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


Gamer Life General Discussion

1 to 50 of 2,339 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I didn't want to take away from the other thread so I figured I would start another one on the topic on snowflake characters and why people feel that are deserving to play it at the expense of others etc...

I've heard testimony from members of the forum who claim that their games won't even clear the runway if that one person isn't allowed to play their snowflake and while I'm sure it may exist, I'm just not convinced that it happens like they say it does. What kind of group would ban together and declare they won't play unless Bob gets to play his special character. 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?

Shadow Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Because everyone gets a turn.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I stopped allowing special snowflakes a while ago. To me it's just annoying.


i advocate, that if the race is reasonable, such as most human crossbreeds, i'd try to find a way to justify their existence, awakened ponies or cat people may take more effort, i can understand not wanting to devote the effort for an awakened horse

but if the character is a planetouched or other seemingly plausible human crossbreed (such as a Dhampir, Changeling, Half-Nymph, or Half-Drow), of which both parent races exist within the setting, somewhere on the planet or on some connected plane; please find a way to accommodate it

what i ask

is not half-dragon vampire minotuars in a world where either dragons or minotaurs or extinct

but at least

the allowance of feasible hybrids of parent races, of which, both exist in the setting

the half-nymph doesn't even need to minmax diplomacy, it could be a reskinned half-elf with a few variant racial traits if you wish

the Dwarf/Orc crossbreed doesn't need to be a minmaxed barbarian, it could just as easily be a half orc whom takes a few dwarven racials in place of their human or orcish counterparts as substitutions

the sylph is a reasonable hybrid in a setting where humans, and any sufficiently humanoid creature with the "Air" subtype exists, whether djinn, air elementals or whatever serves that purpose

the aasimaar works in any setting where humans and any good aligned representative race exists, whether angels, archons, valkyries, or whatever

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

i advocate, that if the race is reasonable, such as most human crossbreeds, i'd try to find a way to justify their existence, awakened ponies or cat people may take more effort, i can understand not wanting to devote the effort for an awakened horse

but if the character is a planetouched or other seemingly plausible human crossbreed (such as a Dhampir, Changeling, Half-Nymph, or Half-Drow), of which both parent races exist within the setting, somewhere on the planet or on some connected plane; please find a way to accommodate it

what i ask

is not half-dragon vampire minotuars in a world where either dragons or minotaurs or extinct

but at least

the allowance of feasible hybrids of parent races, of which, both exist in the setting

the half-nymph doesn't even need to minmax diplomacy, it could be a reskinned half-elf with a few variant racial traits if you wish

the Dwarf/Orc crossbreed doesn't need to be a minmaxed barbarian, it could just as easily be a half orc whom takes a few dwarven racials in place of their human or orcish counterparts as substitutions

the sylph is a reasonable hybrid in a setting where humans, and any sufficiently humanoid creature with the "Air" subtype exists, whether djinn, air elementals or whatever serves that purpose

the aasimaar works in any setting where humans and any good aligned representative race exists, whether angels, archons, valkyries, or whatever

It's not about what is reasonable, in your eyes, but the DMs vision is for the base campaign. If he/she wishes to allow certain races then there is reason. Your reasons for why a race can exist in a world may seem reasonable to you, you want to play the race so of course it seems reasonable to you, but it may not seem reasonable to the DM.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

i advocate, that if the race is reasonable, such as most human crossbreeds, i'd try to find a way to justify their existence, awakened ponies or cat people may take more effort, i can understand not wanting to devote the effort for an awakened horse

but if the character is a planetouched or other seemingly plausible human crossbreed (such as a Dhampir, Changeling, Half-Nymph, or Half-Drow), of which both parent races exist within the setting, somewhere on the planet or on some connected plane; please find a way to accommodate it

what i ask

is not half-dragon vampire minotuars in a world where either dragons or minotaurs or extinct

but at least

the allowance of feasible hybrids of parent races, of which, both exist in the setting

the half-nymph doesn't even need to minmax diplomacy, it could be a reskinned half-elf with a few variant racial traits if you wish

the Dwarf/Orc crossbreed doesn't need to be a minmaxed barbarian, it could just as easily be a half orc whom takes a few dwarven racials in place of their human or orcish counterparts as substitutions

the sylph is a reasonable hybrid in a setting where humans, and any sufficiently humanoid creature with the "Air" subtype exists, whether djinn, air elementals or whatever serves that purpose

the aasimaar works in any setting where humans and any good aligned representative race exists, whether angels, archons, valkyries, or whatever

It's not about what is reasonable, in your eyes, but the DMs vision is for the base campaign. If he/she wishes to allow certain races then there is reason. Your reasons for why a race can exist in a world may seem reasonable to you, you want to play the race so of course it seems reasonable to you, but it may not seem reasonable to the DM.

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


3 people marked this as a favorite.
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?

Bob is my friend? I guess? That said, this is a really vague situation your describing.


What's a snowflake, exactly?

Shadow Lodge

26 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
What's a snowflake, exactly?

An aggregation of ice crystals which falls through the Earth's atmosphere.

But that's not important right now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
What's a snowflake, exactly?

Here's the TV Tropes article. You know the drill about tabs right?(Open them all, grab soda, fall into the abyss.)


MrSin wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
What's a snowflake, exactly?
Here's the TV Tropes article. You know the drill about tabs right?(Open them all, grab soda, fall into the abyss.)

Cheers.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:

I didn't want to take away from the other thread so I figured I would start another one on the topic on snowflake characters and why people feel that are deserving to play it at the expense of others etc...

I've heard testimony from members of the forum who claim that their games won't even clear the runway if that one person isn't allowed to play their snowflake and while I'm sure it may exist, I'm just not convinced that it happens like they say it does. What kind of group would ban together and declare they won't play unless Bob gets to play his special character. 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?

How does playing a weirdo race (no offence intended, Umbriere) impact on anyone else?

It doesn't seem to me to be at anyone's "expense" (other than maybe the DM, depending on the story).


12 people marked this as a favorite.

Sometimes it breaks immersion from the desired theme.


Well yeah, I can understand if the DM is running a campaign with some limitations. But in a general "ordinary fantasy" campaign, it wouldn't really matter, would it?


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Indeed. Some people prefer a more Tolkienian feel, with just a few races which are intrinsically tied to the setting and campaign as a whole. I know "Tolkien" is apparently becoming a dirty word around here, but there it is.


19 people marked this as a favorite.

"Okay, people, we're going to play an intrigue/political campaign set in Kyonin, specifically its court and its noble villas. You know, the campaign we agreed to play last week, when I described it to you. You will be able to play any of the sylvan races, including halfbreeds, but for preference elves."
"Great, I wanna play a half-ogre barbarian!"
"And I wanna be an aberration-blooded dwarf sorcerer who hates elves."
"Not me. I am gonna be a country bumpkin pig farmer human commoner."
"Can I play a half-orc anti-paladin?"
"Uhhhh, guys..."


Steve Geddes wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

I didn't want to take away from the other thread so I figured I would start another one on the topic on snowflake characters and why people feel that are deserving to play it at the expense of others etc...

I've heard testimony from members of the forum who claim that their games won't even clear the runway if that one person isn't allowed to play their snowflake and while I'm sure it may exist, I'm just not convinced that it happens like they say it does. What kind of group would ban together and declare they won't play unless Bob gets to play his special character. 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?

How does playing a weirdo race (no offence intended, Umbriere) impact on anyone else?

It doesn't seem to me to be at anyone's "expense" (other than maybe the DM, depending on the story).

it doesn't impact anyone

it's at nobodies expense

a Lawful Good (i mean lawful stupid) human Paladin, recently rolled up by Mark for the whole purpose of doing nothing but stopping and punishing the Harmless Chaotic Neutral elven rogue played by Alice who pickpockets wealthy NPCs and the Chaotic Evil half-orc Barbarian played by Tony who eats the corpses of his sentient Victims, neither of which have harmed the party, is far more disruptive to the group at the expense of 2 players, than if mark rolled up a Chaotic Neutral Angelkin Battle Oracle of Gorum who works alongside the elven rogue and the half-orc barbarian

exotic race or class choice is generally at nobody;s expense

unless some guy rolls up a character of a different alignment or moral code, for the sole purpose of starting PVP with one or more established players

in this case, paladin itself is hardly the problem if he toned back his code and worked to avoid PVP combat, it's the lawful stupid paladin who rolled up his lawful stupid character at the expense of the the two characters whom operate opposite to his code with the intent of PVP combat, a thief who steals from wealthy NPCs, but not the party, and a Barbarian who eats slain NPCs, but doesn't kill PCs with the intent of eating them.

the only reason paladin is part of the problem, is because the PC causing the problem, wanted a very specific alignment and a very specific code of conduct.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Cause my mum says I'm special.


Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Sometimes it breaks immersion from the desired theme.

only if the character in general is a gross departure from the theme, for example, a political intrigue campaign in Victorian England, and somebody wishes to play a green skinned martian with highly advanced technology

now, a nymph, pixie, vampire, werewolf, or planetouched, with a bit of reskinning, could fit if the victorian england campaign is modified to fit fantastic creatures, ala Hellsing or Black Butler

Sissyl wrote:

"Okay, people, we're going to play an intrigue/political campaign set in Kyonin, specifically its court and its noble villas. You know, the campaign we agreed to play last week, when I described it to you."
"Great, I wanna play a half-ogre barbarian!"
"And I wanna be an aberration-blooded dwarf sorcerer who hates elves."
"Not me. I am gonna be a country bumpkin pig farmer human commoner."
"Can I play a half-orc anti-paladin?"
"Uhhhh, guys..."

clearly this is a disagreement between the players and the DM, time to shelve that campaign for later, and play something else, or make them a party of agents sent by another country as spies to investigate the kyonin nobility

most of them are crappy spies though, so they have an obstacle to overcome


Sissyl wrote:

"Okay, people, we're going to play an intrigue/political campaign set in Kyonin, specifically its court and its noble villas. You know, the campaign we agreed to play last week, when I described it to you. You will be able to play any of the sylvan races, including halfbreeds, but for preference elves."

"Great, I wanna play a half-ogre barbarian!"
"And I wanna be an aberration-blooded dwarf sorcerer who hates elves."
"Not me. I am gonna be a country bumpkin pig farmer human commoner."
"Can I play a half-orc anti-paladin?"
"Uhhhh, guys..."

So... Are they all planning to overcome their adversity or possibly destroy Kyonin? I could see that going either way... mostly the latter. 'Three diplomats and a pig farmer land in Kyonin...'


MrSin wrote:
Sissyl wrote:

"Okay, people, we're going to play an intrigue/political campaign set in Kyonin, specifically its court and its noble villas. You know, the campaign we agreed to play last week, when I described it to you. You will be able to play any of the sylvan races, including halfbreeds, but for preference elves."

"Great, I wanna play a half-ogre barbarian!"
"And I wanna be an aberration-blooded dwarf sorcerer who hates elves."
"Not me. I am gonna be a country bumpkin pig farmer human commoner."
"Can I play a half-orc anti-paladin?"
"Uhhhh, guys..."
So... Are they all planning to overcome their adversity or possibly destroy Kyonin? I could see that going either way... mostly the latter. 'Three diplomats and a pig farmer land in Kyonin...'

more like plotting a massacre for the Lewts, that will lead to their inevitable TPK when the elven nobles begin to flaunt their superior wealth.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:


Sissyl wrote:

"Okay, people, we're going to play an intrigue/political campaign set in Kyonin, specifically its court and its noble villas. You know, the campaign we agreed to play last week, when I described it to you."
"Great, I wanna play a half-ogre barbarian!"
"And I wanna be an aberration-blooded dwarf sorcerer who hates elves."
"Not me. I am gonna be a country bumpkin pig farmer human commoner."
"Can I play a half-orc anti-paladin?"
"Uhhhh, guys..."

clearly this is a disagreement between the players and the DM, time to shelve that campaign for later, and play something else, or make them a party of agents sent by another country as spies to investigate the kyonin nobility

Personally, I'd have gotten them to make that choice before the first game session to make sure any incompatible characters could be replaced (or their players, if we can't agree on something they can play) before we begin.

If I've decided on an intrigue/political campaign (as opposed to a dungeon crawl), then that's what I'll end up running, as long as I can find enough players somewhere to do it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Sometimes it breaks immersion from the desired theme.

only if the character in general is a gross departure from the theme, for example, a political intrigue campaign in Victorian England, and somebody wishes to play a green skinned martian with highly advanced technology.

now, a nymph, pixie, vampire, werewolf, or planetouched, with a bit of reskinning, could fit if the victorian england campaign is modified to fit fantastic creatures, ala Hellsing or Black Butler

My setting design tends to be geared around specific themes, not around "kitchen sink" gaming, so I'm used to being somewhat strict. I try to be reasonable about it (I'll look at 3pp and homebrew stuff instead of banning it outright), and I'm willing to tweak rules for players if the idea is cool, but if it doesn't fit, say, gothic fantasy for setting "X", it just isn't right for that game. In that vein, going from Victorian English intrigue to monster slaying would be a bit much for me to allow.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

"Okay, people, we're going to play an intrigue/political campaign set in Kyonin, specifically its court and its noble villas. You know, the campaign we agreed to play last week, when I described it to you. You will be able to play any of the sylvan races, including halfbreeds, but for preference elves."

"Great, I wanna play a half-ogre barbarian!"
"And I wanna be an aberration-blooded dwarf sorcerer who hates elves."
"Not me. I am gonna be a country bumpkin pig farmer human commoner."
"Can I play a half-orc anti-paladin?"
"Uhhhh, guys..."

So all 4 players agreed to the campaign and yet all 4 showed up with concepts that didn't fit?

Seems to me they only "agreed" to humor the GM, probably because he wouldn't shut up about how cool his new campaign was and shot down any other ideas.

Seems to me that if you have 4 players who are "snowflakes" (which isn't even a fitting term here because that implies they're unique in their oddity) the campaign needs to change, not them. He's outnumbered 4 to 1 on this.


Matt Thomason wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:


Sissyl wrote:

"Okay, people, we're going to play an intrigue/political campaign set in Kyonin, specifically its court and its noble villas. You know, the campaign we agreed to play last week, when I described it to you."
"Great, I wanna play a half-ogre barbarian!"
"And I wanna be an aberration-blooded dwarf sorcerer who hates elves."
"Not me. I am gonna be a country bumpkin pig farmer human commoner."
"Can I play a half-orc anti-paladin?"
"Uhhhh, guys..."

clearly this is a disagreement between the players and the DM, time to shelve that campaign for later, and play something else, or make them a party of agents sent by another country as spies to investigate the kyonin nobility

Personally, I'd have gotten them to make that choice before the first game session to make sure any incompatible characters could be replaced (or their players, if we can't agree on something they can play) before we begin.

If I've decided on an intrigue/political campaign (as opposed to a dungeon crawl), then that's what I'll end up running, as long as I can find enough players somewhere to do it.

political intrigue campaign in Kyonin

please allow me to play my sickly loli half-nymph countess whom works as the party face, an investigator, a spy, a detective, and overall social string puller. (Mechanically a half-nymph bard with high intelligence and charisma, who dumped strength and constitution).

it would gladly fit kyonin

we can have another face in the party, or i could be the foundation for building servants upon

lets say i build my half-nymph countess, Umbriere Moonwhisper Aniri, daughter of lady Ilina Selene Aniri

Ashley could play my elf blooded angelspawn aasimaar melee oracle butler, Sir Alexander, who fights with cutlery (improvised weapons that deal 1d6.)

Dale could play my Dwarven Fighter Bodyguard; Sir Roargar Klaus Thundershield

Aaron could play my tutor and librarian, a Dhampir Conjuration Wizard named Sabrina Nicoletti

Matt Could decide to play my Chef. a male Drow Dervish Magus named Cherie

Javier could by my wandering mystic, a male Vudrani blooded tiefling Psion whom came from the deserts of casmaron to escape a powerful Rhakshasa overlord

Andy could play my other bodyguard, a male Half-Orc Barbarian named Ashe

George could play my hired guide and hunter, a male Elven Switch hitter ranger named Grell

Harvey could play the religious consultant of the party who works as my Physician, a male human cleric of Pharasma from Varisia named William

Kevin could play yet another bodyguard. the holy knight Alastair, a male human paladin

Seth could play my gatekeeper, a male human Urban Switch hitter Ranger from Geb named Victor

that is just what 10 of 15 players could do by basing their roles off one half-nymph countess

our party is still built for dungeon crawls

it's just tied to the setting through the servants of the half-nymph countess.


Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Sometimes it breaks immersion from the desired theme.

only if the character in general is a gross departure from the theme, for example, a political intrigue campaign in Victorian England, and somebody wishes to play a green skinned martian with highly advanced technology.

now, a nymph, pixie, vampire, werewolf, or planetouched, with a bit of reskinning, could fit if the victorian england campaign is modified to fit fantastic creatures, ala Hellsing or Black Butler

My setting design tends to be geared around specific themes, not around "kitchen sink" gaming, so I'm used to being somewhat strict. I try to be reasonable about it (I'll look at 3pp and homebrew stuff instead of banning it outright), and I'm willing to tweak rules for players if the idea is cool, but if it doesn't fit, say, gothic fantasy for setting "X", it just isn't right for that game. In that vein, going from Victorian English intrigue to monster slaying would be a bit much for me to allow.

even then

Victorian English intrigue still has room for players to do such favors for the nobility, as slaying a really Irksome pack of Werewolves that have been attacking their trade caravans, in fact, Victorian England is almost made for Gothic horror

remember, it's not the monster slaying isn't the focus, it's a means of accomplishing another more important goal, earning the respect of the nobility by helping clear their problem.

players still have a chance to slay monsters, just remember to remember to make sure none of you get drowned in the monster slaying and forget the original campaign.


Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

political intrigue campaign in Kyonin

please allow me to play my sickly loli half-nymph countess whom works as the party face, an investigator, a spy, a detective, and overall social string puller. (Mechanically a half-nymph bard with high intelligence and charisma, who dumped strength and constitution).

it would gladly fit kyonin

we can have another face in the party, or i could be the foundation for building servants upon
...
...

As long as the players have actually come to play a political/intrigue game, that's fine - they can probably bring a storm giant, a peri, or the result of a meladaemon/human coupling (admittedly I'm not entirely sure how that works, or even if I want to know how) if that floats their boat ;)

If I've chosen that style of game, I'm probably not that concerned about the choice of race for it as the general feel is going to be more about the political story, so any racial restrictions would be more due to choice of setting than the game feel.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

So all 4 players agreed to the campaign and yet all 4 showed up with concepts that didn't fit?

Seems to me they only "agreed" to humor the GM, probably because he wouldn't shut up about how cool his new campaign was and shot down any other ideas.

Seems to me that if you have 4 players who are "snowflakes" (which isn't even a fitting term here because that implies they're unique in their oddity) the campaign needs to change, not them. He's outnumbered 4 to 1 on this.

Frankly, if I were in the the GM's shoes in that situation, I'd advise the players to change the GM, as well.

Supply and demand. I offer a campaign, which may or may not place certain limits on what may be a viable concept.
You choose whether you want to play or not.
If this leaves me with too few players, well, seems that the group didn't want to play what I offer. Which means, no deal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Midnight_Angel wrote:


Frankly, if I were in the the GM's shoes in that situation, I'd advise the players to change the GM, as well.

Supply and demand. I offer a campaign, which may or may not place certain limits on what may be a viable concept.
You choose whether you want to play or not.
If this leaves me with too few players, well, seems that the group didn't want to play what I offer. Which means, no deal.

Precisely. While it may not be true on a local scale for many players (and I sympathize where that's the case and playing over the internet isn't an acceptable alternative for the player in question), I figure overall there's enough players in the world for me to find the ones I prefer to play with, and for them to find the games they prefer to play in.


16 people marked this as a favorite.

It's a strange opinion that unless you can play anything you can conceive of, it's a worthless campaign and a worthless GM. I specifically stated that the players had agreed to play this campaign. Even so, you draw the conclusion that they agreed "probably because he wouldn't shut up about how cool his new campaign was and shot down any other ideas". More likely, they agreed because nobody else wanted to GM (not so strange considering that they feel the GM's job is to deliver a game for the players, without influence on it, and otherwise shut up), and felt they should have the right to play anything they liked despite the stated focus of the campaign.

Guess what? This hobby is, like all other such activities, a question of give and take. You don't like the idea of a sylvan-themed intrigue campaign, feel free to GM your own. Offer the players to play with ALL the splatbooks and ALL 3rd party books, and what could ever any player want more, right? What player wouldn't jump at the chance to play a twice-half-dragon gelatinous cube nymph zen archer/vivisectionist/synthesist summoner?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
What player wouldn't jump at the chance to play a twice-half-dragon gelatinous cube nymph zen archer/vivisectionist/synthesist summoner?

I'd jump, except for the fact my semigelatinous stumplike half-legs are too squishy :(


Aaaaand there you have it. In our MASSIVE poll (n=1), we have conclusively proven that ALL players want to play freak misfit dumps of templates, races and classes.


Sissyl wrote:
What player wouldn't jump at the chance to play a twice-half-dragon gelatinous cube nymph zen archer/vivisectionist/synthesist summoner?

*casually starts brainstorming one of these to drop into his random opponent file*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

So all 4 players agreed to the campaign and yet all 4 showed up with concepts that didn't fit?

Seems to me they only "agreed" to humor the GM, probably because he wouldn't shut up about how cool his new campaign was and shot down any other ideas.

Seems to me that if you have 4 players who are "snowflakes" (which isn't even a fitting term here because that implies they're unique in their oddity) the campaign needs to change, not them. He's outnumbered 4 to 1 on this.

This. I know an argument stands against it that the GM is running the game and thus has priority but that kind of invalidates the actual rule zero of gaming, in any form, sod the rule that it's all fiat - A game is supposed to be fun. It's give and take, sure, but any giving should be to the greatest benefit (without getting into complexities - upsetting one player by letting a concept of a rapist party slide would be, undoubtedly, bad GMing). If only the GM wants to play a concept and knows their group won't be interested, the group shouldn't be told "you should play this." I'm not going to recommend the works of Vivaldi to someone who hates classical now, am I?

Though I may execute the philistine.

Also, any concept of a "special snowflake" is context dependent at best. Hell, the entire term refers to a character being particularly unique, vaguely. At which point, since one would like to imagine not every campaign is a carbon copy of all the previous, aren't all characters snowflakes? I know that's reductio ad absurdum but that's half my problem with the premise here - someone define parameters wherein one is a "special snowflake". I want exact lines drawn in the sand with a rationale.
A tall order perhaps but if no one can rise to that, I'd like to feel a point is made about subjectivity. The word just seems to be a derogatory term that (and I admit perception bias here) is used against players who aren't playing "my way and how I would like it!"

steve geddes wrote:
Well yeah, I can understand if the DM is running a campaign with some limitations. But in a general "ordinary fantasy" campaign, it wouldn't really matter, would it?

Firstly, I would like to preface this by saying it isn't personal but damn it all - are we so boring and dry a species that we can take fantasy, a genre that at its base - is about exploring other realities. A genre wherein your only challenge is to make something up, from the innumerable possibilities, and have a term "ordinary fantasy?" You'd think that the works of Tolkein were the sodding Core Rulebook for all fantasy stories ever written. Elves weren't Tolkein's Elves before him; nor Dwarves his Dwarves, so why is there this terrible term going round, as if to persist that any fantasy off from those themes is abnormal? That term is perhaps one of the most destructive things for the genre I meet at gaming tables.

Partially because it feeds into the snowflake argument here. Because I know part of this will be "playing a non-standard race". Why? I know GMs might hate certain races but what if a player at their table loves the concept? All other players at the table not-withstanding, it has to be asked, why am I badwrongfun for liking x when the Gm doesn't like x? Whilst I've known disruptive players (who are a problem, yes); I've known GMs who are well, for lack of a better term, authoritarian. The latter having pushed reasonable people to act like the former. So to give a context - perhaps Bob won't let the game get off the ground because he can't find another in his area and is sick of a restriction that feels arbitrary. On the other hand, maybe Bob is just annoying and trying to swing in a cheesy OP character. Frankly, handwaving Bob as just being disruptive today without asking why, is a little silly. To cut at the simplicity of my own arguments, there isn't this one pairing at a table of a player and a GM who cooperate or don't. There's an entire set of people with all sorts of interactions, and reasons therefore, with each other. And if they didn't all somehow feed into the problem at a table? I'd be surprised.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
It's a strange opinion that unless you can play anything you can conceive of, it's a worthless campaign and a worthless GM. I specifically stated that the players had agreed to play this campaign. Even so, you draw the conclusion that they agreed "probably because he wouldn't shut up about how cool his new campaign was and shot down any other ideas". More likely, they agreed because nobody else wanted to GM (not so strange considering that they feel the GM's job is to deliver a game for the players, without influence on it, and otherwise shut up), and felt they should have the right to play anything they liked despite the stated focus of the campaign.

I've seen these sorts of things happen many times. The GM will pitch a campaign ideas, the players will be all "yay! Cool!" and then go ahead and do something that doesn't fit the specifics of the campaign at all.

Usually, in my experience, this generally happens because each player thank that it's all right for him to be the odd duck, as long as everyone else fits the campaign theme. Which is probably true except they all had that idea.

It's like playing a game of Werewolf where none of the players are actually werewolves. One 'something else' could work, when they are all something else, it's time to figure out what's what.

(I also strongly disagree with the notion that the GM should just submit to everything the players feel like. Not every game can be RIFT.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Physically Unfeasible wrote:


Because I know part of this will be "playing a non-standard race". Why? I know GMs might hate certain races but what if a player at their table loves the concept? All other players at the table not-withstanding, it has to be asked, why am I badwrongfun for liking x when the Gm doesn't like x?

I'd see this as being nobodies fault. You're not badwrongfun for liking it, the GM isn't badwrongfun for not wanting it. Perhaps you and that GM are incompatible, in which case you both just accept it and move on.

Physically Unfeasible wrote:


perhaps Bob won't let the game get off the ground because he can't find another in his area and is sick of a restriction that feels arbitrary.

I wouldn't be holding the game up for Bob, I'd have just not recruited him if we couldn't come to an agreement that suited us both. I'm willing to listen to his ideas, and willing to make many suggestions, but at the end of the day if we can't agree on something that works for us both then we're not going to fit in the same game and I'll recruit another player instead.

He certainly isn't going to get handwaved as disruptive, unless he actually attempts to disrupt something after being accepted into the group.

It's important, however, to bear in mind that I create a game and then recruit individual players to fill it (informing them of the type of game it is and any particular notes or restrictions when inviting them). I don't usually have or recruit a group and then try to fit a game to them. My approach doesn't work for the latter type of game, and I wouldn't want to pretend it did.


It depends... Say I as the GM have negotiated a game with the players where the setting is a Victorian England, Sherlock, Jack the Ripper, Bramstoker, Post War of the Worlds mashup and Sam Snowflake wants to play sparkling purple space pony called Snowflake the wonder horse... Then I and the other players would say don't be a dick.

On the other-hand if Sam Snowflake wanted to play a Knight who was frozen in a glacier and discovered by an antiquarian and revived... I can work with that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

It's a strange opinion that unless you can play anything you can conceive of, it's a worthless campaign and a worthless GM. I specifically stated that the players had agreed to play this campaign. Even so, you draw the conclusion that they agreed "probably because he wouldn't shut up about how cool his new campaign was and shot down any other ideas". More likely, they agreed because nobody else wanted to GM (not so strange considering that they feel the GM's job is to deliver a game for the players, without influence on it, and otherwise shut up), and felt they should have the right to play anything they liked despite the stated focus of the campaign.

Guess what? This hobby is, like all other such activities, a question of give and take. You don't like the idea of a sylvan-themed intrigue campaign, feel free to GM your own. Offer the players to play with ALL the splatbooks and ALL 3rd party books, and what could ever any player want more, right? What player wouldn't jump at the chance to play a twice-half-dragon gelatinous cube nymph zen archer/vivisectionist/synthesist summoner?

Emphasis mine above.

This is a lot of the argument in a nut shell. Outside of folks who have a wide assortment of GMs in their area/group, most people are fairly limited in their selection of who will pick up the torch and get things going. Heck, this is common in online text games, for example, or play by board and other interfaces.

What I've come across is everyone wants to play really badly. Ask for GMs and the silence is deafening. So once you get the chance to play, people strive to play that idea that they've had rattling around in their head and tend to forget about cooperation. That leads to everyone at the table/board/computer just saying "Give Steve what he wants so we can play, time is limited, get moving!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Exactly. Someone mentioned supply and demand above, right? Well, if GMs are rare and players forty-five a dozen... Supply and demand says "start GMing yourself or get used to the GM you have setting whatever limitations he feels like", or more succinctly, "suck it up".

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If the group is fine with it, whatever the concept, the concept is fine.

If the group is not with it, whatever the concept, the concept is not fine.

It's a group activity.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

If the group insists on playing odd characters in a intrigue setting, after the DM clearly stated what kind of game it is, the onus is on the players.

It's like picking up a copy of GTA and expecting to play Pokemon.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

If a player wanted to play, say, a kitsune ninja/bard whilst in Ustalav, I'd say it's fine. Though they'd first be warned about certain things (being on a distant continent, rural Ustalav being violently superstitious, etc).

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