I haven't really had problems with special snowflakes. I guess my gaming group is pretty boring by some people's standards.
Yeah, we have a "Hulk smash" orc barbarian who wields a two-handed hammer.
We even have a gnome sorcerer with green hair who likes to play with gadgets.
I prefer not to play stereotypical PCs but if a player wants to, I'm fine with it too.
I suppose I am the "special snowflake" in our group, but only comparatively so compared to what I see here on this thread. I pretty much ensure that I play a unique and interesting character every game. But I long ago determined that for me "unique and interesting" are adjectives that apply to the character's personality, background and motivations, not how many fingers they have, what color their hair is or if they have a tail or vestigial wings. (Full disclosure, I did once play a pixie/gnome hybrid with vestigial wings...)
Anyway, I suppose I would be in the camp that says "unique and interesting" can be accomplished without needing to create something that would make one of the denizens of the Star Wars bar scene gawk.
i'm not asking to ignore the strangeness of every race
Just the race you want to play that you personally don't think is strange...
Again, if it works for your group, great.
it's not that i don't think planetouched, samsarans, dhampir, changelings or half-nymphs are excessively strange, just minor tolerable strange
it's that they are no more exotic than a half elf, half orc, or dwarf is, strange, but tolerably so
and clearly not as attention grabbing as a gnome, talking horse, or 4 armed insect
Anyway, I suppose I would be in the camp that says "unique and interesting" can be accomplished without needing to create something that would make one of the denizens of the Star Wars bar scene gawk.
Would have to go pretty far to do that I'd imagine. On Tatooine you can see a man get shot and another get his arm cut off in the same day and everything's cool in the bar. I'm not sure how strange the bar scene for adventurers is.
I haven't really had problems with special snowflakes. I guess my gaming group is pretty boring by some people's standards.
Yeah, we have a "Hulk smash" orc barbarian who wields a two-handed hammer.
We even have a gnome sorcerer with green hair who likes to play with gadgets.
I prefer not to play stereotypical PCs but if a player wants to, I'm fine with it too.
I suppose I am the "special snowflake" in our group, but only comparatively so compared to what I see here on this thread. I pretty much ensure that I play a unique and interesting character every game. But I long ago determined that for me "unique and interesting" are adjectives that apply to the character's personality, background and motivations, not how many fingers they have, what color their hair is or if they have a tail or vestigial wings. (Full disclosure, I did once play a pixie/gnome hybrid with vestigial wings...)
Anyway, I suppose I would be in the camp that says "unique and interesting" can be accomplished without needing to create something that would make one of the denizens of the Star Wars bar scene gawk.
good point
but some of us, don't like the preconcieved steriotypes, and preconceived visuals of the a given race, picking a new race that fits their aesthetics within reason
there is a specific design i prefer, that can be done reasonably with humans, elves, and half-elves, thing is, i like having more cute options besides "pointy ears"
i don't use race as a culture crutch or a powergaming tool
i use race (should be species) as a way to get those minor cosmetic features that fit my desired appeal
i make the character different using culture, or personality
race just gives me a few obscure genetic traits that are relatively minor in strangeness, that add to the appeal
it's pretty hard to justify certain rarely used or oddly prophetic names without the backing of a certain race or culture.
I haven't really had problems with special snowflakes. I guess my gaming group is pretty boring by some people's standards.
Yeah, we have a "Hulk smash" orc barbarian who wields a two-handed hammer.
We even have a gnome sorcerer with green hair who likes to play with gadgets.
I prefer not to play stereotypical PCs but if a player wants to, I'm fine with it too.
I suppose I am the "special snowflake" in our group, but only comparatively so compared to what I see here on this thread. I pretty much ensure that I play a unique and interesting character every game. But I long ago determined that for me "unique and interesting" are adjectives that apply to the character's personality, background and motivations, not how many fingers they have, what color their hair is or if they have a tail or vestigial wings. (Full disclosure, I did once play a pixie/gnome hybrid with vestigial wings...)
Anyway, I suppose I would be in the camp that says "unique and interesting" can be accomplished without needing to create something that would make one of the denizens of the Star Wars bar scene gawk.
good point
but some of us, don't like the preconcieved steriotypes, and preconceived visuals of the a given race, picking a new race that fits their aesthetics within reason
there is a specific design i prefer, that can be done reasonably with humans, elves, and half-elves, thing is, i like having more cute options besides "pointy ears"
i don't use race as a culture crutch or a powergaming tool
i use race (should be species) as a way to get those minor cosmetic features that fit my desired appeal
i make the character different using culture, or personality
race just gives me a few obscure genetic traits that are relatively minor in strangeness, that add to the appeal
it's pretty hard to justify certain rarely used or oddly prophetic names without the backing of a certain race or culture.
Ok. So, one of the campaign world I use has something called "those touched by the First World" - otherwise known as 'Firsties' or "primals" - more or less a tiefling if a Tiefling was based on fae heritage instead of fiendish heritage. Would, in that world, that probably suit your purposes?
Ok. So, one of the campaign world I use has something called "those touched by the First World" - otherwise known as 'Firsties' or "primals" - more or less a tiefling if a Tiefling was based on fae heritage instead of fiendish heritage. Would, in that world, that probably suit your purposes?I haven't really had problems with special snowflakes. I guess my gaming group is pretty boring by some people's standards.
Yeah, we have a "Hulk smash" orc barbarian who wields a two-handed hammer.
We even have a gnome sorcerer with green hair who likes to play with gadgets.
I prefer not to play stereotypical PCs but if a player wants to, I'm fine with it too.
I suppose I am the "special snowflake" in our group, but only comparatively so compared to what I see here on this thread. I pretty much ensure that I play a unique and interesting character every game. But I long ago determined that for me "unique and interesting" are adjectives that apply to the character's personality, background and motivations, not how many fingers they have, what color their hair is or if they have a tail or vestigial wings. (Full disclosure, I did once play a pixie/gnome hybrid with vestigial wings...)
Anyway, I suppose I would be in the camp that says "unique and interesting" can be accomplished without needing to create something that would make one of the denizens of the Star Wars bar scene gawk.
good point
but some of us, don't like the preconcieved steriotypes, and preconceived visuals of the a given race, picking a new race that fits their aesthetics within reason
there is a specific design i prefer, that can be done reasonably with humans, elves, and half-elves, thing is, i like having more cute options besides "pointy ears"
i don't use race as a culture crutch or a powergaming tool
i use race (should be species) as a way to get those minor cosmetic features that fit my desired appeal
i make the character different using culture, or personality
race just gives me a few obscure genetic traits that are relatively minor in strangeness, that add to the appeal
it's pretty hard to justify certain rarely used or oddly prophetic names without the backing of a certain race or culture.
yep. it would, reflavoring different fiendish heritages as different fae heritages gives bonus points
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok. So, one of the campaign world I use has something called "those touched by the First World" - otherwise known as 'Firsties' or "primals" - more or less a tiefling if a Tiefling was based on fae heritage instead of fiendish heritage. Would, in that world, that probably suit your purposes?
yep. it would, reflavoring different fiendish heritages as different fae heritages gives bonus points
You know back in 3.5 it was a suggestion for the warlock class to do just that? They had a section in a lot of the classes/PrCs called adaptation about making small changes to a class to make it different in some manner, such as a change in alignment or source of power. I liked the adaptation section of books.
You know back in 3.5 it was a suggestion for the warlock class to do just that? They had a section in a lot of the classes/PrCs called adaptation about making small changes to a class to make it different in some manner, such as a change in alignment or source of power. I liked the adaptation section of books.Ok. So, one of the campaign world I use has something called "those touched by the First World" - otherwise known as 'Firsties' or "primals" - more or less a tiefling if a Tiefling was based on fae heritage instead of fiendish heritage. Would, in that world, that probably suit your purposes?
yep. it would, reflavoring different fiendish heritages as different fae heritages gives bonus points
I don't have it in front of me, but I took e Tiefling, carried it into the race builder and started swapping out things like outsider for fae on type, replacing anything fiendish with something more appropriate to fae, etcetera. Come out to pretty much the same value race but typed and built differently and a fae version of a Tiefling definitely has some different flavor than an old fashioned Tiefling, it seemed like a racial category begging to exist. So I added it.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it is not closed minded of Umbeiere for example, to refuse to play an "ordinary" run-of-the-mill elf, human, or whatever, straight out of the Core Rulebook as presented, why is it then considered closed minded for a GM to essentially do the same thing by banning certain races within his campaign and remaining steadfast in that decision?
I don't mean to pick on you Umbeiere (I'm just using you in my example), but from what you have posted within these threads, it sounds like when there are no planetouched or fey to choose from in a campaign, another race is chosen by you and re-skinned to make this other race "appear" as a member of the race that has been banned...
Now, I realize that to most people this is no big deal (it's only aesthetics right?), but to me, it is trying to get around the ban! Perhaps I banned planetouched and fey races not because of mechanics, but because I don't want characters running around my campaign setting with "natural" wings, tails, horns, or reddish-orange hair that waves about on it's own like it were made of pure flame...
I will try and work with players to make a character they would be happy with in most instances, but sometimes no compromise can be achieved, and IMHO, there is nothing wrong with that. And if the group is truly made up of friends (as some want to keep pointing out), then everyone involved would be okay with that and act accordingly (be it sit that campaign out, or make a character that does fit without trying to force it to fit.
If it is not closed minded of Umbeiere for example, to refuse to play an "ordinary" run-of-the-mill elf, human, or whatever, straight out of the Core Rulebook as presented, why is it then considered closed minded for a GM to essentially do the same thing by banning certain races within his campaign and remaining steadfast in that decision?
I don't mean to pick on you Umbeiere (I'm just using you in my example), but from what you have posted within these threads, it sounds like when there are no planetouched or fey to choose from in a campaign, another race is chosen by you and re-skinned to make this other race "appear" as a member of the race that has been banned...
Now, I realize that to most people this is no big deal (it's only aesthetics right?), but to me, it is trying to get around the ban! Perhaps I banned planetouched and fey races not because of mechanics, but because I don't want characters running around my campaign setting with "natural" wings, tails, horns, or reddish-orange hair that waves about on it's own like it were made of pure flame...
I will try and work with players to make a character they would be happy with in most instances, but sometimes no compromise can be achieved, and IMHO, there is nothing wrong with that. And if the group is truly made up of friends (as some want to keep pointing out), then everyone involved would be okay with that and act accordingly (be it sit that campaign out, or make a character that does fit without trying to force it to fit.
i could do without the extra appendages. i could always rework my character's design to work without them. i'll just keep a seperate visual for my own head
a half-nymph doesn't look too different from a half-elf, maybe more obvious defined fey features, but nymphs have neither wings, tails, horns, nor fire hair. tapered ears and oddly colored hair and eyes, are usually sufficient with DMs such as yourself who dislike certain aesthetics. i'll make sure to pick something you could do with either contact lenses or a dye job for believability
If you are banning aesthetics, I suppose you'd have to ban most glamers. I mean, hell if someone really wanted fire like hair a 1st level disguise self could accomplish that. Get a hat of disguise and it becomes practically permanent.
If you are banning aesthetics, I suppose you'd have to ban most glamers. I mean, hell if someone really wanted fire like hair a 1st level disguise self could accomplish that. Get a hat of disguise and it becomes practically permanent.
the same could be said about
Vestigial Horns
Vestigial Wings
a Vestigial Tail
a Vestigial pair of animal ears
Pointy Ears
Exotic Haircolors
or exotic eyecolors
Glamer effects could provide it
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it is not closed minded of Umbeiere for example, to refuse to play an "ordinary" run-of-the-mill elf, human, or whatever, straight out of the Core Rulebook as presented, why is it then considered closed minded for a GM to essentially do the same thing by banning certain races within his campaign and remaining steadfast in that decision?
The difference is as big as choosing not to eat broccoli and never allowing anyone around you to eat broccoli? Something like that. There is a huge difference between not doing something yourself and not allowing someone else to do it because of a personal preference.
I should also note that I love coming up with the costumes for my characters. Lots of awesomeness to do with tattoos and ornaments and jewelry and describing just what skin their showing and the shape of it. Gotta make sure you have nice shoes, cool hats, and maybe make a masterwork items so you can get extra benefits from being awesome. I'd be horrified if I had a character rejected because he had an animal motif and I wanted him to wear something relating to that animal. Not trying to get passed any restrictions, its just cool and great for giving him personality!
If it is not closed minded of Umbeiere for example, to refuse to play an "ordinary" run-of-the-mill elf, human, or whatever, straight out of the Core Rulebook as presented, why is it then considered closed minded for a GM to essentially do the same thing by banning certain races within his campaign and remaining steadfast in that decision?The difference is as big as choosing not to eat broccoli and never allowing anyone around you to eat broccoli? Something like that. There is a huge difference between not doing something yourself and not allowing someone else to do it because of a personal preference.
I should also note that I love coming up with the costumes for my characters. Lots of awesomeness to do with tattoos and ornaments and jewelry and describing just what skin their showing and the shape of it. Gotta make sure you have nice shoes, cool hats, and maybe make a masterwork items so you can get extra benefits from being awesome. I'd be horrified if I had a character rejected because he had an animal motif and I wanted him to wear something relating to that animal. Not trying to get passed any restrictions, its just cool and great for giving him personality!
true
i'll allow core races and play alongside them
i just won't play as one
banning a bunch of races, is a lot more closed minded than simply refusing to play those races
even if you personally don't like eating broccoli, i'd at least like the option to eat broccoli
different people have different preferences
|
|
If you are banning aesthetics, I suppose you'd have to ban most glamers. I mean, hell if someone really wanted fire like hair a 1st level disguise self could accomplish that.
I said natural features... Glamers and such can wear off or be dispelled; players must be willing to invest character resources in order to make those things a reality for their characters.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The difference is as big as choosing not to eat broccoli and never allowing anyone around you to eat broccoli? Something like that. There is a huge difference between not doing something yourself and not allowing someone else to do it because of a personal preference.
I just don't see it that way. As a GM, I have my own personal likes and dislikes that are just as valid as any player's! I work just as hard on my setting as any player works on their characters, and somehow I am the one being told I don't have to eat broccoli!?
I contend that if the person knows I don't like broccoli, because the smell makes me gag, then if he is truly my friend, then he should be polite enough not to eat broccoli around me.
But like I said, I try and work with my players, but sometimes a compromise is just not possible because our views are just too far apart on the issue.
I say that a real friend would not ask to make a character that has to be hammered into the setting just to make it fit...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The difference is as big as choosing not to eat broccoli and never allowing anyone around you to eat broccoli? Something like that. There is a huge difference between not doing something yourself and not allowing someone else to do it because of a personal preference.I just don't see it that way. As a GM, I have my own personal likes and dislikes that are just as valid as any player's! I work just as hard on my setting as any player works on their characters, and somehow I am the one being told I don't have to eat broccoli!?
I contend that if the person knows I don't like broccoli, because the smell makes me gag, then if he is truly my friend, then he should be polite enough not to eat broccoli around me.
But like I said, I try and work with my players, but sometimes a compromise is just not possible because our views are just too far apart on the issue.
I say that a real friend would not ask to make a character that has to be hammered into the setting just to make it fit...
Whats funny to me is how every analogy I hear supporting the restrictive dm side uses these turns of phrase like 'hammering someting into their setting'
Like its not just undesirable but also difficult or mechanically impossible...
I agree with none of that. In a world where anything is possible
Nothing is difficult or mechanically impossible.
Especially when the limits of what the world is are restricted only by a player's imagination.
So every gm or table I see who has 'trouble' with it or finds it 'difficult' or 'impossible' tells me what kind of game it's going to be...
You're telling me limitless manipulation of an imaginary construct is a difficult problem for you.
Thats not a good precedent to set before the game even starts.
As a player or as a gm, thats a big red flag for me... And someone above suggested that we should accept that such a point of view isn't 'common' I'd argue that it is, and at the same time that if it isn't, it should be.
The difference is as big as choosing not to eat broccoli and never allowing anyone around you to eat broccoli? Something like that. There is a huge difference between not doing something yourself and not allowing someone else to do it because of a personal preference.I just don't see it that way. As a GM, I have my own personal likes and dislikes that are just as valid as any player's! I work just as hard on my setting as any player works on their characters, and somehow I am the one being told I don't have to eat broccoli!?
I didn't say your likes or dislikes were invalid. Look, I don't like dwarves or elves, but I don't ban them from every table I ever play. I know my friends like them. It would be horrendously selfish for me to say 'no elves or dwarves!' because I just have a personal dislike of them. They just won't show up as NPCs that often when I GM and I'm fine.
I contend that if the person knows I don't like broccoli, because the smell makes me gag, then if he is truly my friend, then he should be polite enough not to eat broccoli around me.
Broccoli has a horrendous odor? I didn't even know it had a smell tbh, green veggies are usually just water, but I don't eat it on its own so I'm not exactly an expert.
There's a difference between saying no broccoli because it makes you sick, and no broccoli because you don't like your vegetables in the same way a 5 year old does. Ones a violent reaction that you just can't stand and its reasonable to keep it away from you, and the other is entirely selfish and has no reason to take things away from other people.
You could also make an analogy for putting something you don't like into a dish, like throwing fish into tomato soup. That's what its like to try and shove something into a setting that just doesn't fit. You might need to change a lot of the recipe, if it even works at all(Disclaimer: I'm no cook, no idea how well fish goes with tomato soup)
|
The difference is as big as choosing not to eat broccoli and never allowing anyone around you to eat broccoli? Something like that. There is a huge difference between not doing something yourself and not allowing someone else to do it because of a personal preference.I just don't see it that way. As a GM, I have my own personal likes and dislikes that are just as valid as any player's! I work just as hard on my setting as any player works on their characters, and somehow I am the one being told I don't have to eat broccoli!?
I contend that if the person knows I don't like broccoli, because the smell makes me gag, then if he is truly my friend, then he should be polite enough not to eat broccoli around me.
But like I said, I try and work with my players, but sometimes a compromise is just not possible because our views are just too far apart on the issue.
I say that a real friend would not ask to make a character that has to be hammered into the setting just to make it fit...
Whats funny to me is how every analogy I hear supporting the restrictive dm side uses these turns of phrase like 'hammering someting into their setting'
Like its not just undesirable but also difficult or mechanically impossible...
I agree with none of that. In a world where anything is possible
Nothing is difficult or mechanically impossible.
Especially when the limits of what the world is are restricted only by a player's imagination.So every gm or table I see who has 'trouble' with it or finds it 'difficult' or 'impossible' tells me what kind of game it's going to be...
You're telling me limitless manipulation of an imaginary construct is a difficult problem for you.
Thats not a good precedent to set before the game even starts.
As a player or as a gm, thats a big red flag for me... And someone above suggested that we should accept that such a point of view isn't 'common' I'd argue that it is, and at the same time that if it isn't, it should be.
Like I have said before. What you may consider to be a good reason why something fits may not be a good reason for someone else.
Saying it's a red flag because someone doesn't agree with your reasoning is a bit conceded.
Also, just because someone doesn't work your special character in doesn't mean they can't. There are too many people here that mistake won't for can't.
If I want to run an all human campaign then I present it ti the group and they either decide to play it or they don't. Restrictions don't mean I lack the creativity to create a complex game that allows everything. It just means that this is the type of campaign I would like to run.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're telling me limitless manipulation of an imaginary construct is a difficult problem for you.
You are failing to see or understand that not every campaign setting is a catch-all kitchen sink of fantasy...
That's the purpose of making a unique setting; to come up with a world that does not know elves, or one that has no contact what-so-ever with the outer planes for example. It's not that we have trouble or find it difficult to replace something that we have taken out of our setting - it is because we have no desire to replace something that we have removed. And, for me at least, that desire is not to be vindictive. If I remove something from the setting (such as a race or class), I do so in the hopes of creating an interesting and unique game world for my players to explore and enjoy... If I begin making exceptions and start to replace the things that I have removed from a setting, then I ask myself why bother? Why not just make an "everything goes" vanilla setting with no real differences from other generic settings like FR, Golarion, or Greyhawk (and before it's said, we are not talking about whole groups not liking the setting that has been presented by the GM, because in that case, we find something else to play)...
So you see, the secret is: YMMV from mine (which is totally okay)! ;-)
No I don't fail to understand it. I fail to support it. And I don't mistake won't for can't.
I don't support the table that admits openly that they either won't or can't
If you have enough players to enjoy doing it your way then that's all that needs to be said.
You know I'm not at your table and you probably prefer it.
Instead we're having a discussion on which way is the right way.
which I believe violates the no wrongbadfun principle.
Your fun isn't wrong or bad. I just don't like doing it and have opinions on people who do.
You're the same way because you have opinions of people who play the way I do.
That point of view keeps me away from your kind of table and surrounds me with the kind of poeple who are at my kind of table... Which is better for both of us.
The funny thing is that you say being restrictive allows you to create more colorful themes, and I can say from experience that we've had no lack of colorful and specific themes on our end as well.
In that case it's down to preferences... And all preferences are valid.
So, as a question to those who preach of the glory of "Core only" settings like Heimskr rants about the glory of Talos, what exactly makes my setting (which has both the Core Races as well as a few others as playable options) somehow worse than your setting, where 90% of the races in Advanced Race Guide as well as Elves, Gnomes and Halflings are banned? I've poured days, months and years of work on my setting, and somehow just being more inclusive than you makes all that work on history, geography and other aspects of a complete world automatically inferior to yours? How?
I don't support the table that admits openly that they either won't or can't
The one that doesn't openly admit would create more problems I'd imagine. I remember a long time go someone said that you shouldn't actually tell someone, but expect them to know and drop hints by being mean and if they kept it up you should be angry at them.
I would however say that digitalelf is pointing towards a mememe idealism, and I certainly hope there's more to it than that(other players haven't been mentioned once). I can create a lot of worlds on my own and I write stories and small books about those. The ones I create with my friends however are the ones I play with. Why bother trying to encompass my friend's ideas into mine? Because I want to spend time with them and have everyone enjoy it. That's the most important thing.(Bleh, so much idealism and friendshipness in my post even makes me a little sick.)
I should also add that there is a difference between a kitchen sink setting and trying to work with your friend. Your friend likely only wants one or two things; not dinosaurs, aliens, and cowboys(and then a kitchen sink).
When you read a fantasy novel, or play a computer game, or see a movie of some sort, or really, partake of any sort of speculative fiction, you will find that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE WORKS (possibly excluding a few extremely exotic ones) limits the kinds of things they include. EVEN if they include a few truly strange concepts like polymorphing, telepathy, mysterious aliens or the like, that does not mean they have ALL other kinds of strangeness like dragons, halfbreeds, mutations, horrors from beyond time and space, grafting, fireballs, talking animals, and so on.
It's basic storycrafting. You start with a world the audience can understand. Then you add strange elements to that. Each of those elements bring ambience, such as whimsy with fey creatures or body horror with grafts, and this ambience will be an important factor for if people enjoy it. Get too many pieces of this, and you make it an unappealing sludge instead of the finely spiced soup it could be, especially if you get tastes that don't really mesh. Next, for each element you add, you need to Deal with it somehow. It needs to bring something to the plot, else why is it there? If it is part of the plot, there needs to be some sort of resolution to it in the plot. So, if the hero ends up in Faerie and learns about fey magic, then he will have to use said fey magic at some later point in the plot. Otherwise put, each strange element will need time and attention.
When we play, we have limited amounts of time and attention. Part of this will have to be used to deal with each major strange element, for that element not to fall flat. If you do play a twice-half-dragon gelatinous cube nymph, chances are you want a reaction to that. If your race was never brought up in play, you would be disappointed. And yet, if the GM is to give you the attention your race would garner in a world where people act as people (a world that is believable), you would find your character under constant threat and likely shunned, which would be a major element of the campaign.
The "understandable world" above is the Core Rulebook. It contains what people coming to play can be expected to understand. Everything else, especially if it adds in more exotic rules, falls under the domain of strangeness that will need to be dealt with. If I play an aasimar, I would feel cheated if the GM did not bring it up from time to time. I would want people to ask my character for a lock of hair, to heal their sick children, to ask forgiveness for their sins, to hate me because I was lucky from birth, and so on. I would want to have some chance to learn where my heritage came from. It wouldn't take all that much, because the aasimar isn't a very strange character race. A twice-half-dragon gelatinous cube nymph would be a completely different story.
Now, sometimes we change the "understandable world". Typically, we do this because we want a different "base ambience", i.e. a different genre. Playing a post-apocalyptic setting where psionics have replaced magic, grafting is common, and everyone lives in fear of the aberrations would be such an example. Such a setting requires a careful hand to give the right feel. A single bad enough element can ruin it completely. That is why Hellraiser doesn't have pink fluffy ponies that destroy the evil monsters with the power of love. Put a kender in said post-apocalypse and you run a very real risk of losing it all.
Now, some of you will say that "who cares about ambience and feel? What is important is the action and the freedom to do anything I want." Which I am sure you believe, but doesn't change the fact that people work this way, enjoy the same stories, and react strongly to ambience and mood. Far more strongly, in fact, than they think.
The guy playing a ratfolk ranger didn't demand me to bring it up on every turn. He just plays the person his character is.
The guy playing a tiefling magus didn't demand me to bring it up on every turn. He just plays the person his character is.
The guy playing a hobgoblin ninja didn't demand me to bring it up on every turn. He just plays the person his character is.
Guess who did want to highlight that he learned at one of the best wizard academies of Golarion, as well as the fact that he's from a merchant family and is such a good speaker that he'd get even the king to kneel before him given time and some luck with a Diplomacy roll? The human wizard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And if the tiefling-player would have said "So, we come into town here, with a freaking bugbear, which on Golarion is sort of the ultimate bogeymen you scare little children with, and nobody even raises an eyebrow? Are you serious?", what would you have said?
Reincarnate. They had to make a major event to announce the "curse" that had befallen Sir Sage Ravell.
Said tiefling was raised by fey, so he knew that the druids have a spell that could bring someone back in a new body.
As you can see, not everyone's world view shatters over small details in a world where dragons of massive size can fly and magic exists.
Sooo... you made a "major event" about how someone was a bugbear, bringing up the reactions to the character's race then? Yeah, that would be sufficient.
Because, you know, ideally EVERY player should get some cues from the GM regarding their character.
Did I ever claim otherwise?
My suspension of disbelief is crushed harder by human hiveminds than it is by tieflings or nagaji. I consider that to be a good thing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You start with a world the audience can understand. Then you add strange elements to that.
With you so far.
Each of those elements bring ambience, such as whimsy with fey creatures or body horror with grafts, and this ambience will be an important factor for if people enjoy it.
Still on the same page.
Get too many pieces of this, and you make it an unappealing sludge instead of the finely spiced soup it could be
And thats where I start getting leery.
For each element you add, you need to . It needs to bring something to the plot, else why is it there?...
This is I think the very definition of what I expect from a gm.
This philosophy should be embraced before you ever put on the badge.We have limited amounts of time and attention
Never been an issue with me... Again I say if you want to be a gm, be ready for what the job entails.
I don't think anyone who wants to run a game should.
I don't think people who are imaginative and want to be authors should run a game.
I don't think people who are wildly popular published authors should run a game.
Running a game for your players involves a completely different skill.
Because the characters in your book/story/plot/theme are not under your control and shouldn't be. The game should be about above all else.
If you've got the choice of [feeling like a martyr for having players want to play something that ruins your creation]
and [feeling like a martyr for running something else that more aligns with what the players at the table want to play]
I say go with the latter 10 times out of 10.
I'm not sure I support being a gm for any other reason.
I want to be an author, and I realized quite a while ago that I cannot operate on all the principles of one as DM.
Too much abuse of the power that the DM has over the narrative, and the players are forced to sit there and follow a railroad.
Having stuff always happen the way I want is fun, but I have to take into account I am not playing alone. This is a group game, after all.
Some people on the DM seat seem to throw a crazy temper tantrum when the players take a reasonable third option in a "this or the other" situation thrown at them.
Were it me on said seat, I'd applaud the players for being clever enough to do such a thing. However, they'd still need to enact said plan, which isn't always easy to do.
The difference is as big as choosing not to eat broccoli and never allowing anyone around you to eat broccoli? Something like that. There is a huge difference between not doing something yourself and not allowing someone else to do it because of a personal preference.I just don't see it that way. As a GM, I have my own personal likes and dislikes that are just as valid as any player's! I work just as hard on my setting as any player works on their characters, and somehow I am the one being told I don't have to eat broccoli!?
I contend that if the person knows I don't like broccoli, because the smell makes me gag, then if he is truly my friend, then he should be polite enough not to eat broccoli around me.
But like I said, I try and work with my players, but sometimes a compromise is just not possible because our views are just too far apart on the issue.
I say that a real friend would not ask to make a character that has to be hammered into the setting just to make it fit...
Whats funny to me is how every analogy I hear supporting the restrictive dm side uses these turns of phrase like 'hammering someting into their setting'
Like its not just undesirable but also difficult or mechanically impossible...
I agree with none of that. In a world where anything is possible
Nothing is difficult or mechanically impossible.
Especially when the limits of what the world is are restricted only by a player's imagination.So every gm or table I see who has 'trouble' with it or finds it 'difficult' or 'impossible' tells me what kind of game it's going to be...
You're telling me limitless manipulation of an imaginary construct is a difficult problem for you.
Thats not a good precedent to set before the game even starts.
As a player or as a gm, thats a big red flag for me... And someone above suggested that we should accept that such a point of view isn't 'common' I'd argue that it is, and at the same time that if it isn't, it should be.
The amusing and sad thing for me is: if we are getting this much contention on races, just wait till get to house rules, race changes, and expectations within the world.
AS far as the above quote goes: again, just because the world is restricted to imagination does not mean that EVERYTHING must be included or else the GM is somehow lacking. It isn't a difficult problem for me to include or disallow something. It isn't a matter of some limit to my abilities to make a house rule on something I feel broken or create a change in rules to fit the setting I am creating. I am under no obligation to include every single monster in every single book or else I am somehow flawed.
It is a matter of taste, of desire, of likes and dislikes. Everyone has them and they influence how we play and build.
I think there lies one of the main problems in this deabte. The ones who want to restrict make the assumption the other side wants to allow everything, yet they do not define this kind of world with any other phrase than "badwrongfun". I want to allow more, but that doesn't mean I want to allow "everything", because apparently allowing everything means I'd allow everyone to cast 9th level spells on level 1, play half-otyugh ninja pirate zombies and have a world where NOTHING is special. It's a strawman, and misrepresentation of the other side combined into one massive ball of holier-than-thou which makes debating this whole topic rather difficult. Of course, those who also call "badwrongfun" on ANY restriction aren't much better.
I think there lies one of the problems. The ones who want to restrict make the assumption the other side wants to allow everything, yet they do not define this kind of world with any other phrase than "badwrongfun". I want to allow more, but that doesn't mean I want to allow "everything", because apparently allowing everything means I'd allow everyone to cast 9th level spells on level 1, play half-otyugh ninja pirate zombies and have a world where NOTHING is special. It's a strawman, and misrepresentation of the other side combined into one massive ball of holier-than-thou which makes debating this whole topic rather difficult. Of course, those who also call "badwrongfun" on ANY restriction aren't much better.
Not really a straw man or even an assumption; all one has to do is scroll up this page to see people suggesting that not allowing players things is somehow wrong and makes one a bad GM. Go back a few pages and you'll find any number of examples.
And yes, elements on both sides have gotten grumpy about this. I try to keep my games in the middle, allowing some things and other things not so much. Some of the restrictions have come from my players, who have suggested that certain spells and typically allowed ideas bug them. It's all about communication in the end.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not really a straw man or even an assumption; all one has to do is scroll up this page to see people suggesting that not allowing players things is somehow wrong and makes one a bad GM. Go back a few pages and you'll find any number of examples.
I've pretty much given up reading any post that defines a playstyle as "wrong" or "bad" or that explains how things "should/ought to be". All that really tells me is that the poster is too closed-minded to accept there's any other way of playing than the one they like (or if there is, that they're inferior ways), which really makes any kind of discussion with them pointless as they're only interested in proving why they're right and everyone else is wrong.
I think there lies one of the problems. The ones who want to restrict make the assumption the other side wants to allow everything, yet they do not define this kind of world with any other phrase than "badwrongfun". I want to allow more, but that doesn't mean I want to allow "everything", because apparently allowing everything means I'd allow everyone to cast 9th level spells on level 1, play half-otyugh ninja pirate zombies and have a world where NOTHING is special. It's a strawman, and misrepresentation of the other side combined into one massive ball of holier-than-thou which makes debating this whole topic rather difficult. Of course, those who also call "badwrongfun" on ANY restriction aren't much better.Not really a straw man or even an assumption; all one has to do is scroll up this page to see people suggesting that not allowing players things is somehow wrong and makes one a bad GM. Go back a few pages and you'll find any number of examples.
And yes, elements on both sides have gotten grumpy about this. I try to keep my games in the middle, allowing some things and other things not so much. Some of the restrictions have come from my players, who have suggested that certain spells and typically allowed ideas bug them. It's all about communication in the end.
I've done the same (though I lean on allowing more than on restricting),
and usually hope that a DM would repay by doing the same kindness when I'm at the player seat.That actually caused a small rift between me and that one DM (who is currently playing that human wizard turned bugbear in the current Kingmaker campaign) again, since he said he wouldn't be as open-minded as I am when he gets back on the DM seat, even after it was shown that we have way more fun with that little extra added freedom when it comes to stuff like this. He asked me for homebrew spells, reskinning of a class ability and other neat toys (which I allowed since they aren't going to break the game and I am a nice guy), yet he wouldn't even grant 1% of that to me when I am a player? Talk about abusing someone's kindness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm working on a setting that has no planes... as far as the players (and the world their characters live in) know.
Aww, but what if I want to play a pilot? :(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I definitely don't think folks who choose to play in restrictive campaigns are playing wrong...
It just makes it really easy to figure out which table's I'll enjoy being at.
Everyone chooses to play or not to play...
I consider the stance people take on this issue to be one of the top 3 things I look for in order to decide to join a game or not.
I'm free to disapprove personally of that playstyle but I don't say 'that game shouldn't be played' ...
It'll just be played without me and the folks running it will agree that they prefer it that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a bit of irony there, isn't there
I want to be an author, and I realized quite a while ago that I cannot operate on all the principles of one as DM.
Too much abuse of the power that the DM has over the narrative, and the players are forced to sit there and follow a railroad.
Having stuff always happen the way I want is fun, but I have to take into account I am not playing alone. This is a group game, after all.
Some people on the DM seat seem to throw a crazy temper tantrum when the players take a reasonable third option in a "this or the other" situation thrown at them.
Were it me on said seat, I'd applaud the players for being clever enough to do such a thing. However, they'd still need to enact said plan, which isn't always easy to do.
I think having the ability to pick the reasonable third (or fifteenth) option is what makes our hobby different to a computer RPG. When the players try to break an object that doesn't have a break difficulty or an AC/HPs, the GM can make up whatever on the fly and not be constrained by a lack of programming.
I do see a big difference though in controlling the flow of the story and keeping the flavor/style of the story within defined (where they have been) boundaries. For example, if a campaign was advertised as combat-lite and a player insists on attacking every NPC they meet, to my mind that's overstepping a boundary and is in danger of driving the rest of the group (who likely chose this game because of what was advertised) away. Luckily, it's easy enough to deal with that with fairly immediate consequences (high-level guards swarming the area in response to all the screaming.)
I definitely don't think folks who choose to play in restrictive campaigns are playing wrong...
It just makes it really easy to figure out which table's I'll enjoy being at.
Everyone chooses to play or not to play...
I consider the stance people take on this issue to be one of the top 3 things I look for in order to decide to join a game or not.I'm free to disapprove personally of that playstyle but I don't say 'that game shouldn't be played' ...
It'll just be played without me and the folks running it will agree that they prefer it that way.
Exactly. There are a number of things I'll check on and decide from the start if I want to enjoy with friends. If we're going to watch movies and I find out that it's going to be a Johnny Knoxville and Buddies act crazy and get hurt marathon, I'll politely decline. People are free to do and play however they want, and that's all good for them. If it appeals to me, I'll opt in. If not, hey, they still have fun and I don't ruin anyone else's night.
I want to be an author, and I realized quite a while ago that I cannot operate on all the principles of one as DM.
Too much abuse of the power that the DM has over the narrative, and the players are forced to sit there and follow a railroad.
Having stuff always happen the way I want is fun, but I have to take into account I am not playing alone. This is a group game, after all.
Some people on the DM seat seem to throw a crazy temper tantrum when the players take a reasonable third option in a "this or the other" situation thrown at them.
Were it me on said seat, I'd applaud the players for being clever enough to do such a thing. However, they'd still need to enact said plan, which isn't always easy to do.I think having the ability to pick the reasonable third (or fifteenth) option is what makes our hobby different to a computer RPG. When the players try to break an object that doesn't have a break difficulty or an AC/HPs, the GM can make up whatever on the fly and not be constrained by a lack of programming.
I do see a big difference though in controlling the flow of the story and keeping the flavor/style of the story within defined (where they have been) boundaries. For example, if a campaign was advertised as combat-lite and a player insists on attacking every NPC they meet, to my mind that's overstepping a boundary and is in danger of driving the rest of the group (who likely chose this game because of what was advertised) away. Luckily, it's easy enough to deal with that with fairly immediate consequences (high-level guards swarming the area in response to all the screaming.)
And I agree on both things. The players reap what they sow, and there is a difference between the flow and the flavor in a given story.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly. There are a number of things I'll check on and decide from the start if I want to enjoy with friends. If we're going to watch movies and I find out that it's going to be a Johnny Knoxville and Buddies act crazy and get hurt marathon, I'll politely decline. People are free to do and play however they want, and that's all good for them. If it appeals to me, I'll opt in. If not, hey, they still have fun and I don't ruin anyone else's night.
Yep! The problem I have is with the guy who is going to glare at you and accuse you of being unsociable or otherwise try to make you feel bad for handling it that way.
I'm more for accepting differences in people than in trying to make them compromise. That doesn't mean that I feel compromise is wrong, just that it's not always the right thing for everyone and that it's wrong to force it. Sitting it out and tagging along next time when everyone goes to the ball game is just as much of a valid option as sitting through something you dislike because you value the company.
I'm working on a setting that has no planes... as far as the players (and the world their characters live in) know.Aww, but what if I want to play a pilot? :(
There are dirigibles and helicopters!
There are dirigibles and helicopters!I'm working on a setting that has no planes... as far as the players (and the world their characters live in) know.Aww, but what if I want to play a pilot? :(
And boats!
And possibly even gnomish/dwarven tunnelling machines.
There are dirigibles and helicopters!And boats!
And possibly even gnomish/dwarven tunnelling machines.
All right, new character: Luke Skywalker (Han Solo's long lost brother from the future), first Trandoshan to cross the Atlantic in a gnomish tunnelling machine!