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


Gamer Life General Discussion

951 to 1,000 of 2,339 << first < prev | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
MrSin wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
After that you are just wasting time a lot of us don't have.

I tend to make time for my friends. I don't play for the game just to play it, I play because its something to do with friends. The game without friends is kinda' lame imo.

I'm not sure if its okay to refer to your friends as wasting your time or to say they aren't a part of your group if they disagree, and that you shouldn't discuss things with them. That doesn't sound very friendly.

It's everyone's time that is being wasted because we all have lives outside the game. We aren't kids that only need to worry about school.

If you get together with your friends to play a game of PF, but people get to talking about what is going on in their lives. People trade stories and jokes and before you know it the alotted time for gaming has about passed and you decide not to even start and continuing just hanging out. Is that time "wasted" in your opinion?

Liberty's Edge

Coriat wrote:


I'm not saying that the discussion shouldn't start early, just that there need not be a prescribed point after which NO MORE DISCUSSION. (Not even after everyone starts playing).

Once everyone starts playing, the character is already in the game and it is too late to say "No you can't play with the thing you are currently playing with."

Because, they are already playing it.

Sure you could ban it after they start, but that is much, much more difficult on all parties.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
shallowsoul wrote:
It's everyone's time that is being wasted because we all have lives outside the game. We aren't kids that only need to worry about school.

Nor are we employees that have to be kept on task to minimize lost time.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Been playing Rpg's for 40 years. I have never seen this issue . Never met players so attached to a character concept that they refused to modify or even change everything if necessary to play. Only once have I met a Gm so attached to their campaign idea that things just did not work out and the players simply moved on to our own game. This can't be a real issue.

Liberty's Edge

Mike Franke wrote:
Been playing Rpg's for 40 years. I have never seen this issue . Never met players so attached to a character concept that they refused to modify or even change everything if necessary to play. Only once have I met a Gm so attached to their campaign idea that things just did not work out and the players simply moved on to our own game. This can't be a real issue.

Sounds like the issue with the GM was resolved exactly as it should be.

I don't game with players that aren't flexible either. Running or playing, having someone else at the table who puts concept above group isn't someone I care to waste 4+ hours with a week.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To be fair as much fun as discussion is, there IS a time when the discussion is over and it's time to create a character that fits whatever your GM will allow. That time for me is the character creation session. Up till then changes can be made without adversely affecting everyone... BUT once we all sit down to generate our team then it is no longer cool to keep discussing the setting. It IS now time to discuss how you are going to make a character for THAT already discussed setting.


Thankfully, Razor Coast is a very flexible campaign. It helps when bringing in new characters to replace dead ones. :)


I would think at character creation there's still a chance for special snowflake ideas to pop up. "Oh hey, can I play this!"

People also tend to have different ideas of how far you can go. One guy might be fine with you being a villainous character turned good, but another might throw you out of the table for it without any discussions because he thinks your a jerk for even suggesting it. I'd avoid the latter myself.

Liberty's Edge

MrSin wrote:

I would think at character creation there's still a chance for special snowflake ideas to pop up. "Oh hey, can I play this!"

Add a question mark to your quotation mark and let the answer "No" be allowed, and we agree completely.


MrSin wrote:

I would think at character creation there's still a chance for special snowflake ideas to pop up. "Oh hey, can I play this!"

People also tend to have different ideas of how far you can go. One guy might be fine with you being a villainous character turned good, but another might throw you out of the table for it without any discussions because he thinks your a jerk for even suggesting it. I'd avoid the latter myself.

Certainly, as long as the new discussion is about your character and how he fits the setting, and no longer about the setting itself then I agree. If elves are not present in the setting then it is time to stop considering playing an elf by the time you get to character creation. Making your character a reformed former villain is fair to discuss during character creation... that IS when I would expect that type of idea to pop up.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:

I don't think my dog is malicious when he s~$+s on the floor.

But it is still a mess I don't want to have to deal with

That should be somebody's signature line (that is, if the Paizo forums had signatures)...


ciretose wrote:
MrSin wrote:
I would think at character creation there's still a chance for special snowflake ideas to pop up. "Oh hey, can I play this!"
Add a question mark to your quotation mark and let the answer "No" be allowed, and we agree completely.

Being a little picky aren't you?

Going further, you run into an issue on how to handle someone who brings something to the table you don't like. Its important to have discussion during character creation. The example about the guy who brought in a liar earlier is a good example why. At least 2 players thought it was incredibly obnoxious and worked against narrative(it didn't lead into anything either). Fits well in the setting, just kind of iffy from the standards of playing with others.

Going back to special snowflakes; Now you also have the guy who could bring a drow ranger who escaped from the world of the underdark(because its 99% awful), and is in an adventure in the wilderness with barbarians and dragons and demons(oh my!). This setting also has a goddess of drow turned good. Is he a special snowflake? Should the group put up with him? Should this be a discussion or a flat no? Who should you talk to about this. Remember something could seem completely sane to one person and totally wrong to another.

Anyways, just pointing those things out. I don't know where the discussion is atm. Obviously the guy who thinks someone has to play his special snowflake or they are bad is probably a bit off, but I'd argue a GM is capable of being a bit off in the situation too(both can be at once) and that how you handle things could vary pretty greatly between people.


Digitalelf wrote:
ciretose wrote:

I don't think my dog is malicious when he s~$+s on the floor.

But it is still a mess I don't want to have to deal with

That should be somebody's signature line (that is, if the Paizo forums had signatures)...

Or... you can treat people with respect and not compare them and their ideas to that. One man's trash is another man's treasure blahblahblah. Just because its awful to you doesn't mean it is to everyone.

Silver Crusade

@MrSin

Give it up.

You can't always play what you want in a campaign.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:

@MrSin

Give it up.

You can't always play what you want in a campaign.

Where did MrSin say he could always play what he wanted?


137ben wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

@MrSin

Give it up.

You can't always play what you want in a campaign.

Where did MrSin say he could always play what he wanted?

I'd like to know that too!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MrSin wrote:
137ben wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

@MrSin

Give it up.

You can't always play what you want in a campaign.

Where did MrSin say he could always play what he wanted?
I'd like to know that too!

SOLOMON GRUNDY WANT STRAWMAN TOO!


I wonder how often this "special snowflake" situation actually occurs. There have been a few times that I have had to tell a player that a particular character option won't fly in my campaign (I think the last time was catfolk, which I just didn't have time to try to add to my world). But it's never been a problem. It's always been a situation where the decision is made and the game goes on.

I wouldn't even call that occasion a "special snowflake" since the player clearly was looking for a race with the "right" racial modifiers and I just allowed him to take those modifiers and apply them to a different race and he was happy.

What bothers me in this thread is something I see in a lot of other threads, and it's a consistent pattern of what I can only describe as "anti-GM" or "anti-player" bias in the part of some gamers.

I don't think I am "pro" or "anti" either way. I just like to play. I almost never see in real life the conflict that seems to totally consume this and other online boards. I suppose that if the biases I see expressed here on the boards come into play at actual gaming tables, I have to consider myself blessed with the gamers I've been lucky enough to play with. In our group players appreciate the extra effort of the GM and respect their role, and GMs appreciate the participation and cooperation of the players and respect their role. It seems to work fine that way.

Liberty's Edge

I think it almost never happens in home games where people pick who play with them.

I've seen/heard it happen fairly frequently at FLGS and I would guess conventions would have similar issues to what I've seem/heard at FLGS open game events.

And of course, with new players.

The issue isn't for me where the line is at your particular table.

The issue is that if there is a line, you don't have a right to demand to be able to cross that line.

You have a right to not play, to leave, etc...but you aren't entitled to play whatever you can pull out of your butt, and it isn't the job of everyone else involved to accommodate you, particularly when you are the one refusing to be accommodating to everyone else.

What we should be encouraging in players and GMs is to remember it is a group activity and as most of us learned in Pre-K, you can't always get exactly what you want when playing with others, but you can still have fun if you aren't a selfish jerk to them.

And if you are a selfish jerk, no one will want to play with you.

True in Pre-K, true in Tabletop gaming...hell true in life.

Shadow Lodge

shallowsoul wrote:
You can't always play what you want in a campaign.

The only campaigns you can't play what you want in are the ones you can't play in.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
You can't always play what you want in a campaign.
The only campaigns you can't play what you want in are the ones you can't play in.

You can't always get what you want but if you try sometimes you might find you can get what you need ...

Silver Crusade

MrSin wrote:
137ben wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

@MrSin

Give it up.

You can't always play what you want in a campaign.

Where did MrSin say he could always play what he wanted?

Because you continue to go on and on about it instead of actually conceding that a DM does have the right to say and stick with that decision.

You also won't concede that in some groups the discussion phase does come to an end and it doesn't always in in the result of you playing what you wanted to play.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

I wonder how often this "special snowflake" situation actually occurs.

Far, far less than this thread would indicate.

Adamantine Dragon wrote:


What bothers me in this thread is something I see in a lot of other threads, and it's a consistent pattern of what I can only describe as "anti-GM" or "anti-player" bias in the part of some gamers.

I'd say the fact we've been through at least three threads now, each with the issue phrased a slightly different way to put a different spin on who is deemed by the OP to be at fault, hasn't helped with that one bit.

Another problem is that we all tend to think of the issue from our personal perspective, without really looking outside of our own situation. Some people see a game primarily as an opportunity to spend time with friends (and some even see a game with anyone that isn't friends as being a totally alien concept.) Some people see it primarily as an opportunity to get some game time in (and some can't imagine why you'd let friendships distract from that.) Some people naturally are more defensive of the rights of the GM/Player than others. We're all tending to imagine the hypothetical situation itself in different ways because of that.

Personally, my natural inclination is to view that this situation is that of a new player asking to join our game, being told what the setting is and to come up with a character that fits it, coming back with something that doesn't fit, being asked to change it, and demanding they get to play it without any changes.

The reason I viewed it that way is that I simply can't imagine the situation coming about any other way in my games. I always spend at least a couple of weeks doing prep work on the game before I even open it and ask if anyone is interested in joining it, so I don't ever experience the "group deciding what to play and it not suiting everyone" situation.

So, my original answers tended to be to that specific interpretation of the situation. After a while, things started getting heated in the discussion and I began to see the question really didn't define a specific situation, so other people would be seeing it different ways. I'd recommend everyone does the same before deciding anyone's answer is somehow wrong. Most of them are the right answer in their particular situation, and there really is no best way to handle such a generic issue (despite some people believing otherwise.)


shallowsoul wrote:
137ben wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

@MrSin

Give it up.

You can't always play what you want in a campaign.

Where did MrSin say he could always play what he wanted?

Because you continue to go on and on about it instead of actually conceding that a DM does have the right to say and stick with that decision.

You also won't concede that in some groups the discussion phase does come to an end and it doesn't always in in the result of you playing what you wanted to play.

But... I never said I was trying to say you can play whatever you want in a campaign. I actually said the opposite if I remember correctly. At best I say you can always work with each other and that I myself do try to help make everyone happy.

I also didn't say that no group has the discussion face come to an actual end. I do always suggest you discuss things though, because that's how you all stay on the same level and have an understanding. I do think just saying no and letting that be the end of it is a choice, but I don't think its the best one to make. I don't expect every group to say "You can totally play an elf in this non-elf setting!" I actually expect the opposite, however if you ask why they want an elf you could possibly come to a compromise such as allowing them to come from a particular background/culture and/or having elf stats attached to them. They likely won't have long ears and long lives, but that might help. If they do want long ears or long lives you might find a race that does that they can play. Any combination of those things.

Fixed the formatting btw, and I'm pretty sure 'not conceding' is the same as me trying to play any character in any campaign.


MrSin wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
137ben wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

@MrSin

Give it up.

You can't always play what you want in a campaign.

Where did MrSin say he could always play what he wanted?

Because you continue to go on and on about it instead of actually conceding that a DM does have the right to say and stick with that decision.

You also won't concede that in some groups the discussion phase does come to an end and it doesn't always in in the result of you playing what you wanted to play.

But... I never said I was trying to say you can play whatever you want in a campaign. I actually said the opposite if I remember correctly. At best I say you can always work with each other and that I myself do try to help make everyone happy.

I also didn't say that no group has the discussion face come to an actual end. I do always suggest you discuss things though, because that's how you all stay on the same level and have an understanding. I do think just saying no and letting that be the end of it is a choice, but I don't think its the best one to make. I don't expect every group to say "You can totally play an elf in this non-elf setting!" I actually expect the opposite, however if you ask why they want an elf you could possibly come to a compromise such as allowing them to come from a particular background/culture and/or having elf stats attached to them. They likely won't have long ears and long lives, but that might help. If they do want long ears or long lives you might find a race that does that they can play. Any combination of those things.

Fixed the formatting btw, and I'm pretty sure 'not conceding' is the same as me trying to play any character in any campaign.

But in that case you DID day no. They aren't playing an elf.

They are trying to get some of the same things they wanted out of an elf with something else, which it don't think a single person in this thread or the others would even remotely disagree with. But they aren't playing an elf.


Arssanguinus wrote:
But in that case you DID day no. They aren't playing an elf.

Right, I didn't say you didn't or couldn't say no. I then said that I said you shouldn't just say no, but that you should discuss some things. Mind you that if you try to play a six armed mutant or a horse, you might get a much different discussion than the guy who wants to play an elf.

If the guy doesn't care that no one else wants to play with a horse and that your a horrible person for not letting him play it, then well... deal with that then. That's probably a point where you might consider not playing that particular game with him. How to handle that is another thread on its own, but there's probably a polite way to do it.


MrSin wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
But in that case you DID day no. They aren't playing an elf.

Right, I didn't say you didn't or couldn't say no. I then said that I said you shouldn't just say no, but that you should discuss some things. Mind you that if you try to play a six armed mutant or a horse, you might get a much different discussion than the guy who wants to play an elf.

If the guy doesn't care that no one else wants to play with a horse and that your a horrible person for not letting him play it, then well... deal with that then. That's probably a point where you might consider not playing that particular game with him. How to handle that is another thread on its own, but there's probably a polite way to do it.

But the discussion of playing an elf DID end then and there. There was a new discussion about a different character that was not an elf. But that no was, indeed, final and that discussion did, indeed, end.


I don't think its worth arguing syntax here...


Arssanguinus wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
But in that case you DID day no. They aren't playing an elf.

Right, I didn't say you didn't or couldn't say no. I then said that I said you shouldn't just say no, but that you should discuss some things. Mind you that if you try to play a six armed mutant or a horse, you might get a much different discussion than the guy who wants to play an elf.

If the guy doesn't care that no one else wants to play with a horse and that your a horrible person for not letting him play it, then well... deal with that then. That's probably a point where you might consider not playing that particular game with him. How to handle that is another thread on its own, but there's probably a polite way to do it.

But the discussion of playing an elf DID end then and there. There was a new discussion about a different character that was not an elf. But that no was, indeed, final and that discussion did, indeed, end.

If you consider "Well, there aren't any elves, but why do you want to play an elf, let's see if there's anything else that will be close to what you want." to be a final end to the discussion, then it was indeed final and the discussion did end.

But that's a weird distinction to make from my point of view.


No elves, that is final.

*player makes a haggle check*

Can I get something with pointy ears?

Sure, if you must.


thejeff wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
But in that case you DID day no. They aren't playing an elf.

Right, I didn't say you didn't or couldn't say no. I then said that I said you shouldn't just say no, but that you should discuss some things. Mind you that if you try to play a six armed mutant or a horse, you might get a much different discussion than the guy who wants to play an elf.

If the guy doesn't care that no one else wants to play with a horse and that your a horrible person for not letting him play it, then well... deal with that then. That's probably a point where you might consider not playing that particular game with him. How to handle that is another thread on its own, but there's probably a polite way to do it.

But the discussion of playing an elf DID end then and there. There was a new discussion about a different character that was not an elf. But that no was, indeed, final and that discussion did, indeed, end.

If you consider "Well, there aren't any elves, but why do you want to play an elf, let's see if there's anything else that will be close to what you want." to be a final end to the discussion, then it was indeed final and the discussion did end.

But that's a weird distinction to make from my point of view.

It was a final end to the discussion about playing elves.


Arssanguinus wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
But in that case you DID day no. They aren't playing an elf.

Right, I didn't say you didn't or couldn't say no. I then said that I said you shouldn't just say no, but that you should discuss some things. Mind you that if you try to play a six armed mutant or a horse, you might get a much different discussion than the guy who wants to play an elf.

If the guy doesn't care that no one else wants to play with a horse and that your a horrible person for not letting him play it, then well... deal with that then. That's probably a point where you might consider not playing that particular game with him. How to handle that is another thread on its own, but there's probably a polite way to do it.

But the discussion of playing an elf DID end then and there. There was a new discussion about a different character that was not an elf. But that no was, indeed, final and that discussion did, indeed, end.

If you consider "Well, there aren't any elves, but why do you want to play an elf, let's see if there's anything else that will be close to what you want." to be a final end to the discussion, then it was indeed final and the discussion did end.

But that's a weird distinction to make from my point of view.

It was a final end to the discussion about playing elves.

Till that reincarnation roll anyway. LOL


pres man wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
But in that case you DID day no. They aren't playing an elf.

Right, I didn't say you didn't or couldn't say no. I then said that I said you shouldn't just say no, but that you should discuss some things. Mind you that if you try to play a six armed mutant or a horse, you might get a much different discussion than the guy who wants to play an elf.

If the guy doesn't care that no one else wants to play with a horse and that your a horrible person for not letting him play it, then well... deal with that then. That's probably a point where you might consider not playing that particular game with him. How to handle that is another thread on its own, but there's probably a polite way to do it.

But the discussion of playing an elf DID end then and there. There was a new discussion about a different character that was not an elf. But that no was, indeed, final and that discussion did, indeed, end.

If you consider "Well, there aren't any elves, but why do you want to play an elf, let's see if there's anything else that will be close to what you want." to be a final end to the discussion, then it was indeed final and the discussion did end.

But that's a weird distinction to make from my point of view.

It was a final end to the discussion about playing elves.
Till that reincarnation roll anyway. LOL

If elves don't exist how can you be reincarnated as one?


Lol, come back as a dead race. Hilarious. Will steal that idea.


Immortal Greed wrote:
Lol, come back as a dead race. Hilarious. Will steal that idea.

BINGO!


pres man wrote:
Immortal Greed wrote:
Lol, come back as a dead race. Hilarious. Will steal that idea.
BINGO!

Although that might be an interesting plot twist, if you went that route.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Immortal Greed wrote:


Can I get something with pointy ears?

<sharpens knife> Absolutely!


Just gonna ask this of everyone. How do you personally define snowflake in the sense being talked about here?I


Talonhawke wrote:
Just gonna ask this of everyone. How do you personally define snowflake in the sense being talked about here?I

Someone who has a special character who is special at the expense of the game?


Arssanguinus wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Just gonna ask this of everyone. How do you personally define snowflake in the sense being talked about here?I
Someone who has a special character who is special at the expense of the game?

The only clarification here is that a special snowflake must be at the expense of the game. You haven't explained what "special" means, which seems like the most important bit to explain.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Just gonna ask this of everyone. How do you personally define snowflake in the sense being talked about here?I
Someone who has a special character who is special at the expense of the game?
The only clarification here is that a special snowflake must be at the expense of the game. You haven't explained what "special" means, which seems like the most important bit to explain.

Quite honestly, it's probably the LEAST important bit to explain.


Arssanguinus wrote:
Quite honestly, it's probably the LEAST important bit to explain.

Special is subjective. Snowflake is objective. How special of a snowflake do you have to be to be a special snowflake? Because we're all snowflakes.

I think I just confused myself actually.


MrSin wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Quite honestly, it's probably the LEAST important bit to explain.

Special is subjective. Snowflake is objective. How special of a snowflake do you have to be to be a special snowflake? Because we're all snowflakes.

I think I just confused myself actually.

Someone who has a special character who is special at the expense of the game?

The entire answer is contained in that sentence. How special? Special in the way that comes at expense of the game. Defining it further is irrelevant.

951 to 1,000 of 2,339 << first < prev | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / What makes you so special that you get to play your snowflake anyway? All Messageboards