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! :PBy playing a Strix in a human-centric setting.
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?
Never had one as a PC, have ya? Good luck selling the loot from the dungeon crawl, if the shopkeeper happens to be human.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I present a campaign and I tell everyone that I am only allowing races XY and Z. Why would your next question be can I play A? Don't say okay with the intention of trying to talk me into letting you play something else.
If I want to run a kitchen sink game then I will run one. I like to have a bit of variety so I run different types of games because I am allowed to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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! :)
No snark detected :)
My answer is "because that's how I read the example" - The players are saying they're bored with that type of character, and don't want it in the game. So, I see three options:
1) They have to put up with something they don't want in the game.
2) Billy-Bob plays a different character.
3) Billy-Bob is removed from the group.
None of those are an ideal solution, and it's one of the reasons why I make sure that sort of thing is decided before people even join the group in the first place, to avoid any such issues coming up and having to tell someone something they don't want to hear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fine then, this time Billy-Bop will play Legandilbo, and eventually take levels of Arcane Archer . . .
. . . stupid group consensus . . .
Fine then, this time Billy-Bop will play Legandilbo, and eventually take levels of Arcane Archer . . .
. . . stupid group consensus . . .
"Stupid group consensus" may well be the case :)
The argument is whether you respect those players rights to be stupid and to dislike things for what appears to be an irrational reason, or not ;)
Now, I'd very much be against the above scenario if Billy-Bob had read my advertisement (which didn't mention any problems with that choice of character) and joined the game, and then my players spring that on him. That's unfair, the scenario didn't advertise that restriction, and I've already approved his Halfling Rogue/Wizard. If anything I'd remove the lot of 'em if they don't stop objecting, and keep Billy-Bob in that situation (and go on to find replacement players who actually do want to play the game they're applying to join.)
But, that's why I feel the place for such objections is up-front when advertising a game, and not sprung on an group after they've assembled. That way people know what to bring to the table, and what else might be there.
The example I keep thinking of is the diplomatic game. I evidently want a diplomatic game, or I wouldn't be advertising one. The players that applied also evidently want one. Everyone now gets their diplomatic game, and is very happy. If I let the group consensus decide, we'll likely end up with a game that wasn't the exact thing anyone wanted and is just a compromise to keep everyone mostly happy (and to my mind, will probably feel quite generic due to having a bit of everything.)
At the root of it all though is ensuring every player's right to choose (and get) the type of game they want, rather than have to conform to group consensus. If what they want is "completely open with no restrictions", that's fine too, obviously!
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue is very simple.
If the GM says "I want to run this" there is nothing wrong with that.
If the player says "I want to run this" there is nothing wrong with that.
If either the player or the GM says "You must do/allow this" they are both wrong.
If I go to a store and they don't have exactly what I want, I was not wronged in any way. If I can't find anything I want, the store hasn't don't a good job at providing for me specifically as a customer.
If nothing but the thing I wanted will satisfy me, and the store doesn't have it, I'm in the wrong store and the solution isn't to yell at the owner.
It is to find the right store.
And if I own the store and some guy gets upset because I don't sell exactly what they want and makes a scene, I will be much happier when that guy goes away to find another store.
Every GM decides what they want to have in the store. Some GMs are walmart and some GMs are specialty stores.
And some customers prefer Walmart's wide selection of products while others think Walmart products are crappy and prefer custom made specialty stores that cater to a narrow group.
But you don't get to tell the store owner what they have to sell and the store owner doesn't get to tell the customer what they have to buy.
Fine then, this time Billy-Bop will play Legandilbo, and eventually take levels of Arcane Archer . . .
. . . stupid group consensus . . .
"Stupid group consensus" may well be the case :)
The argument is whether you respect those players rights to be stupid and to dislike things for what appears to be an irrational reason, or not ;)
Now, I'd very much be against the above scenario if Billy-Bob had read my advertisement (which didn't mention any problems with that choice of character) and joined the game, and then my players spring that on him. That's unfair, the scenario didn't advertise that restriction, and I've already approved his Halfling Rogue/Wizard. If anything I'd remove the lot of 'em if they don't stop objecting, and keep Billy-Bob in that situation (and go on to find replacement players who actually do want to play the game they're applying to join.)
But, that's why I feel the place for such objections is up-front when advertising a game, and not sprung on an group after they've assembled. That way people know what to bring to the table, and what else might be there.
The example I keep thinking of is the diplomatic game. I evidently want a diplomatic game, or I wouldn't be advertising one. The players that applied also evidently want one. Everyone now gets their diplomatic game, and is very happy. If I let the group consensus decide, we'll likely end up with a game that wasn't the exact thing anyone wanted and is just a compromise to keep everyone mostly happy (and to my mind, will probably feel quite generic due to having a bit of everything.)
At the root of it all though is ensuring every player's right to choose (and get) the type of game they want, rather than have to conform to group consensus.
I agree, and, circling back to the thread topic, that's why every player is so special that they deserve to play their snowflake.
Diplomatic game/ special snowflake tangent:
Now that I think about, I don't know if I'm saying that I think you should allow Barbarians in your diplomatic game, or just that I really liked the movie.
Hmm, either you added a sentence or I truncated your post; no harm, no foul?
I agree, and, circling back to the thread topic, that's why every player is so special that they deserve to play their snowflake.Diplomatic game/ special snowflake tangent:
Spoiler:Hmm, either you added a sentence or I truncated your post; no harm, no foul?
I added a sentence, no harm, no foul :) My brain tends to lag behind a minute or two nowadays and informs me of things I should have said!
And no, I haven't seen it :(
As for the Barbarians - they're more than welcome as long as they agree they're coming to a diplomacy-orientated game set up for people that want a diplomacy-orientated game, and not use it as an excuse to drag it into a dungeon crawl :)
I think at the end of the day we actually want the same thing, for the same reasons, but just have two completely different views on how to achieve it. Still, as long as the players end up happy, it's all good, right? :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Completely different views? We were agreeing with each other in real time across three or four threads until you just started sneering at me like a page ago!
That is, I think all the players should enjoy themselves, and ; it's very metagame-ey. /wink
Completely different views? We were agreeing with each other in real time across three or four threads until you just started sneering at me like a page ago!
That is, I think all the players should enjoy themselves, and ; it's very metagame-ey. /wink
Yikes, I certainly didn't mean to sneer! :)
Anyway, what I meant is - my way of ensuring everyone gets the game they want is by defining it up front. "This will be the type of game I'm running. Now, is anyone interested in playing it?". Yours appears (apologies if I'm mistaken here) to be "Lets get together, play a game and find a way to make it work for everyone so everyone gets to be what they wanted.". I recruit my players after, you I have to guess have yours before?
Both ways end up with people happy with their game, not being asked to do anything they didn't want to, and being the type of character they wanted.
I think it's very easy, however, to confuse my recruiting players with a specific game in mind with being dictatorial towards a group that's already gotten together. I certainly wouldn't want anything to do with the latter way.
(Oh, and if I have managed to misread your playstyle, my apologies, and please put it down to the mix of confusing cross-purpose threads on here!)
You absolutely haven't misread my playstyle. Also, I'm not sure you did sneer at me, I may just have been a paranoid douche-bag at the moment; I sent you a (very professional, not at all creepy) PM about it.
I think you're right about defining it up front, which was how I tri-furcated (not even a word) "snowflake" into world-building/gameplay-at-the-table/unwelcome-problem-players, but getting specific may have been a bad idea.
So, I just ran into some heavy restrictions yesterday, and I wonder if I am trying to play a snowflake. Thoughts?
Wild west game coming up, I've played in a few of them. So this time I want to play a Ruth Balter, a woman determined to make a name for herself and get away from the bland life out east that was planned to her. She will be able to shoot, and ride, and sass it up. She won't be a pistoleer of legend, more a long range shooter.
The game is going to be about killing dodgy cowboys and stopping cruel land barons. I've made a reason for the character to get involved in the venture but run into some problems.
No "crossing the fence".
In this wild west game, I can only play a male. Urgh. I've played manly shooters before, wanted to try something different. Ruth being based on a tough old lady back in my hometown (who would go out and shoot things even into her late 50s).
If a gamer joins that is a woman, she can play someone like Ruth, but not little old me. It is annoying to have a char rearing to go, which fits with the setting, but which is chopped because apparently women can't shoot or contribute to combat. His words. Somedays I just have to shake my head.
|
So, I just ran into some heavy restrictions yesterday, and I wonder if I am trying to play a snowflake. Thoughts?
Wild west game coming up, I've played in a few of them. So this time I want to play a Ruth Balter, a woman determined to make a name for herself and get away from the bland life out east that was planned to her. She will be able to shoot, and ride, and sass it up. She won't be a pistoleer of legend, more a long range shooter.
The game is going to be about killing dodgy cowboys and stopping cruel land barons. I've made a reason for the character to get involved in the venture but run into some problems.
No "crossing the fence".
In this wild west game, I can only play a male. Urgh. I've played manly shooters before, wanted to try something different. Ruth being based on a tough old lady back in my hometown (who would go out and shoot things even into her late 50s).
If a gamer joins that is a woman, she can play someone like Ruth, but not little old me. It is annoying to have a char rearing to go, which fits with the setting, but which is chopped because apparently women can't shoot or contribute to combat. His words. Somedays I just have to shake my head.
Too bad, I would have allowed it. But, in my experience, people playing the opposite gender stick to the worst possible stereotype and mostly ruin the game. Maybe the GM was a little cautious.
You're not a special snowflake, not unless you insist on playing Ruth until the GM caves and other players look at you with mean eyes...
truethe 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.
the exotic snowflakes have the same loot
and not fitting into society, encourages more exotic snowflakes to become adventurers
but Snowflakes aren't the only freaks with this loot either
core races can have it too
in fact, anyone can end up with all this enchanted bling
it's just, that adventurers have such a reputation due to being adventurers, that race is irrelevant
So, I just ran into some heavy restrictions yesterday, and I wonder if I am trying to play a snowflake. Thoughts?
Wild west game coming up, I've played in a few of them. So this time I want to play a Ruth Balter, a woman determined to make a name for herself and get away from the bland life out east that was planned to her. She will be able to shoot, and ride, and sass it up. She won't be a pistoleer of legend, more a long range shooter.
The game is going to be about killing dodgy cowboys and stopping cruel land barons. I've made a reason for the character to get involved in the venture but run into some problems.
No "crossing the fence".
In this wild west game, I can only play a male. Urgh. I've played manly shooters before, wanted to try something different. Ruth being based on a tough old lady back in my hometown (who would go out and shoot things even into her late 50s).
If a gamer joins that is a woman, she can play someone like Ruth, but not little old me. It is annoying to have a char rearing to go, which fits with the setting, but which is chopped because apparently women can't shoot or contribute to combat. His words. Somedays I just have to shake my head.
Too bad, I would have allowed it. But, in my experience, people playing the opposite gender stick to the worst possible stereotype and mostly ruin the game. Maybe the GM was a little cautious.
You're not a special snowflake, not unless you insist on playing Ruth until the GM caves and other players look at you with mean eyes...
Yep, I get what you are saying, but Ruth is not a whore or prostitute. Ruth is just a badass without a dick.
Perish the thought!
So, I just ran into some heavy restrictions yesterday, and I wonder if I am trying to play a snowflake. Thoughts?
Wild west game coming up, I've played in a few of them. So this time I want to play a Ruth Balter, a woman determined to make a name for herself and get away from the bland life out east that was planned to her. She will be able to shoot, and ride, and sass it up. She won't be a pistoleer of legend, more a long range shooter.
The game is going to be about killing dodgy cowboys and stopping cruel land barons. I've made a reason for the character to get involved in the venture but run into some problems.
No "crossing the fence".
In this wild west game, I can only play a male. Urgh. I've played manly shooters before, wanted to try something different. Ruth being based on a tough old lady back in my hometown (who would go out and shoot things even into her late 50s).
If a gamer joins that is a woman, she can play someone like Ruth, but not little old me. It is annoying to have a char rearing to go, which fits with the setting, but which is chopped because apparently women can't shoot or contribute to combat. His words. Somedays I just have to shake my head.
Is it that women can't shoot or contribute to combat or that guys can't play women? You say the first but also the second, if a woman could play someone like Ruth.
Two different issues, needing different responses. Probably mixed together in the GM's head, possibly with one being used as the excuse for the other.
Some GMs/groups are uncomfortable with men playing female characters, either for essentially sexist reasons or possibly due to scars from earlier attempts.
Both were said. Although by boot hill, the system we are going to be using, you can create a woman that kills with ease. It is after all a very lethal system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, I just ran into some heavy restrictions yesterday, and I wonder if I am trying to play a snowflake. Thoughts?
Wild west game coming up, I've played in a few of them. So this time I want to play a Ruth Balter, a woman determined to make a name for herself and get away from the bland life out east that was planned to her. She will be able to shoot, and ride, and sass it up. She won't be a pistoleer of legend, more a long range shooter.
The game is going to be about killing dodgy cowboys and stopping cruel land barons. I've made a reason for the character to get involved in the venture but run into some problems.
No "crossing the fence".
In this wild west game, I can only play a male. Urgh. I've played manly shooters before, wanted to try something different. Ruth being based on a tough old lady back in my hometown (who would go out and shoot things even into her late 50s).
If a gamer joins that is a woman, she can play someone like Ruth, but not little old me. It is annoying to have a char rearing to go, which fits with the setting, but which is chopped because apparently women can't shoot or contribute to combat. His words. Somedays I just have to shake my head.
Too bad, I would have allowed it. But, in my experience, people playing the opposite gender stick to the worst possible stereotype and mostly ruin the game. Maybe the GM was a little cautious.
You're not a special snowflake, not unless you insist on playing Ruth until the GM caves and other players look at you with mean eyes...
I am not sure how Ruth is a special snowflake. She is a woman in the wild west who can shoot straight. They existed.
And yet you also said "or the concept destroys the GMs campaign concept".
Wouldn't that be pushing the players around?
I’m saying it’s a two way street.
I’m saying both the players and GMs are both right and wrong. Actually, there is no right and wrong, there is merely what people want. The two sides want different things so there has to be some kind of compromise or mutually agreeable solution.
The players aren’t wrong asking for what they want; this is simply what they want.
The GM is not wrong in asking for what he wants; this is simply the kind of campaign he wants to run.
If the game isn't mutually fun and people aren't willing to cooperate, just find something better to do with your time.
This.
|
is the hypothetical DM a closed minded AI who is so afraid of "Munchkins" that he has to bury his head in the sand and dissallow every nonecore sourcebook? but refuses to admit to the truth of the godlike power possessed by wizards? clerics? and druids?
is the DM's imagination so bound to a 50 year trilogy from a long dead author that he cannot work with anything else but the works of middle earth?
the point of an RPG, is to expand your imagination, go beyond a species steriotypes, drop the novel, and interact with a limitless series of unique characters
a DM who holds such heavy restrictions, often core only, is either one of two things, inexperienced and afraid, or stagnant and forever bound to his pet novel he works upon, which is most likely a clone of Tolkien's work
false dichotomy. Those aren't the only reasons why a DM might want to have restrictions. That's like saying the only reason that players want to play whatever they want regardless of words or backgrounds is either they are a)a jerk trying to spoil the game or b)special snowflakes that want to hog the spotlight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To get back to the topic at hand, I don't think it is really a matter of being special enough to play your " snowflake".There is a give and take to these sort of things and selfish people will be selfish, meanwhile others will work together to build a mutual world. working together contrary to what some believe is a two way street. A DM has a social contract with the players to provide mutual entertainment and the players have a contract to buy in and participate in the story. If your character breaks the contract by not buying into the setting and story you are being selfish....but on the other side of that coin if you as a DM set the criteria for what fits your world to be so narrow as to prevent your players from being able to create characters they love enough to aid in their emersion....then you have failed to keep your end of the bargain. I hate the term snowflake by the way it clearly takes on side of the debate and defaults the player position to derogatory.