have enough players to keep playing. Their comments lead me to believe they're not enjoying the way things are going for their campaigns and they're not getting the total buy-in from their players that they'd prefer.
Which can happen when you're like that. It's ok...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's equally important, of course, to recognize that "voting with your feet" is a more viable option for some of us than it is for others.
For some people, that results in having no game at all.
For those of us that do have that option and prefer it though, nobody can ever convince me we're doing it wrong.
It's also important to remember that it isn't an all or nothing thing. I'll compromise for a player if they come to me with an idea that "breaks" something in my setting, but still fits the game feel overall.
If they want a race I didn't include, but I can that see that race living alongside another race then I can always plop them down living in that area too. No huge amount of work. Sometimes though I specifically excluded that race for a reason, and it's a no-go area.
If they want, say, a Gunslinger, and I'd already decided gunpowder doesn't exist yet, then I can always make the call that they know (or are) the person that just discovered it. The rest of my setting still doesn't have it, but they have access to it - everyone is happy. If they want a cleric and I've decided gods and religion don't exist, that's a no-go (although I'm still open to using the cleric class with an explanation of why their magic works without gods).
When they come and want something just just simply doesn't fit the style, theme, setting, or overall feel of the game. That's when they get told to try again, usually followed by questions of why exactly they want that so I can try and help them find an alternative.
When they decide they still have to have this character that simply doesn't fit... *that* is when they get to vote with their feet.
I'm just not a big fan of the concept 'everyone else is on board but this one guy... so this one guy is ruining my fun...
Thats not how life works...
As a player...
You go to the all you can eat buffet and they're not serving hot wings....
You either sit down and eat what they've got, or you get your hot wings elsewhere.
As a gm the restaurant metaphor breaks down...
Telling the buffet to make you hot wings isn't going to get you results.
This is certainly arssanguinus's position...
But if it did happen...
You then as a restaurant manager have to decide 'how can i make this customer happy'
so that he stays at the buffet, spends his money and isn't hungry when he leaves.
First you have to ask yourself do you even care about the customer staying...
A lot of restaurants don't... they have more than enough customers...
We're talking then about a restaurant that perhaps does not...
So what happens then...
You try to keep the guy who walked in the door.
I'm ok with the first three.. The fourth one is a little wierd for me.
Of course you're free to run your restaurant as you like it.
Of course you're free to serve only what you want to serve.
When that inevitably lands you in a situation where a customer discovers they're not satisfied.
You have to take your lumps like real restaurants do and make the call on how you want to handle it... If that means the restaurant can't stay open... You need to move the business to a better market. If that means you're not turning much of a profit... You decide to stay open or not. If you've got so many customers that it doesnt matter... You play hardball and try not to feel bad when the unsatisfied customer storms out the door in a huff.
That's life.
1. One player wants something, everyone else disagrees. Allow?
2. One player wants something, everyone else agrees except DM (although the players all generally like the setting/game otherwise). Allow?
1. No.
2. But why are they suddenly asking if they already all agreed to play... oh wait:And, again to cut that off, no waffling with "but they all agreed!", because then you're dealing with scenario 1, not 2.
1. No.
2. Given the second quote above, I can't answer, because I've never come across a situation where everyone didn't already agree when they picked one of the campaign choices presented to them. (I.e. I've only ever seen scenario 1.)
Or as a GM, you can let everyone know before you invite them on what you're running and if special restrictions are going to be in place.
But that's just me.
That's what I tend to do.
Sometimes though you're left with a legacy situation such as wanting to start a brand new campaign with the same players you've just finished one with.
If they're a fun person to have in the group, I'm willing to compromise on some issues for them when I feel their idea will actually add to the setting rather than disrupt it.
Chances are, of course, if I feel they're a fun person to have in the group they already have similar thoughts to me on how things should be, and it's a rare thing that we'll have conflicting thoughts. For those of us who choose players to fit the game rather than vice versa, this whole conversation is somewhat of an academic point anyway.
As I've said before... A table that can't even all come to an agreement on what to play in the first place isn't a gaming table... It's just a table full of gamers.
Even if they did finally agree to something... I'd hate to see the kinda game that resulted from it.
Havea stable group of about four i play with with occasional "fifth rangers". When I play, I certainly dont expect basic elements of the setting to warp to suit me. While they exist, the cases where one and only one specific race is required for a concept are vanishingly rare. If ou insist on one of those while already knowing its not in there … then I would have to say you are being a bit of a jerk. Just like as a GM if you wait until someone makes a concept and then decide to retroactivly ban it.
There are enough options availiable at the table that if you can't find SOMETHING that you would enjoy playing you aren't trying very hard.
Now if you put in alot of work to make it fit in the world …
In many cases - but not all - I will try to see what can happen.
But if there are no Dwarves, then there are also no
Dwarf pcs.
Lets revisit Steve and his Awakened Pony Sorcerer for a second.
Firstly, I wouldn't be seen dead in an ongoing campaign with awakened ponies as regular characters, so I know for a fact they're a no-go area for PCs - even though I'll acknowledge they can actually exist in the game world as rarities that exist in stories other than the one we're going to be involved with, and could possibly even turn up as a guest NPC in a very limited form if I felt it behooved (sorry, just had to get "hoof" in there....) the story to do so.
That said, I'm kinda fond of Pegataurs. Call it a nostalgic M2 thing.
I would suggest Steve try one of those, as maybe that fits what he wants (and certainly fits the general feel of most of my games), rather than dismiss him completely out of hand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2. One player wants something, everyone else agrees except DM (although the players all generally like the setting/game otherwise). Allow?
This for me is highly theoretical as this situation has never actually come up but
My answer would be
"Look guys I get that you like the idea but including it will, for me, wreck this setting that I've poured (hours, days, weeks, months, years, decades) of work into. I'm not willing to DM this setting with that character.
This puts us in an awkward position.
If you guys would all rather we play something else that's cool. You're character would certainly fit in *kitchen sink setting*. I can run that. Or I'd be happy to play if somebody else wants to run that."
Then I'd put my setting back on the shelf in the hopes of running someday without it getting ruined for me by an awakened pony wizard.
- Torger
This is definitely where we differ, then. I've seen it -- usually because I was actively looking for it instead of just assuming the other players were on "my side" -- and when I dragged it out of them that they thought "Steve"'s idea was pretty cool... well, it's not theoretical at that point. So I might say to myself, "Look, my setting is pretty detailed all over these maps, but I suppose some unexplored lost city over here could maybe contain the remnants of a lost race of X... come to think of it, in the last campaign, they explored these ruins over here. Let's put the lost tribe as having lived in the section the PCs never explored, and that's why one of them is emerging now, even though we've never seen one in the history of the campaign up until now."
This is very much along the lines of the example of silverhair's half-orc, which I posted previously.
|
|
Well I can tell you this much. I must have been very fortunate through the years to have played with decent people because they all looked at how much time and effort I put into building a game for them to play in and didn't give me much hassle, especially my old group. We have played many many games together so if there was a particular campaign some of us weren't happy with we still played it because there were bound to be many other games that we were going to play.
What you call "hassle," I see as a potential opportunity to improve my setting, if the idea is a good one and/or can be tied into ongoing events. And I enjoy spending the time and effort, so I don't see it as a source of martyrdom. Yeah, there might be some things that still couldn't be made to work, but I personally haven't hit them yet.
Thankfully, no one has asked to play a furry or My Little Pony yet, so that might be part of it, too!
*whistles innocently*
Careful! Mrs Gersen said she'll only play if she can be a "rouge" (she pronounces it like the makeup, to annoy me) who has a pet pony. You might get your wish, and end up being the pet. Disclaimer: Mrs Gersen's one and only previous character had a pet pony; it was eaten by goblins in the first session.
Fully built, history, even had weather charts so he could tell us what the weather was each day.I would like to get a hold of those...never made good weather myself.
Good ones would take into account all the other stuff -- latitude, terrain, season, precipitation patterns, etc.
Admission: I once taught a course in atmospheric science & climatology, so it's not really fair to hold everyone to the same standards there!
I would play the hell out of a Maximus to her Rapunzel.
I don't know what that means, but it sounds adulterous.
So whats wrong with simply declining to participate in the game and wait until one that you favour comes along?Or are we using the old saying that if you throw enough s$~*e at the wall it will eventually stick?it's not that i require more races
it's that, i refuse to be bound only to the core races, of which, none i will willingly touch without a heavy reskinning of the race and a heavy retooling of their culture, appearance, and other fluff related details
it's not needing more, it's being picky
imagine if there were certain colors you cannot stand with the exception of certain shades, and you would avoid those colors until you found something close to a shade you like.
i hate the Tolkein standard with a passion
at least with planetouched, i have a relatively customizable appearance, customizable series of cultures to work with, and are detached enough from humanity, that i can willingly play them, despite them being otherwise pallette swapped humans
if i did that, i would have to wait forever for a game to come along. or hunt like Artemis on a new moon until i found one that worked
i live on a limited income, DMs are rare in my area, games that fit such tastes are hard to come by. it's even harder to commit to online campaigns, because most of them bear similar restrictions.