What makes you so special that you get to play your snowflake anyway?


Gamer Life General Discussion

551 to 600 of 2,339 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vincent Takeda wrote:

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.

http://www.lifehack.org/articles/productivity/limits-and-creativity.html

Liberty's Edge

All preferences are valid in solo endeavors.

Consensus matters in group endeavors.


Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:


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.

In every game I've played in, they've been the same character. Do the exotic snowflakes somehow not get access to the same loot as the lowly demihumans?

They are not mutually exclusive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Note that I did not in my wall of text about storycrafting once mention anything about the plot other than "the plot will need to factor in these things to be rewarding to the players". That was because whether you railroad things harshly or give people an open sandbox to play in, you can still let the aasimar be able to find out the truth about her angelic heritage. The feel of the campaign, the themes, are independent of this.


Vincent Takeda wrote:

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.

For me, it just depends entirely on the setting. Some races just don't exist in some games, period. Trying to cater to a player wanting to play something that is not part of that setting, kind of is "hammering it into place." It didn't fit in the first place, so it had to be shoehorned in.

In some settings, playing as certain races will get you lynched on sight. I'll allow a player to still make a character of this race, so long as they accept the consequence of purposely starting off as a pariah.

As has been pointed out above, this is more of an "Entitled Player" issue, that a snowflake one. I welcome snowflakes of all stripes, it's the overly entitled ones that irritate me.

Good players work with the DM to make interesting characters, that fit well in the setting.

Entitled ones simply make demands, and threaten hissy fits if they don't get their way.


Midnight_Angel wrote:


Likewise, if I offer to GM a certain setting (let's just take the courtiers-in-Kyonin as an example), I will treat a player's idea of "Oh, I will be playing an Ugh-me-tough half-orc neanderthal barbarian, then" as just another way of saying "Not interested in your crap."

What if the HO Neanderthal barbarian has at least a mediocre cha, some points in diplomacy and the noble savage trait?

It would be some kind of special snowflake but one that could work in your campaign.
In other words, is it being a special snowflake that is the problem or is it having a special concept that doesn't work well with the campaign?


Umbranus wrote:
Midnight_Angel wrote:


Likewise, if I offer to GM a certain setting (let's just take the courtiers-in-Kyonin as an example), I will treat a player's idea of "Oh, I will be playing an Ugh-me-tough half-orc neanderthal barbarian, then" as just another way of saying "Not interested in your crap."

What if the HO Neanderthal barbarian has at least a mediocre cha, some points in diplomacy and the noble savage trait?

It would be some kind of special snowflake but one that could work in your campaign.
In other words, is it being a special snowflake that is the problem or is it having a special concept that doesn't work well with the campaign?

Can't speak for him, but for me that bit after the 'or' is the very definition of a 'special snowflake'.


Midnight_Angel wrote:


Likewise, if I offer to GM a certain setting (let's just take the courtiers-in-Kyonin as an example), I will treat a player's idea of "Oh, I will be playing an Ugh-me-tough half-orc neanderthal barbarian, then" as just another way of saying "Not interested in your crap."

That's a shame, because sometimes I just feel like playing one of the "classics." Sometimes I just want to play a human ranger, Half-Orc barbarian, a dwarf fighter, etc. Sometimes it's an interesting challenge to take on such an established character type, and make it unique.

I'd never base a player's character choice on "not interested in your crap." If they are that uninterested, they don't have to play. They can find something else that's more to their liking.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arssanguinus wrote:
Vincent Takeda wrote:

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.

http://www.lifehack.org/articles/productivity/limits-and-creativity.html

But doesn't the sort of creativity that's based in limiting your medium and finding solutions to those limits sort of go out the window when your art form is based around the reactions of other people like RPGs or improv theatre?


Exactly why it holds no water here, Hitdice. ^^


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Vincent Takeda wrote:

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.

http://www.lifehack.org/articles/productivity/limits-and-creativity.html
But doesn't the sort of creativity that's based in limiting your medium and finding solutions to those limits sort of go out the window when your art form is based around the reactions of other people like RPGs or improv theatre?

You seriously think improv theater has no limits?


Hitdice wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Vincent Takeda wrote:


In that case it's down to preferences... And all preferences are valid.
http://www.lifehack.org/articles/productivity/limits-and-creativity.html
But doesn't the sort of creativity that's based in limiting your medium and finding solutions to those limits sort of go out the window when your art form is based around the reactions of other people like RPGs or improv theatre?

I'd say it depends on the individual.

An art form can be based on paint, but vary in style from a nice quaint little Constable piece to a horrible ugly Picasso. Now I've just marked myself as someone that has limits to where they want to see the paint lie on the canvas, and possibly also as a philistine, but what I've just said reflects my personal preference.

If I'm painting collaboratively, I'll want people who paint something in the same style I do, because I find the idea of a mix of paint styles on one canvas somewhat distasteful. Others may not.

When it comes to RPGs, I have limits too. My limits are "the sort of story I'd enjoy reading and wouldn't throw the book in the trash." That means finding players who are willing to work towards a shared vision of when it comes to the overall styling of that story. Yes, there'll be surprises, I _want_ surprises, but I'd rather that surprise be what the character does than the fact they have hooves, a halo, batlike wings, and five eyeballs.

Likewise, if there's going to be a theme to the story - say, a diplomatic theme - I'll be looking for players who want to play with that theme, and not players who will come in and attempt to subvert it because they'd rather play another type of game. Other types of game are out there, and it makes sense to me that both they and I will be happier if they go to one of those.

It's the same if I'd rather play Traveller - I'll advertise a Traveller game and try to get players for it, not advertise an open group recruiting people and see what everyone wants to play.

If I really did want a permanent group that rotated GMs and game styles, I'd recruit for that or look for one. If I want something specific, I recruit for or look for that.

How specific varies depending on what I'm looking for and the general mood I'm in at the time - sometimes it'll be as generic as "A sci-fi game" or "A fantasy game", sometimes as specific as "A Pathfinder game, set in Golarion, where the party have been sent by a church of Saranrae to bring healing to the wartorn border of Andoran and Galt, no evil characters please".

That last one may sound very limiting, but enough players want to play something like that so I don't really see an issue. Plus, that's just the seed of the story, the players are expected to progress the storyline from that point, I'm not going to have a specific timeline planned out or anything (although I may have ideas on paper that will change depending on their actions.) In the case of that Golarion game, I'd make it clear that they're expected to "paint between the lines" of the definition above (so, no turning into a band of murder hobos, for example.), but other than that they're free to take any actions they wish within the game world, and to influence world events with those actions.

Basically, I think of my guidelines like the blurb on the back of a novel - the reason I picked the book up, and the thing I might get somewhat annoyed at if it turns out to be nothing like advertised.

These Special Snowflakes we're talking about are thankfully extremely rare (far, far rarer than this thread would indicate.) A player that works with me to build their character, takes any suggestions or objections onboard, and revises it to fit if I had any comments ("Sorry, that race just isn't going to work out, everyone will be attacking you on sight. What about one of these?" "That background story is great, but it's going to put you at odds with most of the townspeople in this country - I'm not going to object, as long as you know there *will* be in-game consequences.", "Yeah. No. No awakened animals of any kind, that's just far too over the top for this particular campaign, you'll need to pick a race that comes with intelligence as standard, and that most NPCs will have interacted with before.") will work out just fine.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.

These threads just make me think of someone playing pathfinder Society then b$+**ing they should be allowed to play an Aspis Consortium agent......


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:


But doesn't the sort of creativity that's based in limiting your medium and finding solutions to those limits sort of go out the window when your art form is based around the reactions of other people like RPGs or improv theatre?

If I'm doing improv, I'd like to think that if I hand the other person a cake, they're not going to ignore what I said and pretend it's a hamburger ;)

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
MrSin wrote:


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.

No the difference is choosing not to eat broccoli, then having a party where there is a communal meal where the group is choosing the ingredients and one person refuses to eat unless there is broccoli in the meal.

At this point you have options. You can choose a meal you both could enjoy, or you can make the person who doesn't like broccoli not enjoy the meal to appease the guy who wants broccoli and won't compromise.

So if the person says "We are having broccoli if you like it or not" in a world full of options that aren't broccoli, that person is being selfish and kind of a jerk by not just picking something else.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:

But doesn't the sort of creativity that's based in limiting your medium and finding solutions to those limits sort of go out the window when your art form is based around the reactions of other people like RPGs or improv theatre?

Uh...have you ever done improv?

Improv is all about not doing anything your partner and the audience can't immediately understand and follow. You have no time for backstory or explanation, everyone has to follow what is going on so everyone else can react to it.

Being selfish in improv and demanding a course is the absolute worst thing you can do.

Horrible example.


ciretose wrote:
Hitdice wrote:

But doesn't the sort of creativity that's based in limiting your medium and finding solutions to those limits sort of go out the window when your art form is based around the reactions of other people like RPGs or improv theatre?

Uh...have you ever done improv?

Improv is all about not doing anything your partner and the audience can't immediately understand and follow. You have no time for backstory or explanation, everyone has to follow what is going on so everyone else can react to it.

Being selfish in improv and demanding a course is the absolute worst thing you can do.

Horrible example.

I didn't mention doing anything anyone can't understand, being selfish or demanding a course, Cire, but if you read my question before quoting it, you probably know that.

I'm pointing out that world building and game play require very different sorts of creativity, and the Limits and Creativity article seemed pertinent to world building, whereas the special snowflake character is pretty obviously an issue of gameplay creativity.

I think if the world building creativity impinges on the gameplay creativity, it's probably not suited to an art form that relies on the involvement of others to function.

Edit: Just to clarify, when I talk about world building impinging on gameplay, I'm talking about creative techniques, you've got to have a world, and you've to have PCs to run around in it. But given that the whole point of RPGs is to play them at the table, I really think the world building should suit the gameplay rather than the other way around.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Can I play a mathematical equation, or the colour yellow in your campaign?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:


I think if the world building creativity impinges on the gameplay creativity, it's probably not suited to an art form that relies on the involvement of others to function.

Personally I'd argue for the reverse. Others that can't find a way to keep their gameplay creativity within any limits defined in the world building aren't suited to the game I'm running ;)

It really is important to understand there's two different, valid, opinions and ways of playing here.

Liberty's Edge

Hitdice wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Hitdice wrote:

But doesn't the sort of creativity that's based in limiting your medium and finding solutions to those limits sort of go out the window when your art form is based around the reactions of other people like RPGs or improv theatre?

Uh...have you ever done improv?

Improv is all about not doing anything your partner and the audience can't immediately understand and follow. You have no time for backstory or explanation, everyone has to follow what is going on so everyone else can react to it.

Being selfish in improv and demanding a course is the absolute worst thing you can do.

Horrible example.

I didn't mention doing anything anyone can't understand, being selfish or demanding a course, Cire, but if you read my question before quoting it, you probably know that.

I'm pointing out that world building and game play require very different sorts of creativity, and the Limits and Creativity article seemed pertinent to world building, whereas the special snowflake character is pretty obviously an issue of gameplay creativity.

I think if the world building creativity impinges on the gameplay creativity, it's probably not suited to an art form that relies on the involvement of others to function.

And by the very definition of world building, you are creating a structure in which events occur. A world.

When you create a world, it should make logical sense. You Deus Machinia to often and you enter into silliness where motivations cease to have any logical coherence.

The intention of Improv, and of world building, is to create something familiar enough for those involved to understand what is going out quickly and create themes that fit into that construct.

World building is about getting 5 people to agree to what a setting is, so they can all be on the same page.

Not to write a page for everyone and hope you can figure out how to make it work out.


ciretose wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Hitdice wrote:

But doesn't the sort of creativity that's based in limiting your medium and finding solutions to those limits sort of go out the window when your art form is based around the reactions of other people like RPGs or improv theatre?

Uh...have you ever done improv?

Improv is all about not doing anything your partner and the audience can't immediately understand and follow. You have no time for backstory or explanation, everyone has to follow what is going on so everyone else can react to it.

Being selfish in improv and demanding a course is the absolute worst thing you can do.

Horrible example.

I didn't mention doing anything anyone can't understand, being selfish or demanding a course, Cire, but if you read my question before quoting it, you probably know that.

I'm pointing out that world building and game play require very different sorts of creativity, and the Limits and Creativity article seemed pertinent to world building, whereas the special snowflake character is pretty obviously an issue of gameplay creativity.

I think if the world building creativity impinges on the gameplay creativity, it's probably not suited to an art form that relies on the involvement of others to function.

And by the very definition of world building, you are creating a structure in which events occur. A world.

When you create a world, it should make logical sense. You Deus Machinia to often and you enter into silliness where motivations cease to have any logical coherence.

The intention of Improv, and of world building, is to create something familiar enough for those involved to understand what is going out quickly and create themes that fit into that construct.

World building is about getting 5 people to agree to what a setting is, so they can all be on the same page.

Not to write a page for everyone and hope you can figure out how to make it work out.

Indeed, Cire, and if five people are collaborating on in the setting, you can bet it's going to be suited to each and all of their characters of choice. Self imposed creative limits like those mentioned in the article Ars' linked doesn't strike me as very useful to that sort of collaborative process.

Liberty's Edge

And if one of those 5 people is not willing to collaborate because they will only play one thing, that is a problem.

Which is the entire point.

Collaboration is not capitulation.

Grand Lodge

Vincent Takeda wrote:

Instead we're having a discussion on which way is the right way.

which I believe violates the no wrongbadfun principle.

I have yet to say that my way is the better way, the correct way, or the only way. And you won't find me saying it either, because I have advocated in every one of these similar threads that my way is just as valid as any other.

Vincent Takeda wrote:
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.

Again, putting words in my mouth. What I have been saying is that I create or use unique settings that have restrictions because they offer something different than a more open setting does.

I have and use other settings that are less restrictive and more open, but sometimes I want a change of scenery so to speak...

Grand Lodge

MrSin wrote:
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.

It is true that I've never specifically stated that I only create and use setting with heavy restrictions, but I never said I didn't use and run more open and less restrictive settings. I like variety. I run games set in Golarion, Greyhawk, and the Forgotten Realms too, and those games tend to be more open than a game set in Dark Sun, Fantasy Flight Game's Midnight setting, or TSR's mini-campaign setting Jakandor; with the latter three being very restrictive as presented. It is the restrictions that make up those setting's flavor and a good part of what drew me to them in the first place, so I like keeping them as presented for the most part.


Matt Thomason wrote:
Hitdice wrote:


I think if the world building creativity impinges on the gameplay creativity, it's probably not suited to an art form that relies on the involvement of others to function.

Personally I'd argue for the reverse. Others that can't find a way to keep their gameplay creativity within any limits defined in the world building aren't suited to the game I'm running ;)

It really is important to understand there's two different, valid, opinions and ways of playing here.

I don't disagree with that, Matt, but as I've said earlier in this thread (at least, I think it was this one, there's been a rash of options vs limits threads lately) I'd be much more leery of a completely run of the mill character with a CN alignment than an exotic race/class combo when it came to disruptive player "coloring outside the lines."


Hitdice wrote:
Matt Thomason wrote:


It really is important to understand there's two different, valid, opinions and ways of playing here.
I don't disagree with that, Matt, but as I've said earlier in this thread (at least, I think it was this one, there's been a rash of options vs limits threads lately) I'd be much more leery of a completely run of the mill character with a CN alignment than an exotic race/class combo when it came to disruptive player "coloring outside the lines."

I can't argue with that at all. The things you feel you can or cannot work with in any given campaign can only be defined by you, and you're the only one that knows which lines you'll be comfortable drawing (or not defining at all, as the case may be.)

And I know what you mean about the threads, I'm pretty sure we have three now all talking about the same thing concurrently.


Sissyl wrote:
Can I play a mathematical equation, or the colour yellow in your campaign?

As a matter of fact you can... Even in a black and white cro magnon zombie campaign.

That's how open I feel a gm should be.

Doesn't mean we wont point to our character's urine and shout your characters name at every opportunity, but we'll find a way to get you involved.

What can yellow do that nothing else in this world can do....
What can yellow not do that would prove such a choice requires teamwork and party support.

I can totally build a campaign off of this.

I must have a remarkably unusual table


ciretose wrote:
Not to write a page for everyone and hope you can figure out how to make it work out.

Actually this is exactly what I do and I've never had any complaints. I must have a remarkably unusual table.


Digitalelf wrote:
Vincent Takeda wrote:

Instead we're having a discussion on which way is the right way.

which I believe violates the no wrongbadfun principle.
I have yet to say that my way is the better way, the correct way, or the only way. And you won't find me saying it either, because I have advocated in every one of these similar threads that my way is just as valid as any other.

Right. I didn't accuse you of saying your way was the better way etc etc. I said 'WE' are having a discussion on which way is the right way. Which is not the right discussion to be having.

I think you agree we should not be having that discussion as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

All I can say is when it comes to the sum total imagination of 5 experienced gamers gathering together to put an interesting story together that comprises the interests of everyone involved...

I always choose the table that's willing to try wierd things before the table that's not.
and I always have more respect for the table that's willing to try wierd things before the table that's not.
I'm very happy to report those tendencies have led me to a table that is both willing and successful at such endeavors.
I try hard not to feel bad knowing that other tables don't choose the same path.
My solace is that they're on the path they're on by choice and greatly enjoy their chosen path as well.

My heart sinks when I hear them not enjoying it or having trouble making people like me fit into 'narrative' restrictions, arbitrary or colorful or not. That's what these threads are about though.

A me, sitting at a table full of not me's, and a not me showing up on the board asking why there have to be so many me's out there.

Again... neither side is right and neither side is wrong.

It's kind of cirular logic though to say 'my way is the better way because everyone i've seen play the other way was a game I didn't enjoy as much' because thats just a paraphrase of "I always enjoy what I enjoy better than what I don't enjoy as much'...

Both sides can say that and it means nothing.

The question is how to deal with a group when you've got 4 of one and 1 of another.

The answer is the odd man out needs to ante up for the cards that are being dealt or sit back and enjoy the show until he changes his mind.... or be off to greener pastures.

Capitulation is the right focus in this conversation though. What both sides seem to ask for constantly is capitulation... Just do it my way this time. I can say that as open minded as I am about any wierdness anyone can bring to my table, I'm very closed minded about restrictive campaigns and am pretty uncomprimising about that choice.

I feel the restrictive folks are as equally closed minded about allowing ponies into their no pony show as I am about not wanting to be in a world where a no can be issued for purely artistic/thematic/semantic reasons.

It is an impasse but that doesn't ever seem to quell the result that each side hopes ardently or expects implicitly to convert a non member to their side or the ire that a player at their table turns out to be from the other side.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vincent Takeda wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Not to write a page for everyone and hope you can figure out how to make it work out.
Actually this is exactly what I do and I've never had any complaints. I must have a remarkably unusual table.

You've hit goal #1. You ran a game and people (apparently, as I hate to read things in that you haven't expressly stated!) enjoyed it :)

As long as we've all managed to do that, we should (and I'm speaking earnestly here, in case it comes out sounding sarcastic due to internet-ness getting in the way) all be pretty darn proud of ourselves, don'tcha think?

If we all played the same type of game (and I'm talking all kinds of styles, not just how controll-ey the GM gets), I think there'd be a lot of disappointed players out there wondering why they can't find one that suits them. What matters at the end of the day is that we all have these different tastes, so we can ensure there's a good mix of games for people to choose from - and that includes the person whose character concept was turned away from table A, but accepted at table B.

I'd like to think that both table A *and* table B benefited from that.

Table A because the presence of that character would have spoiled the game for one or more people there.

Table B because the presence of that character enriched their game.


ciretose wrote:

And if one of those 5 people is not willing to collaborate because they will only play one thing, that is a problem.

Which is the entire point.

Collaboration is not capitulation.

I don't know, if Billy-Bob is the single least inspired gamer in the world and wants to play a halfling Rogue/Wizard (who will end up taking levels of Arcane Trickster) named Gandilbo IV, and asks to have room for that in the campaign, he's collaborating, just in a staggeringly uncreative way. If the rest of his group says, "No, we're bored standing next to that guy, no halflings or Arcane Tricksters this time out," they're the one's who aren't collaborating, even if they've come to a consensus.


Hitdice wrote:


I don't know, if Billy-Bob is the single least inspired gamer in the world and wants to play a halfling Rogue/Wizard (who will end up taking levels of Arcane Trickster) named Gandilbo IV, and asks to have room for that in the campaign, he's collaborating, just in a staggeringly uncreative way. If the rest of his group says, "No, we're bored standing next to that guy, no halflings or Arcane Tricksters this time out," they're the one's who aren't collaborating, even if they've come to a consensus.

The argument here comes down to whether or not you feel Billy-Bob has a right to insert himself into a game where he's unwelcome.

Now, while I feel bad for Billy-Bob being excluded, I can't in all good faith feel that the group should make room for him.

What I'd *hope* is that at least one of the other players/the GM is willing to take him under their wing and help him find a new character the group finds acceptable. That would certainly feel better to me than forcing the rest of the group to enjoy the game less.

Of course, what also matters here is whether Billy-Bob is a friend or a random stranger who found out about the game and wants to join it, and the dynamics of that are probably far beyond this discussion and in the realms of personality types and psychology studies of how different people treat the concept of friendship... :)


Hitdice wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Hitdice wrote:

But doesn't the sort of creativity that's based in limiting your medium and finding solutions to those limits sort of go out the window when your art form is based around the reactions of other people like RPGs or improv theatre?

Uh...have you ever done improv?

Improv is all about not doing anything your partner and the audience can't immediately understand and follow. You have no time for backstory or explanation, everyone has to follow what is going on so everyone else can react to it.

Being selfish in improv and demanding a course is the absolute worst thing you can do.

Horrible example.

I didn't mention doing anything anyone can't understand, being selfish or demanding a course, Cire, but if you read my question before quoting it, you probably know that.

I'm pointing out that world building and game play require very different sorts of creativity, and the Limits and Creativity article seemed pertinent to world building, whereas the special snowflake character is pretty obviously an issue of gameplay creativity.

I think if the world building creativity impinges on the gameplay creativity, it's probably not suited to an art form that relies on the involvement of others to function.

And by the very definition of world building, you are creating a structure in which events occur. A world.

When you create a world, it should make logical sense. You Deus Machinia to often and you enter into silliness where motivations cease to have any logical coherence.

The intention of Improv, and of world building, is to create something familiar enough for those involved to understand what is going out quickly and create themes that fit into that construct.

World building is about getting 5 people to agree to what a setting is, so they can all be on the same page.

Not to write a page for everyone and hope you can figure out how to make it work out.

Indeed, Cire, and if five...

The point is not that you need to follow that slavishly, hd - but that limts and creativity are no opposites or natural enemies but a part of the same process. Limits and edges, lines, the edges of the canvas, the limits of the colors on the pallet - all of these are PART of vreatiity, not some malevolent force which destroys it.

Grand Lodge

Vincent Takeda wrote:
I think you agree we should not be having that discussion as well.

Yes, I agree. I apologize for the confusion...


I don't disagree that a world needs limits. I just prefer the limits to be mechanical rules limits, not artistic semantic thematic limits.

slightly off topic:
I also happen to be one of the guys who believes the majority of players would stop choosing to play wierd stuff if choosing to play wierd stuff didn't give them mechanical bonuses.

Liberty's Edge

Vincent Takeda wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Not to write a page for everyone and hope you can figure out how to make it work out.
Actually this is exactly what I do and I've never had any complaints. I must have a remarkably unusual table.

I'm pleased you've found a group that enjoys the way you run.

I'm less pleased that you insist that it is the "right" way to run it.

Can I eat 5 big macs?

Yes.

Should I?

Probably not.

Can does not equal should. Can you, personally, make it work to the expectations of your specific group.

You say you can, I have no reason not to believe you.

Are my groups preferences and expectations for verisimilitude different than yours.

It seems so. So why are you saying I must allow things we don't want and calling that open-minded, when apparently other styles of play are things you are critical of?

Seems hypocritical to me.


Thats my whole point I don't insist its the right way
All I've ever said was that I have a preferred way and strong opinions about it.
Which I think is pretty much what every other poster here has been saying using different words.

I feel bad when the two equally valid types find themselves forced to tolerate each other at a single table
I agree that being trapped in that situation requires capitulation or absence and its a bummer way for a game to work out. It's unavoidable sometimes it seems and I wish there were solutions.

I believe I was pretty clear about that on my above posts.

I hear a lot of 'why doesn't the other team just capitulate or leave.
I hear no other possible answers and regret that I have no answers for it either.
We're 12 pages in on this thread alone and I still haven't heard a single solution that wasnt

Do it my way or go home.

Even if you do believe both ways are valid.

The level best we've come to so far is 'If I like the sound of the concept I'll try to work it in'
And that's pretty good. I wish my side had an equal answer...

Pretty much my side's version of that is 'I'll try my best to enjoy the limited menu'

In the words of Jack Nicholson... "What if this is as good as it gets"


Vincent Takeda wrote:

I don't disagree that a world needs limits. I just prefer the limits to be mechanical rules limits, not artistic semantic thematic limits.

** spoiler omitted **

Well then, since the exclusions arent just semantic you should have no problem with them. And the absence of a race as an option is a mechancal limit. Its a mechanical likit on hich races are available for play.


What I do is I give the race no mechanical benefit and if they player still chooses to play that race then we're good to go. I just happen to hate how every single decision in pathfinder is tied to mechanics, but that's a different thread.
They simply pick a set of mechaincal benefits available to any other selectable race within the rulebook, which makes it mechanically identical to any other race while still being semantically unique in the player's mind.


Vincent Takeda wrote:
What I do is I give the race no mechanical benefit and if they player still chooses to play that race then we're good to go. I just happen to hate how every single decision in pathfinder is tied to mechanics, but that's a different thread.

And that's another thing there's no ideal solution for other than different tables or tolerating things you dislike. To me though it just means more variety and styles.

(Incidently, I hear and agree 100%, I'm a 'make a choice and *then* worry about how the rules handle it' guy)


shallowsoul wrote:
What kind of group would ban together and declare they won't play unless Bob gets to play his special character.

Ones that care about the happiness of their friend? Ones that don't want their GM to be a dictator?

I have no problem with special snowflakes, but it has to be within reason and it can't be overpowered compared to the other PCs. If they have a good backstory and reasoning, what does it hurt?

You know... there are a lot of drawbacks by being a special snowflake. Everyone knows you. As a human (in a human city), we are somewhat anonymous. Special snowflakes are often not anonymous at all, which is what the player wanted, but it often has unintended results, especially when the PC wants to blend in and be anonymous.

shallowsoul wrote:
What makes Bob so special and why should it be allowed if the others don't agree with Bob and want to play with or without him?

If everyone at the table doesn't want the special snowflake (or the concept destroys the GMs campaign concept), then it's not allowed. Discussion over. If the player doesn't like it he can find another table or gaming group.

Silver Crusade

Jason S wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
What kind of group would ban together and declare they won't play unless Bob gets to play his special character.

Ones that care about the happiness of their friend? Ones that don't want their GM to be a dictator?

I have no problem with special snowflakes, but it has to be within reason and it can't be overpowered compared to the other PCs. If they have a good backstory and reasoning, what does it hurt?

You know... there are a lot of drawbacks by being a special snowflake. Everyone knows you. As a human (in a human city), we are somewhat anonymous. Special snowflakes are often not anonymous at all, which is what the player wanted, but it often has unintended results, especially when the PC wants to blend in and be anonymous.

shallowsoul wrote:
What makes Bob so special and why should it be allowed if the others don't agree with Bob and want to play with or without him?

If everyone at the table doesn't want the special snowflake (or the concept destroys the GMs campaign concept), then it's not allowed. Discussion over. If the player doesn't like it he can find another table or gaming group.

Again we have an over exaggerated use of the word dictator.


Jason S wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
What kind of group would ban together and declare they won't play unless Bob gets to play his special character.

Ones that care about the happiness of their friend? Ones that don't want their GM to be a dictator?

If there is that much dissension at the table, and mistrust of the GM, then there are much, much larger issues that need to be dealt with, than letting Bob play a special character.

I'm seeing far too much "DM vs. Player" perspective in this thread.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Josh M. wrote:
I'm seeing far too much "DM vs. Player" perspective in this thread.

Because the harmonious players and GMs are all off playing the game.


Matt Thomason wrote:
Hitdice wrote:


I don't know, if Billy-Bob is the single least inspired gamer in the world and wants to play a halfling Rogue/Wizard (who will end up taking levels of Arcane Trickster) named Gandilbo IV, and asks to have room for that in the campaign, he's collaborating, just in a staggeringly uncreative way. If the rest of his group says, "No, we're bored standing next to that guy, no halflings or Arcane Tricksters this time out," they're the one's who aren't collaborating, even if they've come to a consensus.

The argument here comes down to whether or not you feel Billy-Bob has a right to insert himself into a game where he's unwelcome.

Now, while I feel bad for Billy-Bob being excluded, I can't in all good faith feel that the group should make room for him.

What I'd *hope* is that at least one of the other players/the GM is willing to take him under their wing and help him find a new character the group finds acceptable. That would certainly feel better to me than forcing the rest of the group to enjoy the game less.

Of course, what also matters here is whether Billy-Bob is a friend or a random stranger who found out about the game and wants to join it, and the dynamics of that are probably far beyond this discussion and in the realms of personality types and psychology studies of how different people treat the concept of friendship... :)

Here's my question Matt, and it's an honest one, not snark, to do with the bit of your post I emphasized. Assuming that Billy-Bob is welcome at the table (and that he does color within the lines during game play) how does his choice of race/class/build force the rest of the group to enjoy the game less?

I don't think anyone here is in favor of unwelcome people inserting themselves into games. But dealing with unwelcome people seems to me to be (yet) another subject, separate from world building or game play at the table.

On the other hand . . . I've run out of hands! :)


Hitdice wrote:


Here's my question Matt, and it's an honest one, not snark, to do with the bit of your post I emphasized. Assuming that Billy-Bob is welcome at the table (and that he does color within the lines during game play) how does his choice of race/class/build force the rest of the group to enjoy the game less?

By playing a Strix in a human-centric setting.


shallowsoul wrote:
Again we have an over exaggerated use of the word dictator.

So the GM is you? :)

Yeah, let's put it another way. Your players don't want to be pushed around. They want to play the game they want to play or they are taking their toys home and doing something else. Which is fine, you're allowed to do the same thing.

If the game isn't mutually fun and people aren't willing to cooperate, just find something better to do with your time. Life is too short.


Jason S wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Again we have an over exaggerated use of the word dictator.

So the GM is you? :)

Yeah, let's put it another way. Your players don't want to be pushed around. They want to play the game they want to play or they are taking their toys home and doing something else. Which is fine, you're allowed to do the same thing.

If the game isn't mutually fun and people aren't willing to cooperate, just find something better to do with your time. Life is too short.

And yet you also said
Quote:
or the concept destroys the GMs campaign concept

Wouldn't that be pushing the players around?


Josh M. wrote:
Hitdice wrote:


Here's my question Matt, and it's an honest one, not snark, to do with the bit of your post I emphasized. Assuming that Billy-Bob is welcome at the table (and that he does color within the lines during game play) how does his choice of race/class/build force the rest of the group to enjoy the game less?

By playing a Strix in a human-centric setting.

Oh fer crying out loud, they're just grimdark Winged Folk; my game has accounted for them since I bought The Best of Dragon as a snot-nosed tween! :P

1 to 50 of 2,339 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / What makes you so special that you get to play your snowflake anyway? All Messageboards