Kinda like snow elves in skyrim?
Said to be extinct but not really is, in fact, different from extinct.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah. Or dwemer.Playing a dwemer would make the "Find the last dwemer" quest very different I suspect...
**wakes up in the morning! rolls out of bed! looks in the mirror**
"Hey! I found him!"
**gets back in bed! goes to sleep.**
Kinda like snow elves in skyrim?Said to be extinct but not really is, in fact, different from extinct.
True, but if I'm running Dark Sun and the player brings a gnome to the table I am going to be firm since they are extinct, and I think my favorite sorcerer-king was responsible for that.
Now, there is a huge difference between being firm and being a dick. If I'm polite and respectful to the player, I've found most are more then willing to work with you at that point, even if you do need to leave details out for the campaign.
Kinda like snow elves in skyrim?I didn't realize you could play Falmer in Skyrim.
There's a mod for that.... And there's also one to bring back or play snow elves. There's a mod for a lot of things though.
That said, you can't play Falmer because they're like morlocks. Oh, and some are blind. Also the main story against the big gosh darn dragon is pretty railroaded imo. On the other hand, mods allow you to make the game more of a sandbox or in the least widen your options and create new ones and new adventures so its easier to make and play role play something different.
|
Kinda like snow elves in skyrim?I didn't realize you could play Falmer in Skyrim.There's a mod for that.... And there's also one to bring back or play snow elves. There's a mod for a lot of things though.
That said, you can't play Falmer because they're like morlocks. Oh, and some are blind. Also the main story against the big gosh darn dragon is pretty railroaded imo. On the other hand, mods allow you to make the game more of a sandbox or in the least widen your options and create new ones and new adventures so its easier to make and play role play something different.
And some of them make the game crash, and others make dragons into Randy Macho Man Savage.
Makes it a different game at that point, doesn't it?
Don't lie Cire, the Randy Savage mod was awesome and well done.
Did change the feeling into truly abstract horror on a lovecraftian level
And some of them make the game crash, and others make dragons into Randy Macho Man Savage.
Makes it a different game at that point, doesn't it?
Nope! Still Skyrim. Still uses the same game engine. Some even make it run better and with less lag/stutter and others make your graphics amazing. Doesn't change anything about you being the dragonborn or the story or the games mechanics.
Now, do I personally, want my Skyrim to have macho man Randy Savage Dragons running around breathing fire and screaming "OH YEAH!"... Uhhh... Not so much. So I choose not to use it. Skyrim is also not multiplayer* so you don't have to discuss with your friends how you all want to play skyrim together. Tabletops are something you play with a group of friends, so there's some discussion to be had. Some groups might think Randy Savage dragons are the most awesome thing ever and that's how dragons will be roleplayed from that point on. Others... might like it once and tell you please never to do that again because Randy Savage makes them vomit. The first group can use the dragons, the second will... not.
So... Did we move far from the OP? Because it looks like RavingDork was talking about something else and I feel like this is the special snowflake thread now.
* okay, that's a lie, there is a skyrim online thing I know nothing about and won't discuss here because I know nothing about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My point was that they were all twisted evil lil bastartds. Then it was revealed that not all were changed over. Simply because no elves have been seen for 40000 yrs doesn't mean that there aren't some out their somewhere, if it can fit the narritive. It's funny how there were no oracles or alchemist ( as in the classes with the abilities they bring) in my home setting until hmm I like the rules for this sure lets use it, same with the Bo9S classes nothing out there was even close to what they did but that didn't stop me from working them into my games.
|
My point was that they were all twisted evil lil bastartds. Then it was revealed that not all were changed over. Simply because no elves have been seen for 40000 yrs doesn't mean that there aren't some out their somewhere, if it can fit the narritive. It's funny how there were no oracles or alchemist ( as in the classes with the abilities they bring) in my home setting until hmm I like the rules for this sure lets use it, same with the Bo9S classes nothing out there was even close to what they did but that didn't stop me from working them into my games.
Are you telling us this as a player or as a DM?
My point was that they were all twisted evil lil bastartds. Then it was revealed that not all were changed over. Simply because no elves have been seen for 40000 yrs doesn't mean that there aren't some out their somewhere, if it can fit the narritive. It's funny how there were no oracles or alchemist ( as in the classes with the abilities they bring) in my home setting until hmm I like the rules for this sure lets use it, same with the Bo9S classes nothing out there was even close to what they did but that didn't stop me from working them into my games.
The difference, in one case something was specifically stated NOT to exist where the other just wasn't mentioned. There is, in fact, a big difference between the two.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree. GM's become better by being forced to improvise... It's why I always recommend taking whatever the players throw at you... If they're all in agreement about what they want to play and you want to be a gm.... GM what they want to play... Even if it's not what you want to play... Like Kirth says. Take it as a chance to stretch your limits, step out of your comfort zone and see if you can...
hmm, seems to me like a limited (and possibly self-serving - pardon me for being a cynic ?) view. I have played in some "free-forming" campaigns, which usually turned into straight chaos after a couple of sessions, because there was neither a straight or consistent plot and every player was chasing their individually different but incompatible goals. Yes as a player I got some inspiration that way, but usually the whole thing turned mostly to an individualistic " I trump you !" slugfest.
As for "GM's get better"... yeah only within a limited scope. GMs usually are better at improvisiing within a scene, but not through fiddling with the basic (and sensible) superstructure of the world.
One might also try to tae into account that there ARE players who actually prefer a structured setting. Sometimes they even have a long term story setup for their character, and really mind whether someone wrecks the game for them because the GM is "forcefully demanded" to change his tune and allow another player more elbow space and breaking of ingame fundamentals
They might even be sitting right beside you. Or in the next group you join.
Last but not least, as a player, you usually do have less insights in why some stuff in a campaign runs "this" way, and not in another.
Famous example from an old friends group : Player watched an NPC do something incredible and immediately started to protest "that said action" was impossible.
GM just smiled and repeated what they had seen.
Player wanted, nigh insisted, to do the same, GM refused and claimed that it was impossible by the rules as set for the campaign. Player quoted "rules apply to everyone"... Big row developed, broke the until then quite legendary campaign. The group never played again.
GM told me "the impossibility of said action basically was THE clue for the players that they were watching an illusion".... *shrug*
So, at times, trust your GM that his concept for the campaign (which might include NO ELVES or NO KITSUNE ) has some merit, and that forbidding you your inspired whims may have some long-lasting benefits ?
I agree. GM's become better by being forced to improvise... It's why I always recommend taking whatever the players throw at you... If they're all in agreement about what they want to play and you want to be a gm.... GM what they want to play... Even if it's not what you want to play... Like Kirth says. Take it as a chance to stretch your limits, step out of your comfort zone and see if you can...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.
On eeps and running what you like, actually dms improve the most when they are running what they like and they really want to drag the players along for a ride. I've improved most when really diving into my creations, running them and taking on a ridiculous rp workload (which I didn't care about because I was having fun). Seen a dm that was awkward as you can be running pre-gens. He really grew when he got to run his own setting, which was plugged straight into his head, every single page (he wrote them, with only minor input from me). Now he is really competent and doesn't touch pre-gens. He no longer needs training wheels!
What made him grow, was the running of his own setting.
I agree. Players become better by being forced to improvise... It's why I always recommend taking whatever the gm throws at you... If they're all in agreement about what they want to play and you want to be a player.... Play what they want GMed. Even if it's not what you want to play... Like i say. Take it as a chance to stretch your limits, step out of your comfort zone and see if you can...
Famous example from an old friends group : Player watched an NPC do something incredible and immediately started to protest "that said action" was impossible.
GM just smiled and repeated what they had seen.
Player wanted, nigh insisted, to do the same, GM refused and claimed that it was impossible by the rules as set for the campaign. Player quoted "rules apply to everyone"... Big row developed, broke the until then quite legendary campaign. The group never played again.
GM told me "the impossibility of said action basically was THE clue for the players that they were watching an illusion".... *shrug*
The DM straight-up destroyed that campaign himself by intentionally destroying the players' trust -- as cited, he/she did everything possible to lead the players to believe that a double standard was being followed. Instead of smiling and saying nothing (easily interpreted as smugly basking in your own transgressions while smirking at them to rub it in), the DM could have simply said something like, "Yes -- there's obviously something going on that your characters are not aware of," and thereby prevented the whole meltdown. Lack of communication isn't cute, especially if it destroys the players' trust in you and wrecks the campaign. Unless that was the DM's goal?
The DM straight-up destroyed that campaign himself by intentionally destroying the players' trust -- as cited, he/she did everything possible to lead the players to believe that a double standard was being followed. Instead of smiling and saying nothing (easily interpreted as smugly basking in your own transgressions while smirking at them to rub it in), the DM could have simply said something like, "Yes -- there's obviously something going on that your characters are not aware of," and thereby prevented the whole meltdown. Lack of communication isn't cute, especially if it destroys the players' trust in you and wrecks the campaign. Unless that was the DM's goal?Famous example from an old friends group : Player watched an NPC do something incredible and immediately started to protest "that said action" was impossible.
GM just smiled and repeated what they had seen.
Player wanted, nigh insisted, to do the same, GM refused and claimed that it was impossible by the rules as set for the campaign. Player quoted "rules apply to everyone"... Big row developed, broke the until then quite legendary campaign. The group never played again.
GM told me "the impossibility of said action basically was THE clue for the players that they were watching an illusion".... *shrug*
Not having been there, I don't have enough information to say that the DM really miscommunicated something or the player overreacted and shut down communication. I can certainly see either as a possibility.
|
|
The DM straight-up destroyed that campaign himself by intentionally destroying the players' trust -- as cited, he/she did everything possible to lead the players to believe that a double standard was being followed. Instead of smiling and saying nothing (easily interpreted as smugly basking in your own transgressions while smirking at them to rub it in), the DM could have simply said something like, "Yes -- there's obviously something going on that your characters are not aware of," and thereby prevented the whole meltdown. Lack of communication isn't cute, especially if it destroys the players' trust in you and wrecks the campaign. Unless that was the DM's goal?Famous example from an old friends group : Player watched an NPC do something incredible and immediately started to protest "that said action" was impossible.
GM just smiled and repeated what they had seen.
Player wanted, nigh insisted, to do the same, GM refused and claimed that it was impossible by the rules as set for the campaign. Player quoted "rules apply to everyone"... Big row developed, broke the until then quite legendary campaign. The group never played again.
GM told me "the impossibility of said action basically was THE clue for the players that they were watching an illusion".... *shrug*
Unless he asked them all to roll a will save.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The DM straight-up destroyed that campaign himself by intentionally destroying the players' trust -- as cited, he/she did everything possible to lead the players to believe that a double standard was being followed. Instead of smiling and saying nothing (easily interpreted as smugly basking in your own transgressions while smirking at them to rub it in), the DM could have simply said something like, "Yes -- there's obviously something going on that your characters are not aware of," and thereby prevented the whole meltdown. Lack of communication isn't cute, especially if it destroys the players' trust in you and wrecks the campaign. Unless that was the DM's goal?Unless he asked them all to roll a will save.
I'd have made those will saves in private to avoid making the players aware anything unusual was going on.
"He seems capable of doing something you are not." would have been my response if questioned on it. I also try to work with players that aren't going to quote rulebooks at me though.
I also try to work with players that aren't going to quote rulebooks at me though.
Sure, but I always make it clear, as DM, that my NPCs are built using the same rules as the PCs, right down to their troops matching the values given for their Leadership scores. On the other hand, I've played with DMs in the past who made a habit of specifically exempting themselves from the rules, so their NPCs could do things outside of the rules "just because I thought it sounded cool" or whatever -- in those games, there's no rhyme or reason for things, so seeing something like what was described wouldn't be any kind of a clue at all.
I also try to work with players that aren't going to quote rulebooks at me though.Sure, but I always make it clear, as DM, that my NPCs are built using the same rules as the PCs, right down to their troops matching the values given for their Leadership scores.
Heh, I always make the exact opposite clear :)
I'll use the same basics, but if I feel an extra feat is needed, or some kind of ability they wouldn't usually qualify for, then I'll handwaive it.
Although, to be fair, I may do the same for a PC if there's a good story reason for it, such as allowing some tweaks to a class if it doesn't fit the player's concept. So I guess I'm still being fair on both sides, just a different type of fair! :D
(And as usual, the important thing is we both communicated it to them before playing. Communication kills nine out of ten of all household germs! No, wait, that's something else....)
(And as usual, the important thing is we both communicated it to them before playing.
Amen.
My point was that they were all twisted evil lil bastartds. Then it was revealed that not all were changed over. Simply because no elves have been seen for 40000 yrs doesn't mean that there aren't some out their somewhere, if it can fit the narritive. It's funny how there were no oracles or alchemist ( as in the classes with the abilities they bring) in my home setting until hmm I like the rules for this sure lets use it, same with the Bo9S classes nothing out there was even close to what they did but that didn't stop me from working them into my games.Are you telling us this as a player or as a DM?
DM of now 8+ years
The DM straight-up destroyed that campaign himself by intentionally destroying the players' trust -- as cited, he/she did everything possible to lead the players to believe that a double standard was being followed. Instead of smiling and saying nothing (easily interpreted as smugly basking in your own transgressions while smirking at them to rub it in), the DM could have simply said something like, "Yes -- there's obviously something going on that your characters are not aware of," and thereby prevented the whole meltdown. Lack of communication isn't cute, especially if it destroys the players' trust in you and wrecks the campaign. Unless that was the DM's goal?
Don't think so.
The GM has to tell the player what they are seeing and he is not (NOT) the players all-knowing source that has to tell them the inner workings of the campaign. He is the players EYES on the campaign (and said friend is of the talkative sort, I am pretty sure he sufficiently depicted the situation ), but he cannot be their UNDERSTANDING or RECOGNITION of what they are seeing.If the GM explains that what they see is impossible by the rules as stand and agreed upon... yeah. Should he raise the "IT'S A TRICK" flag next ? *facepalm*
Or having himself blackmailed by players threatening to resign just so they get to know what actually happened right at that moment ?
If the players act dumbly and get everything explained, what do they actually need experience, skill or even abilities for ? Or their brains ?
But yeah, some people seem to think that everything, always and every time is the GM's fault. IMHO usually the one's more interested in roll-playing over role-playing, but some people are just unhappy if an NPC does something unpredictable. Or getting outsmarted by a lowly NPC because they rely on the fact that THEY are supposedly the heroes.
Oh and nevermind, the players' actually benefited from the illusion, AFAIK.