| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, there's no badwrongfun. And Kirth isn't saying that playing in the DM of the Rings campaign is badwrongfun (though I can't personally imagine who would enjoy playing it other than to mock it viciously), but rather said DM should consider writing novels rather than railroading. Because let me tell you, no campaign, adventure, plot hook, BBEG, or McGuffin survives contact with the PCs, nor should it. Plot Armor is a bad writing tool, sure you can have fun, but it makes for a less compelling story and an inexperienced writer should learn to not to use it as they improve. The same is true of DMing.
You suggest that the style of play should be mocked viciously but "there's no badwrongfun". You call it railroading but "there's no badwrongfun".
If it's not for you, fine. It's not for you. But a friend of mine does run a series of campaigns over the last 15 years in the same world in which there is a substantial mythology, a well-defined and coherent history, and the setting isn't constantly being rebooted, rather the events the PCs engage in from campaign to campaign become part of the campaign's history. Has he passed the GRRM mark? Should his campaign be mocked viciously? Is it a railroad? Is it a less compelling story than... what? Is he having badwrongfun?
By the way, the PCs are also humans only. Is that badwrongfun? There are no paladins or rangers (their functions are taken by religious organization prestige classes). Is that badwrongfun because he won't let me play an awakened pony?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When DMs start talking about their personal homebrew settings as having a "mythology," and then start talking about their "vision" without any trace of sarcasm, I always feel like they've passed the GRRM Barrier: At this point, your setting is better suited for fiction written by you, and is no longer really well suited to a game in which the players' actions really matter.
When I see comments like this on a message board, I can't help but see it as you telling another gamer he's having badwrongfun because he (and apparently his players) like that kind of setting continuity.
Edition warring may be frowned on here, but we sure do get a lot of campaign and play style warring.
It's the "(and apparently his players)" bit that Kirth's statement takes issue with. If your setting continuity can't withstand player involvement, you're better off writing a book than playing RPGs, given the cooperative nature of RPGS.
Edit: The other side of that is, you're wasting your time if you detail anything but what your players have direct, in-game experience of. Yes, I said players, not characters, and I ended that sentence with a preposition; Nuts to you, Strunk and White!
What I want to know is since when does complete player involvement only refer to being able to play that special snowflake? Sounds like Kirth is being offended for no real reason. You can always play another character and still become involved with how the game develops.
I think a few people here need to go to a workshop on gaming. You can have a specific type of game while leaving it open so players can be involved and shape the contents of the game.
Shallow, your last sentence in the quoted section agrees completely with the point Kirth's intro makes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I only say they are inexperience or unimaginative, because if they are experienced and imaginative enough to include an Awakened Pony Wizard, but don't even though its what Steve wants to play, they are just petty and I try to assume personal failings before malevolence.
What you're not seeing, however, is that the GM isn't disallowing it because they're being petty to Steve, they're not disallowing it because it doesn't fit in "their" world.
They're disallowing it because their group hates that kind of thing and they want to keep the group together.
Your Steve might be a member of the group already. My Steve is a stranger that's asking to join and just told me his character concept, and I'm telling him straight that as a group we're just not going to like or accept it (and if I'm not already sure of the majority feeling I've gone and checked with them, but chances are if I've chosen this group to play with then I already know they'll hate it) and that if he can come up with something that actually fits our setting better (I really don't care if the rules allow it, as - to paraphrase James Jacobs here - setting/story trumps rules) then he's more than welcome to play. Even then, as a new member of an established group he's on probation for a couple of weeks until everyone's gotten to know him better and we know he'll fit in with us, as I've no intention of letting the game fall apart cause we suddenly got stuck with a bad player.
tl;dr - there is no way I'm letting Steve in if he'll ruin the game for the established group, and I'll reiterate here - we do not all value the same things in our game.
What I want to know is since when does complete player involvement only refer to being able to play that special snowflake?
Player involvement might extend to setting parameters, not just their PCs immediate actions.
For example, Silverhair once came to me and said, "For my next character I want to play an orc runeblade from Northwind. The runeblade is a Monte Cook class; here's the writeup for it [hands me copy]. Let me know if we need to modify it or [frowny face] if you won't allow it. Also, I'm aware that half-orcs aren't necessarily listed as a player race, and I guess I can change it if I have to, but it seems reasonable that orc tribes might live here [pointing to area in far north wilderness of Northwind on the map], although of course if you say they don't then I guess they don't."
I didn't accuse him of special snowflake-ism. I looked at what he'd presented, and realized that the Runeblade could be combined with the old 2e Vikings Campaign Sourcebook runecaster to make a fairly cool class, and one that was thematically extremely appropriate for that region in the setting. So, even though it meant more work, I took that on. Thinking about orc tribes and Northwind customs and old Icelandic sagas in which people are called "half-troll" and stuff, it occurred to me that orc tribes in the far north, raiding northern villages for slaves and occasionally trading captives, was a very cool addition that opened up a lot of story potentential down the road.
End result: Silverhair got his half-orc runecaster. I got two major enhancements to one of the areas in my homebrew setting. We both won, big-time. I'm really, really, really glad he didn't just settle for a dwarven fighter.
What I want to know is since when does complete player involvement only refer to being able to play that special snowflake?Player involvement might extend to setting parameters, not just their PCs immediate actions.
For example, Silverhair once came to me and said, "For my next character I want to play an orc runeblade from Northwind. The runeblade is a Monte Cook class; here's the writeup for it [hands me copy]. Let me know if we need to modify it or [frowny face] if you won't allow it. Also, I'm aware that half-orcs aren't necessarily listed as a player race, and I guess I can change it if I have to, but it seems reasonable that orc tribes might live here [pointing to area in far north wilderness of Northwind on the map], although of course if you say they don't then I guess they don't."
I didn't accuse him of special snowflake-ism. I looked at what he'd presented, and realized that the Runeblade could be combined with the old 2e Vikings Campaign Sourcebook runecaster to make a fairly cool class, and one that was thematically extremely appropriate for that region in the setting. So, even though it meant more work, I took that on. Thinking about orc tribes and Northwind customs and old Icelandic sagas in which people are called "half-troll" and stuff, it occurred to me that orc tribes in the far north, raiding northern villages for slaves and occasionally trading captives, was a very cool addition that opened up a lot of story potentential down the road.
End result: Silverhair got his half-orc runecaster. I got two major enhancements to one of the areas in my homebrew setting. We both won, big-time. I'm really, really, really glad he didn't just settle for a dwarven fighter.
If its reskinnedor thematically appropriate then you arent putting in something specifically rekoved, are you?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For example, Silverhair once came to me and said, "For my next character I want to play an orc runeblade from Northwind. The runeblade is a Monte Cook class; here's the writeup for it [hands me copy]. Let me know if we need to modify it or [frowny face] if you won't allow it. Also, I'm aware that half-orcs aren't necessarily listed as a player race, and I guess I can change it if I have to, but it seems reasonable that orc tribes might live here [pointing to area in far north wilderness of Northwind on the map], although of course if you say they don't then I guess they don't."I didn't accuse him of special snowflake-ism. I looked at what he'd presented, and realized that the Runeblade could be combined with the old 2e Vikings Campaign Sourcebook runecaster to make a fairly cool class, and one that was thematically extremely appropriate for that region in the setting. So, even though it meant more work, I took that on. Thinking about orc tribes and Northwind customs and old Icelandic sagas in which people are called "half-troll" and stuff, it occurred to me that orc tribes in the far north, raiding northern villages for slaves and occasionally trading captives, was a very cool addition that opened up a lot of story potentential down the road.
End result: Silverhair got his half-orc runecaster. I got two major enhancements to one of the areas in my homebrew setting. We both won, big-time. I'm really, really, really glad he didn't just settle for a dwarven fighter.
And I really like that example, as it shows you both working together, along with the player doing some proper background research on making it work along with a willingness to take any modifications necessary to make it work, and the game, story and setting as a whole benefited.
Silverhair also strikes me, from this very limited example, as the sort of player that is unlikely to throw a concept at you knowing full well that the rest of the group will hate playing with it.
If its reskinned or thematically appropriate then you arent putting in something specifically rekoved, are you?
Yes. I'd included homebrew rules for classes and races. "Runeblade" and "half-orc" were not on the lists -- i.e., had been specifically excluded. But in this case, Silverhair was absolutely right. Including them was better than excluding them.
Silverhair also strikes me, from this very limited example, as the sort of player that is unlikely to throw a concept at you knowing full well that the rest of the group will hate playing with it.
Silverhair is a retired NCO. His stock in trade was making a group function.
What I want to know is since when does complete player involvement only refer to being able to play that special snowflake?Player involvement might extend to setting parameters, not just their PCs immediate actions.
For example, Silverhair once came to me and said, "For my next character I want to play an orc runeblade from Northwind. The runeblade is a Monte Cook class; here's the writeup for it [hands me copy]. Let me know if we need to modify it or [frowny face] if you won't allow it. Also, I'm aware that half-orcs aren't necessarily listed as a player race, and I guess I can change it if I have to, but it seems reasonable that orc tribes might live here [pointing to area in far north wilderness of Northwind on the map], although of course if you say they don't then I guess they don't."
I didn't accuse him of special snowflake-ism. I looked at what he'd presented, and realized that the Runeblade could be combined with the old 2e Vikings Campaign Sourcebook runecaster to make a fairly cool class, and one that was thematically extremely appropriate for that region in the setting. So, even though it meant more work, I took that on. Thinking about orc tribes and Northwind customs and old Icelandic sagas in which people are called "half-troll" and stuff, it occurred to me that orc tribes in the far north, raiding northern villages for slaves and occasionally trading captives, was a very cool addition that opened up a lot of story potentential down the road.
End result: Silverhair got his half-orc runecaster. I got two major enhancements to one of the areas in my homebrew setting. We both won, big-time. I'm really, really, really glad he didn't just settle for a dwarven fighter.
And this is a good example! However, Silverhair as shown here was willing to work with you and make something that both made a neat character and enhanced the game world.
That is not what is being tossed back and forth in the last few pages of this thread.
What we're seeing here is Player A saying, "Hey!!! I am going to play a velociraptor barbarian because the rules say I can!!!" <<Insert gang hand signs and current slang terms and profanity here>> "What? Are you too chicken and too simple to include it? Newb?!?!??!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What we're seeing here is Player A saying, "Hey!!! I am going to play a velociraptor barbarian because the rules say I can!!!" <<Insert gang hand signs and current slang terms and profanity here>> "What? Are you too chicken and too simple to include it? Newb?!?!??!"
Yeah, I've never seen that in real life. I'd never have invited that guy to my game in the first place. I'll never understand why anyone else would.
What I want to know is since when does complete player involvement only refer to being able to play that special snowflake?Player involvement might extend to setting parameters, not just their PCs immediate actions.
For example, Silverhair once came to me and said, "For my next character I want to play an orc runeblade from Northwind. The runeblade is a Monte Cook class; here's the writeup for it [hands me copy]. Let me know if we need to modify it or [frowny face] if you won't allow it. Also, I'm aware that half-orcs aren't necessarily listed as a player race, and I guess I can change it if I have to, but it seems reasonable that orc tribes might live here [pointing to area in far north wilderness of Northwind on the map], although of course if you say they don't then I guess they don't."
I didn't accuse him of special snowflake-ism. I looked at what he'd presented, and realized that the Runeblade could be combined with the old 2e Vikings Campaign Sourcebook runecaster to make a fairly cool class, and one that was thematically extremely appropriate for that region in the setting. So, even though it meant more work, I took that on. Thinking about orc tribes and Northwind customs and old Icelandic sagas in which people are called "half-troll" and stuff, it occurred to me that orc tribes in the far north, raiding northern villages for slaves and occasionally trading captives, was a very cool addition that opened up a lot of story potentential down the road.
End result: Silverhair got his half-orc runecaster. I got two major enhancements to one of the areas in my homebrew setting. We both won, big-time. I'm really, really, really glad he didn't just settle for a dwarven fighter.
Where are the robots in your setting?
And I only say they are inexperience or unimaginative, because if they are experienced and imaginative enough to include an Awakened Pony Wizard, but don't even though its what Steve wants to play, they are just petty and I try to assume personal failings before malevolence.What you're not seeing, however, is that the GM isn't disallowing it because they're being petty to Steve, they're not disallowing it because it doesn't fit in "their" world.
They're disallowing it because their group hates that kind of thing and they want to keep the group together.
Your Steve might be a member of the group already. My Steve is a stranger that's asking to join and just told me his character concept, and I'm telling him straight that as a group we're just not going to like or accept it (and if I'm not already sure of the majority feeling I've gone and checked with them, but chances are if I've chosen this group to play with then I already know they'll hate it) and that if he can come up with something that actually fits our setting better (I really don't care if the rules allow it, as - to paraphrase James Jacobs here - setting/story trumps rules) then he's more than welcome to play. Even then, as a new member of an established group he's on probation for a couple of weeks until everyone's gotten to know him better and we know he'll fit in with us, as I've no intention of letting the game fall apart cause we suddenly got stuck with a bad player.
tl;dr - there is no way I'm letting Steve in if he'll ruin the game for the established group, and I'll reiterate here - we do not all value the same things in our game.
His world has magic and other planes of existence. It fits. If he can't make it fit I would be more than happy to help make it fit, since High Fantasy is one of the easiest setting to fit anything into.
Bill Dunn: I personally don't like Railroading as I feel it deprives players of any sense of agency and that such GMs are better off writing novels instead. That is my personal opinion on such games, though I am sure there are some who enjoy being railroaded and if that works for them that's great. Now no one I know personally enjoys that play style and the one GM who has that style whose campaign we've played in all of our enjoyment came from the ruthless mocking (Such things as a level 99 Boatman, I'm completely serious). If your friends campaign has magic and alternate planes of existence he should be able to fit an Awakened Pony Wizard into it, if not have him drop me a line and I would be more than happy to help him to include it.
Silverhair also strikes me, from this very limited example, as the sort of player that is unlikely to throw a concept at you knowing full well that the rest of the group will hate playing with it.Silverhair is a retired NCO. His stock in trade was making a group function. ** spoiler omitted **
I dont know anout for you, but 'not included' is vastly different from 'specifically excluded' in my games. If i mean 'no means no" ill say it and anything else is up for discussion if you are willing to do the work to make it fit.
Where are the robots in your setting?What I want to know is since when does complete player involvement only refer to being able to play that special snowflake?Player involvement might extend to setting parameters, not just their PCs immediate actions.
For example, Silverhair once came to me and said, "For my next character I want to play an orc runeblade from Northwind. The runeblade is a Monte Cook class; here's the writeup for it [hands me copy]. Let me know if we need to modify it or [frowny face] if you won't allow it. Also, I'm aware that half-orcs aren't necessarily listed as a player race, and I guess I can change it if I have to, but it seems reasonable that orc tribes might live here [pointing to area in far north wilderness of Northwind on the map], although of course if you say they don't then I guess they don't."
I didn't accuse him of special snowflake-ism. I looked at what he'd presented, and realized that the Runeblade could be combined with the old 2e Vikings Campaign Sourcebook runecaster to make a fairly cool class, and one that was thematically extremely appropriate for that region in the setting. So, even though it meant more work, I took that on. Thinking about orc tribes and Northwind customs and old Icelandic sagas in which people are called "half-troll" and stuff, it occurred to me that orc tribes in the far north, raiding northern villages for slaves and occasionally trading captives, was a very cool addition that opened up a lot of story potentential down the road.
End result: Silverhair got his half-orc runecaster. I got two major enhancements to one of the areas in my homebrew setting. We both won, big-time. I'm really, really, really glad he didn't just settle for a dwarven fighter.
Mechanus, A crazed gnome inventor, ancient lost technology, the foot soldiers of technologically advanced magic hating empire (who could be native or extraplanar), the finest craft of the god of the forge...
Really its to easy in high fantasy.
I dont know anout for you, but 'not included' is vastly different from 'specifically excluded' in my games. If i mean 'no means no" ill say it and anything else is up for discussion if you are willing to do the work to make it fit.
Half-orcs had previously been specifically excluded as a PC race for a number of reasons related to setting history and societal factors. None of those reasons for excluding them were as good as Silverhair's reasons for including them. Silverhair was diplomatic enough to pitch it right, and I wasn't so full of myself that I couldn't see that he was right.
Or, to more briefly, EVERYTHING is up for discussion if the player and I are willing to do the work to make it fit. We might fail in the undertaking, but it's open for the attempt to be made.
If they gave me their well thought out worlds I'm confident I could incorporate an Awakened Pony Wizard as a matter of course (since again high fantasy means magic and other planes of existence really its the easiest setting to add virtually anything to with very little effort).And I only say they are inexperience or unimaginative, because if they are experienced and imaginative enough to include an Awakened Pony Wizard, but don't even though its what Steve wants to play, they are just petty and I try to assume personal failings before malevolence.
And we're back to "Crazy high fantasy is the only proper way to play pathfinder"
buh bye now.
- Torger
Andif the reasons are only cultural/societal rather than biological, then sure …
But if the biological impossibility of the mating is an established fact then you had better be invoking a wizards experiment …
|
When DMs start talking about their personal homebrew settings as having a "mythology," and then start talking about their "vision" without any trace of sarcasm, I always feel like they've passed the GRRM Barrier: At this point, your setting is better suited for fiction written by you, and is no longer really well suited to a game in which the players' actions really matter.
If the players and GM keep the canon as canon going forward, it is a setting as valid to that group of people as any published setting.
I hear you on "It is this way because I am the GM and I this my world" being crap.
I don't agree with you if that expands to not thinking it is valid to say what does or does not exist in a given world, which is what we are discussing.
Even 3 year old playing make believe create some parameters.
You do understand that there are DMs out there who have been doing it for decades, creating huge well thought out cohesive worlds with consistent mythology and a real sense of history. They've chosen Pathfinder as the system they wish to use to express this vision.When DMs start talking about their personal homebrew settings as having a "mythology," and then start talking about their "vision" without any trace of sarcasm, I always feel like they've passed the GRRM Barrier: At this point, your setting is better suited for fiction written by you, and is no longer really well suited to a game in which the players' actions really matter.
I love my homebrew setting. Been working on it since 1981 or so. Maps on continent, national, regional, and city scales (geologically consistent with tectonics, and the climate correlates with the latitudes and terrain, and the rivers correlate to the terrain and precipitation...). Millenia of recorded history. Local industries, trade details, local customs. Detailed down to the names and descriptions for the various currencies used by different nations. And guess what? When I run a game in that setting, it's almost always a "franchise reboot," and I'm willing to ignore what's "canon" in favor of what that particular group of players needs, and I don't mind incorporating their ideas into the new version.
I think of it like Zelazny's Shadow, from the "Amber" novels: every campaign iteration using the setting is actually in a slightly different version of the same place.
To me it speaks to what happened before the players got there and to what flavor of world it is. After the players are introduced I fully expect them to have a profound impact on the course of world history.
That being said before they're let in the gate they need to make sense within the context of the world.
Once they're in I fully encourage them to change the world in drastic and unexpected ways.
But the world they start out in, that's all me.
- Torger
Andif the reasons are only cultural/societal rather than biological, then sure …
But if the biological impossibility of the mating is an established fact then you had better be invoking a wizards experiment …
(Grinds teeth). In an setting, biological reasons are no more "real" than societal ones.
Oh, wait, you're the guy who, in the other thread, never did figure out the difference between "real" and "imaginary."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
According to Anzyr's logic:
Pit Fiends exist in Pathfinder. Ergo players should be allowed to play them, and if you don't let me play my 1st level Barbarian Pit Fiend in a party of 1st level humans and elves, you are an unimaginative/inexperienced DM.
I am mostly a GM. I consider this solid advice for GMs. I'm not saying inexperienced or unimaginative GMs should include these. I'm saying those with enough experience and imagination to make them work should and that the inexperienced and unimaginative GMs should become more experienced or broaden their horizons so that eventually they can make awakened pony wizards fit in a system where rules for playing one are a core assumption of the setting.
If it only applies to you and your specific group, it is exactly not "solid advice". And that is the case with your posts.
Bill Dunn: I personally don't like Railroading as I feel it deprives players of any sense of agency and that such GMs are better off writing novels instead. That is my personal opinion on such games, though I am sure there are some who enjoy being railroaded and if that works for them that's great. Now no one I know personally enjoys that play style and the one GM who has that style whose campaign we've played in all of our enjoyment came from the ruthless mocking (Such things as a level 99 Boatman, I'm completely serious). If your friends campaign has magic and alternate planes of existence he should be able to fit an Awakened Pony Wizard into it, if not have him drop me a line and I would be more than happy to help him to include it.
So you don't like railroading. What's that got to do with the rest of the questions I brought up? Are you trying to imply that a campaign setting with a mythology and history is a railroad? Your transmission is pretty fuzzy, here.
According to Anzyr's logic:
Pit Fiends exist in Pathfinder. Ergo players should be allowed to play them, and if you don't let me play my 1st level Barbarian Pit Fiend in a party of 1st level humans and elves, you are an unimaginative/inexperienced DM.
So you clearly have not been reading my posts. I would absolutely be ok with a player playing a 1st level barbarian pit fiend, but only in a level appropriate party. I'm big on the rules and the rules don't say Pit Fiend at level one. So yes you can play your Pit Fiend Barbarian alongside level 19 characters. Truthfully, a Pit Fiend Barbarian would be a really weak character as any experienced GM knows, so its unlikely to cause any problems and thus there's no good reason to disallow it.
I am mostly a GM. I consider this solid advice for GMs. I'm not saying inexperienced or unimaginative GMs should include these. I'm saying those with enough experience and imagination to make them work should and that the inexperienced and unimaginative GMs should become more experienced or broaden their horizons so that eventually they can make awakened pony wizards fit in a system where rules for playing one are a core assumption of the setting.If it only applies to you and your specific group, it is exactly not "solid advice". And that is the case with your posts.
No no, this applies to everyone, especially GMs as it allows them to develop the experience and creativity needed to accommodate more players characters, which as I've said many times are not out of place in high fantasy.
Bill Dunn: Does your mythology and history have magic and alternate planes of existence? If Yes, You can easily include an awakened pony wizard, which means a mythology and history have little impact on whether a person can play such a character. If this is still unclear I'll continue to clarify.
From the Exotic Race Antipathy thread:
FAQ
1. Q: "Why should I allow one person to always get their way (preferred race or whatever) when everyone else is against it?"
A: "You shouldn't. ONLY if the majority of the players disagree with a restriction should the DM reconsider it."2. Q: "If you allow a 1st level kitsune sorcerer for one player, you must also allow another player to have a half-troll balor with several artifacts at 1st level, right?"
A: "No; issues of LA and WBL are different from simple issues of race, and need to be dealt with as such."3. Q: "What if I'm not the one banning it, the setting is?"
A: "The DM and players presumably need to agree on the setting for there to even be a game, so see #1, above."
Now we get MMCJawa's question, seconded by Lil' BowWow:
According to Anzyr's logic: Pit Fiends exist in Pathfinder. Ergo players should be allowed to play them, and if you don't let me play my 1st level Barbarian Pit Fiend in a party of 1st level humans and elves, you are an unimaginative/inexperienced DM.
#2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What we're seeing here is Player A saying, "Hey!!! I am going to play a velociraptor barbarian because the rules say I can!!!" <<Insert gang hand signs and current slang terms and profanity here>> "What? Are you too chicken and too simple to include it? Newb?!?!??!"Yeah, I've never seen that in real life. I'd never have invited that guy to my game in the first place. I'll never understand why anyone else would.
When I was deployed to take your mind off being in the middle of the ocean you'll grab a pick up D&D game. You don't get many choices on who sits at the table so you take what you can get. That ranges from LARPers, to Min/Maxes, to Super Special Snowflakes. There are times where in order to came you have to deal with people you don't want to. Or you lay in your rack staring at the one above you waiting for the deployment to end.
When I was deployed to take your mind off being in the middle of the ocean you'll grab a pick up D&D game. You don't get many choices on who sits at the table so you take what you can get. That ranges from LARPers, to Min/Maxes, to Super Special Snowflakes. There are times where in order to came you have to deal with people you don't want to. Or you lay in your rack staring at the one above you waiting for the deployment to end.What we're seeing here is Player A saying, "Hey!!! I am going to play a velociraptor barbarian because the rules say I can!!!" <<Insert gang hand signs and current slang terms and profanity here>> "What? Are you too chicken and too simple to include it? Newb?!?!??!"Yeah, I've never seen that in real life. I'd never have invited that guy to my game in the first place. I'll never understand why anyone else would.
Point well made sir.
Under the situation you describe I would be willing to play in an anything goes game.
- Torger
Allowing a player to play what they want is not a "method of gaming" this is not a my play style versus yours issue. Since I am loathe to assume malevolence on the part of GMs who do not permit players to play the character they want to, I have chosen to assume the do not have the experience/imagination to incorporate them. Here's some examples:
New DM: Please use only races from the Player's Guide.
Practiced DM: Any race is fine.
Experienced DM: So you want to play an Awakened Pony Wizard Steve, your sheet looks correct, make sure you deduct the cost of awakening off your sheet and keep in mind you'll be a bit weaker than a normal wizard, due to your hit dice. Also, would you be ok with being a pony who was blessed by the sacred tree, Anihwa that holds up the sun as your backstory?
As you can see, its really just a progression.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I was deployed to take your mind off being in the middle of the ocean you'll grab a pick up D&D game. You don't get many choices on who sits at the table so you take what you can get. That ranges from LARPers, to Min/Maxes, to Super Special Snowflakes. There are times where in order to came you have to deal with people you don't want to. Or you lay in your rack staring at the one above you waiting for the deployment to end.
Belay my previous statement -- that's one scenario in which I would definitely break my usual rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No no, this applies to everyone, especially GMs as it allows them to develop the experience and creativity needed to accommodate more players characters, which as I've said many times are not out of place in high fantasy.Bill Dunn: Does your mythology and history have magic and alternate planes of existence? If Yes, You can easily include an awakened pony wizard, which means a mythology and history have little impact on whether a person can play such a character. If this is still unclear I'll continue to clarify.
Ah-ha. Well, firstly you're operating on the mistaken assumption that my group would value accomodating more players ;) We would be far more interested in ensuring people that don't fit into our way of playing don't get into the group in the first place and ruin everyone else's fun.
At this point I'm done though. You appear unable to accept that what works for you and your group will not work for everyone else because we don't all have the same values to consider in what we want from our game. I tend towards more serious, narrative groups than groups of friends getting together for some laughs, and there are some things that just can't be reconciled between those two styles with certain types of player. It's a shame, cause I've actually enjoyed this thread (and would like to thank RD for starting it, Kirth for his valuable input opposing my own views with valid arguments, and the majority of other posters) but as it's now getting down to repetitive denials that any other type of playstyle should exist (or that where they do they're inferior in some way) there's not much point in me trying to persuade you otherwise. Ah well :)
Matt, I've enjoyed talking with you and Torger, even if we've disagreed. I look forward to seeing you elsewhere on the boards.
Sure I do, I just thought it was funny.
Cool. Because, in the other thread, people other than MMC apparently were convinced that it was a valid comparison, which boggled my mind, and kept doing so after the difference was explained. Hence the FAQ.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The question of playing an awakened pony is better than the one of playing a demon. A demon would have level adjustment issues, the pony wouldn't. The real issue comes down to 'I want to play something disruptive/inappropriate to the setting/immersion breaking'. It's possible in games you play that talking ponies are common and it would make a fine addition to your game. In the games I run, the world is very vanilla to classical DnD settings and ponies that speak are entirely out of place.
You can justify anything you want in High Fantasy. Talking horses aren't even out of bounds from classic mythology, looking at unicorns and animal lords. What they are though is immersion breaking as player characters if you have classic races represented by the other players with one outlier. You are going to have fun at the expense of other players, and I as a DM am not only allowed to disallow it, but it's my responsibility to ensure a cohesive and fun game environment. Lazy DM'ing is letting you play "My little pony" when everyone else wants to play DnD. If everyone wants to play 'My little pony' then great, but you don't get to play whatever you want just because you can shoe horn some justification based on a Tardis going through a warp gate into the matrix causing a horse to pop into existence who has class levels and is awakened (even if that's entirely possible in a make believe world).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Matt, I've enjoyed talking with you and Torger, even if we've disagreed. I look forward to seeing you elsewhere on the boards.
Likewise :)
And I tend to think of it less as disagreement, more as agreement that our needs from a game are different (and indeed some common ground in the middle that works for us both, such as your example earlier)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Matt, I've enjoyed talking with you and Torger, even if we've disagreed. I look forward to seeing you elsewhere on the boards.
You as well sir.
Cheers
- Torger
No no, this applies to everyone, especially GMs as it allows them to develop the experience and creativity needed to accommodate more players characters, which as I've said many times are not out of place in high fantasy.Bill Dunn: Does your mythology and history have magic and alternate planes of existence? If Yes, You can easily include an awakened pony wizard, which means a mythology and history have little impact on whether a person can play such a character. If this is still unclear I'll continue to clarify.
Ah-ha. Well, firstly you're operating on the mistaken assumption that my group would value accomodating more players ;) We would be far more interested in ensuring people that don't fit into our way of playing don't get into the group in the first place and ruin everyone else's fun.
At this point I'm done though. You appear unable to accept that what works for you and your group will not work for everyone else because we don't all have the same values to consider in what we want from our game. I tend towards more serious, narrative groups than groups of friends getting together for some laughs, and there are some things that just can't be reconciled between those two styles with certain types of player. It's a shame, cause I've actually enjoyed this thread (and would like to thank RD for starting it, Kirth for his valuable input opposing my own views with valid arguments, and the majority of other posters) but as it's now getting down to repetitive denials that any other type of playstyle should exist (or that where they do they're inferior in some way) there's not much point in me trying to persuade you otherwise. Ah well :)
Disallowing a player to play the character he wants is not a "playstyle". It is not "irreconcilable" with serious, narrative groups. If you honestly believe that a skilled enough group can't have a serious narrative heavy game with an awakened pony wizard. Are all groups that skilled? No, but it is a goal to strive towards. Is your position "There is no need to better ourselves, we're fine as is thanks"? Well that all well and good for you I guess, world ends with you and all.
(I lied, I'm not quite done)
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JumpingTheShark
Something the better GMs don't allow to happen to their game.
(I lied, I'm not quite done)
I know it's hard right?
- Torger
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Allowing everything is the least imaginative way to approach something. It would be more imaginative on the players part to find a character that fit into the setting. Restrictions actually enhance creativity as it challenges you to incorporate others ideas and preferences. Now this is a two way street and the GM should try to incorporate players ideas and preferences into the setting, but there is no obligation on the GMs part to sacrifice their own preferences and possibly the other players as we'll just to accommodate a single players preference. The GM makes the setting, the players make a character in that setting, and the game is the story of what happens to those characters in that setting. It isn't a matter of could, it is a matter of like. If everyone likes awakened pony wizards then it's a go, if only one does it is back to the drawing board. Personal preference is a perfectly valid reason and it is not petty. Otherwise why are you even role playing if the reason can't be because I like it.
Anyone can toss a ball up in the air and catch it, it is much harder to toss several balls in the air and keep them from hitting the ground.