And when you said that I was only presenting the single campaign to my players and no other when I had been saying LITERALLY the oppsite all thread? Never saw an apology for that, if you want other people to not misrepresent you you might at least wqnt to recognize when you misrepresent them?You pick people who you think you will enjoy playing with. You don't play with people you don't think you will enjoy playing with.I pick people I think I will enjoy spending time with. Has nothing to do with their game preferences. (And I'm not enjoying these threads anymore, insofar as I can't reach most of the people in them, some of whom keep telling me I'm "literally" saying things that I'm not, so I'm screening myself out.)
I had been misrepresented here as well.
Do you see me demanding apologies?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a ton of misrepresetatin' goin' on.
Anyway.
I prefer to just convince my players their ideas suck. That way I don't have to ban them.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
BillyGoat TV tropes itself acknowledges there are GOOD special snowflakes, so WHY can't you? You DO love TV tropes don't you?
Ciretose the "I need to play this and nothing else" player is an Entitlement Player NOT a Special Snowflake. A special snowflake merely enjoys playing a non-standard character, their ability to work well with others makes them Good or Bad. Sometimes it really helps your immersion into the game to stand apart from every other standard character... like a philosopher who is part of society and yet stands apart from it as an observer or foil highlighting the standard by their very effort to be different from it.
You know... when people can't agree on a definition why not avoid using the term and simply argue about what we really mean. This is silly? Yes... I know this will eliminate like 90% of internet arguments and where is the fun in that.
:(
Stripping the war over definitions out we are back to the same old argument that has been raging here in many threads for a long time; Entitlement players with hurt feelings versus tyrant GMs who have every right to run what they think will be fun. And I side with the GMs on that argument. If you ban my cute furry tauric half fey then I have numerous other options available even if you strip it down to core only it will only chafe for a moment till I accept and love my human noble or elven renegade.
|
Some ideas, both from GMs and Players, suck.
If a GM's idea sucks, the players say no to playing it.
Doesn't mean the GM is a bad person, or that they can't come up with good ideas, or even that with the right group it might not suck.
But it does mean for this group, it sucks.
What is the counter proposed by the other side of the discussion when the same thing happens to a player? The GM apparently isn't allowed to say no or not let the idea into the game.
Aside from advice like "Incorporate the suck idea to make something good out of it" (just like they did on Happy Day's with Fonzie and the Shark...) I've seen a whole lot of nothing.
And the incorporate the jumping shark solution....well I think that idea kind of...um...yeah.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm thinking of posting this in the recruitment threads...YOU guys have really inspired me!
What kind of game do YOU WANT to play?
Wow, have you seen the threads about Race restrictions/Creativity/Snowflakes?
Just, you know, wow!
One of the things often mentioned is this idea that putting together a game in “real life” with your friends, or at the local game store, involves a period of “game crafting” where the interested parties sit down and discuss just exactly what it is they want to do.
Right?
Okay, but I don’t see that very often (okay, I’ve never seen that) on this Recruitment Thread board. (Maybe I don’t check it thoroughly enough?)
Now, I’m a Generic Dungeon Master, seriously, I’ve got no special world building skills, but I love to play. I’ve been playing for a very long time (don’t ask, those kinds of things tend to get stated as if they have some kind of real meaning, and they kind of don’t, you know what I mean?)
My alter ego is running a few games, and participating in a couple more, and my alter ego’s players will probably get a little frustrated with me (Ha, I think most of them already are) for doing this but here we go…
If I was going to start a new game here I would want to play a simplified version of Pathfinder (a merging of the “Pathfinder” Class/Race rules with Basic, “Blue Box” edition D&D)
I would want to:
Ban Feats
Limit Traits
Reduce/Rework/Re Imagine Skills
Limit Equipment
Modify Weapons and Armor
BUT
I would also want to establish:
How many players would be allowed?
How would Ability Scores be generated?
What Races would be allowed?
What Classes would be allowed?
What would be the initial setting (would we role-play the “Town” or set everyone down at the entrance to a Dungeon, would it be a Dungeon)?
What would be the theme?
How would we manage the Play by Post elements (posting frequency, conventions)?
Basically, I’ve created this thread to see if it is possible to build a game without the often decried aspect of a Special Snowscape weilding Dungeon Master setting forth a world and the restrictions, and then begging for players to limit themselves to what is presented.
Can we do it?
Can we build a game, and then successfully play it?
As a Generic Dungeon Master I can only offer you this, I’ll do my best to be fair and keep the game moving forward (perhaps with the speed of a drugged tortoise, but forward nonetheless). I’ll have things I want to do, and I imagine you will too, let’s talk about it and see if it goes anywhere.
Thanks!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know... when people can't agree on a definition why not avoid using the term and simply argue about what we really mean. This is silly? Yes... I know this will eliminate like 90% of internet arguments and where is the fun in that.
:(
Finding a common definition is actually a tool to point out the same thing you said. The discussion isn't about the snowflake at all.
A teaching story I had once read discussed a teacher having pictures of tables scattered all around a room. The instructions to the students were simple. "Define the word table". From that point the only help the teacher would give is to say if he felt the definition was sufficient or not, not providing any feedback whatsoever.
SO the class goes about making up definitions. They make mentions of legs, of no legs, of sitting stuff on it, of being for dinner, where it sits, all sorts of definitions, but none of which are sufficient for the teacher's instruction. All the pictures are examined and the group finally comes up with what they feel must be the true definition of table.
They present it to the teacher, who once again says it's not right. The class finally argues that it must be, that every pictured table on the wall can fit within their definition. And the teacher gives his own definition of table. "A collection of two sets of related numbers expressed in a comparative format.*"
So two lessons come from this. One is that all because one person feels they have a definition of something, doesn't mean they agree with another's definition and a common definition needs to be decided upon together. And two, sometimes what you're arguing isn't really the point at all.
But ah well, logic and the internet don't mix.
You know... when people can't agree on a definition why not avoid using the term and simply argue about what we really mean.
Hey, guys, let's talk about what 'powergaming' really means.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then he was obviously ok with it. At least with you in control of it.Okay with me running it, but not okay with it.
He had to be ok with running it or he wouldn't have run it.
He thought you, personally, might be able to do something interesting with it and/or you reassured him you would make it something that would add to the campaign and not cause problems.
What is the solution when you aren't ok with it, because you don't believe that it will make something interesting or add to the campaign.
Kirth's unstated solution (I think actually stated, but he is getting defensive so I don't want to start a semantic argument) is to not play with jerks.
He defines jerks, I presume, as people who don't do things he doesn't like at his table.
This is my point. You don't get to criticize other people's standards of what they will allow unless you are Mother Theresa of gaming who lets everyone play at the table.
And I personally believe if you do that, you will end up with a group of people no one else wants to play with.
Say... If you put that suggestion for a game up in recruitment... Would you decide on which players you want before or after you collectively decide on what to play? I have a feeling it might matter a bit or two regarding this discussion...
He thought you, personally, might be able to do something interesting with it and/or you reassured him you would make it something that would add to the campaign and not cause problems.
If it matters, I'd let someone play as long as it wasn't being a problem. I'd certainly hope they brought something interesting, but I wouldn't punish them for being uninteresting if we all just wanted to sit down and have fun with the game. That doesn't hurt me. What could hurt the game is a six armed mutant with +24 strength or someone playing against genre all the time(though sometimes its funny and that's just what you need, but that's another discussion).
Kirth's unstated solution (I think actually stated, but he is getting defensive so I don't want to start a semantic argument) is to not play with jerks.
He defines jerks, I presume, as people who don't do things he doesn't like at his table.
Presumptions aren't the best things to go on. Best way to know is to ask politely.
You know... when people can't agree on a definition why not avoid using the term and simply argue about what we really mean.Hey, guys, let's talk about what 'powergaming' really means.
That sounds familiar for some reason...
Wait... is someone suggesting that putting ANY sentient species on the forbidden list (aka 'not allowed as a PC race') makes them villains by default?
That's hilarious.
Only if they don't ever show up as heroes. The examples using planatars are a tad hyperbolic imo.(Though I have used evil angels in the past... haha, that six armed angel with fangs was awesome!)
Indeed. Either you recruit first, which gets you people who have not agreed on a concept fighting for probably ages about what kind the campaign should be, or you hash it out first and then recruit players to a known entity. Either kind of defeats your idea.
Know what's better than consensus? http://youtu.be/nIQfIj-RLyw
Seriously though, everyone should have fun as their goal in the game. I know for myself, I will reserve the perjorative "special snowflake" only for the most heinous of Prima Donna players in the future.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Only if they don't ever show up as heroes.Wait... is someone suggesting that putting ANY sentient species on the forbidden list (aka 'not allowed as a PC race') makes them villains by default?
That's hilarious.
And still utter nonsense. It's not binary. Obviously.
(The statement - even the idea - is hilarious, and shows how far downhill the thread has gone.)
|
Then he was obviously ok with it. At least with you in control of it.Okay with me running it, but not okay with it.He had to be ok with running it or he wouldn't have run it.
He thought you, personally, might be able to do something interesting with it and/or you reassured him you would make it something that would add to the campaign and not cause problems.
What is the solution when you aren't ok with it, because you don't believe that it will make something interesting or add to the campaign.
The solution is the same.
You operate under the assumption that if you allow it in the game you are okay with it.
Kirth doesn't. He will allow things in he is not okay with. (E.g. Dwarves, oversized swords)
|
|
Then he was obviously ok with it. At least with you in control of it.Okay with me running it, but not okay with it.He had to be ok with running it or he wouldn't have run it.
He thought you, personally, might be able to do something interesting with it and/or you reassured him you would make it something that would add to the campaign and not cause problems.
What is the solution when you aren't ok with it, because you don't believe that it will make something interesting or add to the campaign.
The solution is the same.
You operate under the assumption that if you allow it in the game you are okay with it.
Kirth doesn't. He will allow things in he is not okay with. (E.g. Dwarves, oversized swords)
Then hopefully Kirth will attract the right players.
You operate under the assumption that if you allow it in the game you are okay with it.
Kirth doesn't. He will allow things in he is not okay with. (E.g. Dwarves, oversized swords)
And that's totally cool for him and his group.
As long as he approaches the messageboards with the understanding that that is not common, it might help lessen some of the confusion. (Depending, of course, on what "not okay" means - which is a little vague.)
You dare defy my whims? I am the game master. You are my pawns. I have created the world you see before you. I CONTROL YOUR FATE!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As long as he approaches the messageboards with the understanding that that is not common, it might help lessen some of the confusion.
Are you sure its not common?
You dare defy my whims? I am the game master. You are my pawns. I have created the world you see before you. I CONTROL YOUR FATE!
Nostalgia! I remember that!
|
|
Then he was obviously ok with it. At least with you in control of it.Okay with me running it, but not okay with it.He had to be ok with running it or he wouldn't have run it.
He thought you, personally, might be able to do something interesting with it and/or you reassured him you would make it something that would add to the campaign and not cause problems.
What is the solution when you aren't ok with it, because you don't believe that it will make something interesting or add to the campaign.
The solution is the same.
You operate under the assumption that if you allow it in the game you are okay with it.
Kirth doesn't. He will allow things in he is not okay with. (E.g. Dwarves, oversized swords)
But Kirth only allows people in the game who will game to his expectations.
It is the same thing with different criteria.
|
|
Then hopefully Kirth will attract the right players.Then he was obviously ok with it. At least with you in control of it.Okay with me running it, but not okay with it.He had to be ok with running it or he wouldn't have run it.
He thought you, personally, might be able to do something interesting with it and/or you reassured him you would make it something that would add to the campaign and not cause problems.
What is the solution when you aren't ok with it, because you don't believe that it will make something interesting or add to the campaign.
The solution is the same.
You operate under the assumption that if you allow it in the game you are okay with it.
Kirth doesn't. He will allow things in he is not okay with. (E.g. Dwarves, oversized swords)
And screen out the "wrong" ones.
Which is the point.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But Kirth only allows people in the game who will game to his expectations.
Actually, he doesn't. He allows people who he likes, regardless of what they will or will not play.
Then hopefully Kirth will attract the right players.And screen out the "wrong" ones.
Which is the point.
Your premise is flawed, in that 'right' and 'wrong' are being defined differently than is actually being used.
|
|
But Kirth only allows people in the game who will game to his expectations.Actually, he doesn't. He allows people who he likes, regardless of what they will or will not play.
Your premise is flawed, in that 'right' and 'wrong' are being defined differently than is actually being used.Then hopefully Kirth will attract the right players.And screen out the "wrong" ones.
Which is the point.
The "wrong" ones are people he doesn't like. What is his criteria for liking or not liking someone? I don't know. Is he close minded for not liking everyone? I don't think so.
If I don't like people who play ponies, or to make it less personal if I just don't want to play/run a game for people who like to play ponies, the criteria is different but the outcome is the same.
Either way, the person who insists that we let them play ponies if the group doesn't want them to is being a jerk.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The wrong ones are people who will not be fun to play with. I like plenty of people who I will not invite to my gaming table.
Either way, the person who insists that we let them play ponies if the group doesn't want them to is being a jerk.
Which has never been disputed. At least by Kirth and I.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exotic Races or Classes only hog the spotlight when the DM allows them to do so. which usually requires an excessive focus on the character's strangeness. fixating on one of the character's traits is usually the Sign of an inexperienced DM whom hasn't learned that not all Exotic Characters are spotlight hogs
a core race and class, has just as much chance of hogging the spotlight, regardless of setting
in fact, you can hog as much attention with an Axebeard or Lego-Lass as you can with a catfolk or half red dragon vampire minotuar
|
|
The wrong ones are people who will not be fun to play with. I like plenty of people who I will not invite to my gaming table.
Either way, the person who insists that we let them play ponies if the group doesn't want them to is being a jerk.Which has never been disputed. At least by Kirth and I.
But what has been said is that if you think the criteria of saying "I would like to run this setting, who is with me" you are being close minded. And if someone who could potentially be in the group introduces something that you don't think fits, saying no is being close minded.
I am saying that saying no is no different than Kirth saying "Yeah, I think Ciretose is a jerk so I'm not going to play with him."
And I'm saying neither is wrong.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Exotic Races or Classes only hog the spotlight when the DM allows them to do so. which usually requires an excessive focus on the character's strangeness. fixating on one of the character's traits is usually the Sign of an inexperienced DM whom hasn't learned that not all Exotic Characters are spotlight hogs
a core race and class, has just as much chance of hogging the spotlight, regardless of setting
in fact, you can hog as much attention with an Axebeard or Lego-Lass as you can with a catfolk or half red dragon vampire minotuar
Forcing the group to ignore the strangeness of something that is strange is also asking for the setting to be changed.
Saying that the townfolk with pay no mind to the talking horse who cast spell is asking everyone to play in a setting where talking horses who cast spells are common and boring OR to play in a setting where NPC's don't follow logical actions.
Neither is wrong to play in if that is what you want to play in. But neither is something you can expect everyone else to want to play in.
When you have to make the setting stop making logical sense, or to change the logical sense of the setting to fit your character, that is a style of play.
You have zero right to make anyone play your style of play.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't want to play a stereotype, don't play your character AS a stereotype. There's no need for alien races, third-party feats, or prestige classes to make a character distinctive. All it takes is characterization and roleplay.
If you don't want to do an 'axebeard dwarf,' then make a dwarf who's not a stereotypical axebeard. If you don't want another "Hulk smash" orc, then play an orc who's intelligent and cultured. That's a far greater exercise in creativity than just slapping glitter and wings on your PC and calling him Exotic.
And that is where the paradox begins.
If you do not play the usual "axebeard" dwarf, you're playing a special snowflake.
If you're not playing the usual "Hulk smash" orc, you are playing a special snowflake.
Um ... No? Not even remotely close?
If you are playing a dwarven arcane lore keeper and archaeologist, who is more comfortable with books than an axe ...
That is not a special snowflake.
If you play a deeply serious and somber dwarven cleric who "doesn't touch drink because it fogs the mind" it's not a special snowflake.
As two examples.
People seem to keep conflating 'not a stereotype" with "special snowflake" ignoring the emphasis on "special" in "special snowflake". It's not the uniqueness that makes it bad.
Characterisation is not snowflakeisation.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Exotic Races or Classes only hog the spotlight when the DM allows them to do so. which usually requires an excessive focus on the character's strangeness. fixating on one of the character's traits is usually the Sign of an inexperienced DM whom hasn't learned that not all Exotic Characters are spotlight hogs
a core race and class, has just as much chance of hogging the spotlight, regardless of setting
in fact, you can hog as much attention with an Axebeard or Lego-Lass as you can with a catfolk or half red dragon vampire minotuar
Forcing the group to ignore the strangeness of something that is strange is also asking for the setting to be changes.
Saying that the townfolk with pay no mind to the talking horse who cast spell is asking everyone to play in a setting where talking horses who cast spells are common and boring OR to play in a setting where NPC's don't follow logical actions.
Neither is wrong to play in if that is what you want to play in. But neither is something you can expect everyone else to want to play in.
When you have to make the setting stop making logical sense, or to change the logical sense of the setting to fit your character, that is a style of play.
You have zero right to make anyone play your style of play.
I wouldn't necessarily say it is the sign of an inexperienced GM to pay attention to something that stands out, be it class, race, or mannerism. If you are a pajama wearing ninja, the townfolk might ask why that man is always wearing a mask (See also: Princess Bride). If you dress in garb that doesn't fit in, you stand out and will draw attention. If the locals are humans and know about humans, elves, maybe short folk and you show up as a Thri-kreen, they will talk or worse, start getting torches and pitch forks.
It's called exotic for a reason, after all!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Forcing the group to ignore the strangeness of something that is strange is also asking for the setting to be changes.
Saying that the townfolk with pay no mind to the talking horse who cast spell is asking everyone to play in a setting where talking horses who cast spells are common and boring OR to play in a setting where NPC's don't follow logical actions.
On the other hand, its hard to play as the character who people drag the pitch forks and torches too and its obnoxious to have "Ahh! A drow!" come up after the 50th time even in literature.
You have zero right to make anyone play your style of play.
Which has nothing to do with what was just said? No one said you had to!
2 Extra things to think about;
A race in a setting usually cares some sort of baggage because it is that race. Ideally when you pick a race its because of the characterization. That's part of why I like to separate mechanics and fluff to an extent and make things more flexible.
Oddly enough the most monstrous thing I've seen at a table isn't a drow, a satyr, or a centaur. Its an adventurer loaded with highly visible magical gear and augments. The worst among those adventurers is probably the alchemist. Some guy with 2 extra arms, a parasitic twin, a talking tumor, and took some acts that mummified him... Ick.
Exotic Races or Classes only hog the spotlight when the DM allows them to do so. which usually requires an excessive focus on the character's strangeness. fixating on one of the character's traits is usually the Sign of an inexperienced DM whom hasn't learned that not all Exotic Characters are spotlight hogs
a core race and class, has just as much chance of hogging the spotlight, regardless of setting
in fact, you can hog as much attention with an Axebeard or Lego-Lass as you can with a catfolk or half red dragon vampire minotuar
Forcing the group to ignore the strangeness of something that is strange is also asking for the setting to be changes.
Saying that the townfolk with pay no mind to the talking horse who cast spell is asking everyone to play in a setting where talking horses who cast spells are common and boring OR to play in a setting where NPC's don't follow logical actions.
Neither is wrong to play in if that is what you want to play in. But neither is something you can expect everyone else to want to play in.
When you have to make the setting stop making logical sense, or to change the logical sense of the setting to fit your character, that is a style of play.
You have zero right to make anyone play your style of play.
I wouldn't necessarily say it is the sign of an inexperienced GM to pay attention to something that stands out, be it class, race, or mannerism. If you are a pajama wearing ninja, the townfolk might ask why that man is always wearing a mask (See also: Princess Bride). If you dress in garb that doesn't fit in, you stand out and will draw attention. If the locals are humans and know about humans, elves, maybe short folk and you show up as a Thri-kreen, they will talk or worse, start getting torches and pitch forks.
It's called exotic for a reason, after all!
i'm not asking to ignore the strangeness of every race, especially not talking horses with tatoos, 4 armed insects, or anthropomorphic animals
the races that are sufficiently human, to pass themselves off human, namely the 8 planetouched, are something that is more acceptable to ignore
minor differences shouldn't be excessively focused on, such as a tail beneath a skirt, fancy ears or an odd hair color
it should only really draw the torches and pitchforks when the race is an extreme freak, such as a talking horse with tatoos, or whatever you mention
ignore the minor cases
i don't consider the horse or thri-keen to be minor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Forcing the group to ignore the strangeness of something that is strange is also asking for the setting to be changes.
Saying that the townfolk with pay no mind to the talking horse who cast spell is asking everyone to play in a setting where talking horses who cast spells are common and boring OR to play in a setting where NPC's don't follow logical actions.
On the other hand, its hard to play as the character who people drag the pitch forks and torches too and its obnoxious to have "Ahh! A drow!" come up after the 50th time even in literature.
You have zero right to make anyone play your style of play.Which has nothing to do with what was just said? No one said you had to!
2 Extra things to think about;
A race in a setting usually cares some sort of baggage because it is that race. Ideally when you pick a race its because of the characterization. That's part of why I like to separate mechanics and fluff to an extent and make things more flexible.Oddly enough the most monstrous thing I've seen at a table isn't a drow, a satyr, or a centaur. Its an adventurer loaded with highly visible magical gear and augments. The worst among those adventurers is probably the alchemist. Some guy with 2 extra arms, a parasitic twin, a talking tumor, and took some acts that mummified him... Ick.
Indeed. My above statements really apply to any character in my game, be they exotic or not. If you are a human with tons of tattoos that gets into a fight in every town, you're making an impression. If you decide that you have to have visible magical effects on all the time, well, that's your choice and you have to deal with the good and bad of it.
This isn't picking on people. This is part of that elusive role play that people are interested in by doing these acts, right? Not everything is good and not everything is bad. The world reacts to what you do, otherwise why bother to name the PC or describe it or otherwise do more than toss dice at monsters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Forcing the group to ignore the strangeness of something that is strange is also asking for the setting to be changes.
Saying that the townfolk with pay no mind to the talking horse who cast spell is asking everyone to play in a setting where talking horses who cast spells are common and boring OR to play in a setting where NPC's don't follow logical actions.
On the other hand, its hard to play as the character who people drag the pitch forks and torches too and its obnoxious to have "Ahh! A drow!" come up after the 50th time even in literature.
You have zero right to make anyone play your style of play.Which has nothing to do with what was just said? No one said you had to!
2 Extra things to think about;
A race in a setting usually cares some sort of baggage because it is that race. Ideally when you pick a race its because of the characterization. That's part of why I like to separate mechanics and fluff to an extent and make things more flexible.Oddly enough the most monstrous thing I've seen at a table isn't a drow, a satyr, or a centaur. Its an adventurer loaded with highly visible magical gear and augments. The worst among those adventurers is probably the alchemist. Some guy with 2 extra arms, a parasitic twin, a talking tumor, and took some acts that mummified him... Ick.
true
the biggest freak
is not the humanoid with the tail, fancy ears or odd hair color
it's the adventurer with massive amounts of magical bling, a bag loaded with wands, wallets loaded with gold, and a small armory on their person.
