Quite honestly, it's probably the LEAST important bit to explain.
Eh, if "special snowflake" just means a character which disrupts the game, whence the name? I'd call such a character disruptive or something like that, not special nor a snowflake. As that's not the label being used, clearly there's more to being a special snowflake than disrupting the game. What else is there? I find "special" absurdly vague.
Special has a definition, "Distinguished or different from what is ordinary or usual"
So. "distinguished or different from what is ordinary or usual in a manner which is harmful to the game."
That doesn't apply to a player just being disruptive because the behavior of the player is not a quality of the character, it is the behavior of the player.
The line can't be that much more precisely defined because its highly dependent upon the context of the campaign in question.
So. "distinguished or different from what is ordinary or usual in a manner which is harmful to the game."That doesn't apply to a player just being disruptive because the behavior of the player is not a quality of the character, it is the behavior of the player.
The line can't be that much more precisely defined because its highly dependent upon the context of the campaign in question.
Not to mention the players(including the GM) in question. One person's "harmful" is another's "enriching", which is why there's so much disagreement over the whole topic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not to mention the players(including the GM) in question. One person's "harmful" is another's "enriching", which is why there's so much disagreement over the whole topic.
That's where I've always hit a snag if its come up. Something I think is completely sane is what someone else thinks is completely out of the question or vice-versa.
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.
When I've read "special snowflake," I see the same thing that you see in the word "special." That is, something very subjective, and very specific to the person identifying it as "special." Whatever content of the character that is "special" it isn't sufficient to make it a bad thing.
So, then the question is, what is the "snowflake" part? I read it is a simple pejorative. I guess other people's millage may vary, but I just read: "special [disparagement]." Whatever makes it bad, it's in the eye of the beholder.
So, for DMs like me, you, and others, who've never had a character approach them with a character idea worthy of "special [disparagement]," we never really have had to use the phrase "special snowflake." A few people have noted how they've never really encountered a player or PC with a "special snowflake," I'm starting to think it's one of the mythical that guys. And on the rare occasion that guy is a reality, whatever the problem is, it isn't a "special snowflake." It's probably some other specific problem.
From Urban Dictionary, seems to be the most appropriate. It should be noted that though this definition describes the person, it actually is relevant to the person perceiving the person described as a special snowflake. i.e. a person could be described by others as a special snowflake, but in fact do not see themselves as special in anyway.
special snowflake
A problem person. A person who thinks they are unique, different and therefor more special that everyone else. Derived from too many parents telling their kids they are "special," like a "snowflake." Typically used by those in the customer service or retail industry to refer to bad customers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Special has a definition, "Distinguished or different from what is ordinary or usual"
So. "distinguished or different from what is ordinary or usual in a manner which is harmful to the game."
Okay. I don't see why this concept is worth singling out as a particularly vile variety of disruptive behavior by players. Accusations of special snowflakes really just seem to be a slightly obfuscated accusations of badwrongfun. People playing unordinary characters aren't doing so to harm everyone else's run. Rather, they want to play this kind of character because it is the kind of character they enjoy playing. That is, banning them from playing this kind of character harms their enjoyment of the game.
Singling out unordinary characters with the label of special snowflake is privileging the fun of some people---those who like ordinary or usual characters---over the fun of others---those who like "special snowflake" characters. Of course, "ordinary" and "usual" aren't really well-defined here, they really just mean what the accuser thinks is (or more often, what ought be) normal. So really it's just an accusation that people who like different things are bad and harming your fun.
Perhaps we should come up with a label for people whose brown-haired white male human fighters with greatswords ruin everyone else's fun. Maybe that would be a productive way to get those raising the specter of the special snowflake to realize that they aren't on the objective side of fun. Because coming up with snappy pejoratives for kinds of roleplaying you don't like is always so productive.
Special has a definition, "Distinguished or different from what is ordinary or usual"
So. "distinguished or different from what is ordinary or usual in a manner which is harmful to the game."
Okay. I don't see why this concept is worth singling out as a particularly vile variety of disruptive behavior by players. Accusations of special snowflakes really just seem to be a slightly obfuscated accusations of badwrongfun. People playing unordinary characters aren't doing so to harm everyone else's run. Rather, they want to play this kind of character because it is the kind of character they enjoy playing. That is, banning them from playing this kind of character harms their enjoyment of the game.
Singling out unordinary characters with the label of special snowflake is privileging the fun of some people---those who like ordinary or usual characters---over the fun of others---those who like "special snowflake" characters. Of course, "ordinary" and "usual" aren't really well-defined here, they really just mean what the accuser thinks is (or more often, what ought be) normal. So really it's just an accusation that people who like different things are bad and harming your fun.
Perhaps we should come up with a label for people whose brown-haired white male human fighters with greatswords ruin everyone else's fun. Maybe that would be a productive way to get those raising the specter of the special snowflake to realize that they aren't on the objective side of fun. Because coming up with snappy pejoratives for kinds of roleplaying you don't like is always so productive.
Its privileging the fun of the entire group over that one person.
If you like different things and that like of different things is not disruptive of the game, it doesn't fit to the definition, so you can drop the persecution complex at the door.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay. I don't see why this concept is worth singling out as a particularly vile variety of disruptive behavior by players.
To be honest - it isn't. It's just this is one in a string of threads that's been arguing back and forth whether the GM is evil incarnate for refusing to take the character, or whether the player is attempting to cast the game into the dark pit by making demands.
Everyone puts their own spin on it until we end up with it all blown out of proportion. Which it has been. Horribly.
End of the day, each table has its own style and its own rules, and as long as it's working for that group (or even if it isn't) none of us has the right to tell them how to run their game. If GMs want to say no, they can. If players want to get rid of their GM for saying no, they can. If people want to allow anything they want, they can. Nobody anywhere is doing it wrong.
Its privileging the fun of the entire group over that one person.
If you like different things and that like of different things is not disruptive of the game, it doesn't fit to the definition, so you can drop the persecution complex at the door.
Well, assuming that it's the whole group that doesn't like the character, and not just the one person who really, really hates catfolk. But that wasn't something you mentioned as part of being a "special snowflake".
I suppose though, if you are in a group where everyone else absolutely cannot have fun if you play a character you like, you probably would have more fun in another group. The other people in that hypothetical group just seem like sticks in the mud.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps we should come up with a label for people whose brown-haired white male human fighters with greatswords ruin everyone else's fun.
Valeros?
It may get it's own special terminology and so many discussions because it's one of the few types of disruptive behavior that has passionate defenders?
That is not how cause and effect works.
Perhaps we should come up with a label for people whose brown-haired white male human fighters with greatswords ruin everyone else's fun.Valeros?
Nah, he TWFs with a longsword and a shortsword. Totes a special snowflake and should be banned.
Its privileging the fun of the entire group over that one person.
If you like different things and that like of different things is not disruptive of the game, it doesn't fit to the definition, so you can drop the persecution complex at the door.
Well, assuming that it's the whole group that doesn't like the character, and not just the one person who really, really hates catfolk. But that wasn't something you mentioned as part of being a "special snowflake".
I suppose though, if you are in a group where everyone else absolutely cannot have fun if you play a character you like, you probably would have more fun in another group. The other people in that hypothetical group just seem like sticks in the mud.
Why does it matter if I said "the whole group"? Its at the expense of the game. The point of the game is for the group to have fun. Its a self evident statement. It doesn't need saying ...
And "can't have fun if you play a character you like" - talk about 'snappy pejoratives'. And talk about burning fields of straw men.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, quick history lesson for people just recently joining the debate.
It all started here:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2q7k1?Gaming-the-system-versus-imaginative-crea tivity
Where RavingDork was asking about why his creative ideas for character creation get frowned on while it's okay for a GM or game developer to make things up at the drop of a hat.
Things were rather civilized for a while, until a certain individual decided to label GMs who didn't allow whatever they decided to bring to the table as "unimaginative and inexperienced."
After that, people started getting defensive. Things escalated on both sides of the argument. A few of us actually started seeing things from both sides around then, while others put away conventional forces and started unleashing the nukes.
And.. that's how we ended up with people being branded "special snowflakes" in this thread instead of it being phrased more politely.
Here endeth the lesson :)
Here endeth the lesson :)
The more you know!
Actually I think it started earlier than that because the same topics come up now and then. Maybe that's just the cyclical nature of things, and some of us have been on the forum for a while so we just happen to be there...
Why does it matter if I said "the whole group"? Its at the expense of the game. The point of the game is for the group to have fun. Its a self evident statement. It doesn't need saying ...
Whose game? Is it fun to be told to play a different character because your concept is too different? You make it seem as though the group---with the exception of the lone special snowflake-playing character---are homogenous and all enjoy the same things. They all want a game with a human fighter, a dwarf cleric, an elf wizard, and a halfling rogue fighting waves of indistinguishable CE orcs and undead led by an evil necromancer (who is evil because EVIL!) and his pet dragon. The disruptive and bad special snowflake wants to play a gnome bard with perform (comedy) who loves puns, illusion spells, and dressing in bright colors.
Judging by the examples brought up in this thread of special snowflakes, I think it's more likely that the only person who has a problem with some of the special snowflakes is the person making the complaint. It's not a case of a single player rebelling against the norms of a group, but rather one player not liking the character of another player.
|
the issue i see here is the use of the term "special Snowflake" this can be termed as a good or bad thing depending on perspective. personally i always play a "special snowflake" as i have been playing Role playing games for decades (as lots have) i prefer to play something different every time i create a new character. I have often had my characters referred to as special snowflakes.
I believe the issue being discussed are characters that deliberately disrupt games and or are unable to productively contribute to the game.
sure I am guilty of some of those too.
what some of us take offense to is people dictating that they have disrupt a game or put unnecessary controls on a game to get rid of these types of characters. at the end of the day this is a role playing game and people should learn to be a little more flexible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here endeth the lesson :)The more you know!
Actually I think it started earlier than that because the same topics come up now and then. Maybe that's just the cyclical nature of things, and some of us have been on the forum for a while so we just happen to be there...
To be honest, it probably did - it's just that was the thread where I started replying! (and looking back, probably shouldn't have responded to certain troll posts)
Why does it matter if I said "the whole group"? Its at the expense of the game. The point of the game is for the group to have fun. Its a self evident statement. It doesn't need saying ...Whose game? Is it fun to be told to play a different character because your concept is too different? You make it seem as though the group---with the exception of the lone special snowflake-playing character---are homogenous and all enjoy the same things. They all want a game with a human fighter, a dwarf cleric, an elf wizard, and a halfling rogue fighting waves of indistinguishable CE orcs and undead led by an evil necromancer (who is evil because EVIL!) and his pet dragon. The disruptive and bad special snowflake wants to play a gnome bard with perform (comedy) who loves puns, illusion spells, and dressing in bright colors.
Judging by the examples brought up in this thread of special snowflakes, I think it's more likely that the only person who has a problem with some of the special snowflakes is the person making the complaint. It's not a case of a single player rebelling against the norms of a group, but rather one player not liking the character of another player.
If that character being different against group norms causes disruption that reduces the net group fun ...
And an interesting setting up of another straw man there. The field is getting a bit overcrowded.
To be honest, it probably did - it's just that was the thread where I started replying! (and looking back, probably shouldn't have responded to certain troll posts)Here endeth the lesson :)The more you know!
Actually I think it started earlier than that because the same topics come up now and then. Maybe that's just the cyclical nature of things, and some of us have been on the forum for a while so we just happen to be there...
The temptation is great. Nature of forums!
the issue i see here is the use of the term "special Snowflake" this can be termed as a good or bad thing depending on perspective. personally i always play a "special snowflake" as i have been playing Role playing games for decades (as lots have) i prefer to play something different every time i create a new character. I have often had my characters referred to as special snowflakes.
I believe the issue being discussed are characters that deliberately disrupt games and or are unable to productively contribute to the game.
sure I am guilty of some of those too.
what some of us take offense to is people dictating that they have disrupt a game or put unnecessary controls on a game to get rid of these types of characters. at the end of the day this is a role playing game and people should learn to be a little more flexible.
Including that one player having the flexibility to find a character which is, for whatever reason, less disruptive?
Talonhawke, TV tropes has a good definition (and is the most relevant one considering this is about role playing games):
Special Snowflake Syndrome
It's Friday night and you're running a Dungeons & Dragons campaign. You've invited four friends to play and they're submitting character concepts for your approval. Let's see, Johnny wants to be a human rogue: check. Alice wants to be an elven druid with a pet snake: Check. Bob wants to be a gnome bard: Check. Steve wants to be a wakyambi shaman. Che—wait, what? He eagerly pulls out two sourcebooks you've never heard of note and explains how Wakyambi are like African elves but with prehensile feet, and shaman are like clerics. Then why don't you just be an elven cleric? "Because Alice is already an elf!" he whines. You begrudgingly check the race and class's abilities. Nothing too gamebreaking. So now you're faced with the decision of allowing the character, though he'll probably hog the spotlight as no one has any idea what the hell he is and there's some reason why he's so far from home, or disallow him and deal with an irate player. Well, our mothers always told us we were special. We can be anything we want to be, right?
So maybe it's for this reason that when people create a character, they often choose the unusual. This can manifest in something as simple as being a member of a rare race and/or class. Or it can be a good-aligned member of an Always Chaotic Evil race, or vice versa. Players may even go so far as to make up a race/class altogether, so as to be truly unique. This can also show up in fiction when an author writes a character with aspects of themselves in it. It is especially common in Author Avatars and Mary Sues. But this is not always a bad thing, for many compelling and interesting protagonists have these kinds of traits. There's something compelling about a character who is bucking the social norms or defying his entire race. If nothing else, a great deal of angst can be milked from it.
Of course, some people may want to play as something weird solely for the mechanical benefits, mixing traits and templates with no concern for how such a being would fit into the setting (or is physically possible, for that matter). The wise gamemaster is advised not to allow such a monstrosity unless the powergamer can explain exactly how a half-vampire, half-dragon Warforged came into being. Others will do it just to be disruptive or to refuse to play along with the campaign's genre because it doesn't interest them.
In role-playing, the most common form of special snowflake are the Drizzt clones themselves. Drizzt Do'Urden is himself a victim of this trope, and it, along with being a noble Badass wielding dual scimitars, no doubt accounts for his popularity with the role-playing crowd. It's been remarked sarcastically that nowadays, all drow are good-hearted guys who shun their dark evil kin and become killing machines on the side of good.
Some gamemasters will forbid this kind of behavior, rolling their eyes at the guy who absolutely must play a dragon thief, Chaotic Good Drow ranger or an Avariel wereshark Elemental Archon of Fire. Whether a character is interesting has nothing to do with how esoteric his background is and everything to do with how well he's played. However, some will roll with it, letting people make up stat bonuses for the most ridiculous of races or classes.
Such creativity has its place, however: In a setting like Planescape (where hundreds of worlds collide) or Spelljammer (planet-hopping adventure) such characters are no problem, and, indeed, may add to the game.
In role-playing, the most common form of special snowflake are the Drizzt clones themselves.
But if Drizzt clones are so common, then they aren't unusual, disqualifying them from being special snowflakes.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Could you imagine it if some of the people talking about how the entire group is against a snowflake actually applied to everyone.
GM: You enter a cavern when you spot a monstrous orb covered in eye stalks with an enormous one eye in the center of it and a mouth dripping with slime from its sharp teeth. Roll Initiative!
Player 1: Hold it, that is a beholder.
GM: No, no, it is an Eye Master.
Player 2: Dude, you give it another name, but that is totally a beholder.
GM: So, what if it is.
Player 3: We agreed to play Pathfinder. Beholders are D&D protected IP. There are no beholders in PF.
GM: Yeah, but I renamed it, I totally found some cool undated stats for PF. It is great.
Player 4: Hands, who says that D&D protected IP monsters don't get played in our PF game.
*all the players raise their hands*
GM: But I had devised this entire set of encounters around my eye masters. I even bought a bunch of really expensive models. Can't we just use them this one time.
Player 4: Sorry dude, keep your special snowflakes for some other game when we aren't playing PF.
GM: (weakly to himself) ... but I love beholders.
In role-playing, the most common form of special snowflake are the Drizzt clones themselves.But if Drizzt clones are so common, then they cannot be unusual, disqualifying them from being special snowflakes.
Unless you have a group full of Drizzt clones how does that disqualify them?
Unless you have a group full of Drizzt clones how does that disqualify them?
If there's only one generic human fighter in the group, is that character a special snowflake?
I think you are blatantly missing the point,but that's all right. At this point I'm pretty sure you don't want to get the point, as it might deconstruct the soapbox.
Some life of Brian ...
Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't need to follow me. You don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves! You're all individuals!
Crowd: [in unison] Yes! We're all individuals!
Brian: You're all different!
Crowd: [in unison] Yes, we are all different!
Man in crowd: I'm not...
Crowd: Shhh!
Unless you have a group full of Drizzt clones how does that disqualify them?If there's only one generic human fighter in the group, is that character a special snowflake?
Is his difference disruptive to the campaign?
Is his difference disruptive to the campaign?Unless you have a group full of Drizzt clones how does that disqualify them?If there's only one generic human fighter in the group, is that character a special snowflake?
You said that a character has to be unusual in order to be a special snowflake. Drizzt clones don't qualify, since they are so common and well-known.
Unless you have a group full of Drizzt clones how does that disqualify them?If there's only one generic human fighter in the group, is that character a special snowflake?
Is being a human fighter especially creative or unique? Probably not.
Drizzt clones aren't especially creative or unique. What's your point?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It may get it's own special terminology and so many discussions because it's one of the few types of disruptive behavior that has passionate defenders?
This may indeed be the case. From what I can tell by the multiple threads on the same subject, it comes down to the word "no" and whether or not the GM or the rest of the group has the right or ability to tell someone that a certain character concept is disruptive or unwanted.
You said that a character has to be unusual in order to be a special snowflake. Drizzt clones don't qualify, since they are so common and well-known.Is his difference disruptive to the campaign?Unless you have a group full of Drizzt clones how does that disqualify them?If there's only one generic human fighter in the group, is that character a special snowflake?
Also said that the baseline for unusual is based upon the campaign, remember?
So if its a "we be Goblins" game, then yes a human fighter is unusual.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It may get it's own special terminology and so many discussions because it's one of the few types of disruptive behavior that has passionate defenders?This may indeed be the case. From what I can tell by the multiple threads on the same subject, it comes down to the word "no" and whether or not the GM or the rest of the group has the right or ability to tell someone that a certain character concept is disruptive or unwanted.
And given that none of us have the right to tell those groups and GMs what rules they can and can't have, it's all kinda academic :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It may get it's own special terminology and so many discussions because it's one of the few types of disruptive behavior that has passionate defenders?This may indeed be the case. From what I can tell by the multiple threads on the same subject, it comes down to the word "no" and whether or not the GM or the rest of the group has the right or ability to tell someone that a certain character concept is disruptive or unwanted.And given that none of us have the right to tell those groups and GMs what rules they can and can't have, it's all kinda academic :)
Right. Advice on this is like advice on relationships or parenting. What works for you and your group may not work for the next. One person's concept is disruptive here and a wonder there.
So if its a "we be Goblins" game, then yes a human fighter is unusual.
Strange, the only time human fighters are called potential special snowflakes is when defending the usage of the term. No one, when just coming up with natural examples, mentioned human fighters.
So if its a "we be Goblins" game, then yes a human fighter is unusual.Strange, the only time human fighters are called potential special snowflakes is when defending the usage of the term. No one, when just coming up with natural examples, mentioned human fighters.
Except that's the whole reason behind the discussion - there are no natural examples, it's down to how individuals see things and their own particular preferences in the style, color, and general feel of the game they want to be in. In terms of this discussion, anything can be a "special snowflake" depending on the situation (the people playing, the setting they're playing in, and the campaign they want) it is being brought into.
The very term is probably inaccurate for these purposes anyway. A more accurate thread title would be "why should your character be accepted when there are objections to it?"
To which my only real answer can be "if there are any objections, at least one person is going to have to either compromise or leave, so isn't it better to instead discuss ways to prevent these issues from occurring in the first place?"
Drizzt clones aren't especially creative or unique. What's your point?
Drizzt WAS very creative and unique. Does copying a unique idea remove it's creativity? No.
So if its a "we be Goblins" game, then yes a human fighter is unusual.Strange, the only time human fighters are called potential special snowflakes is when defending the usage of the term. No one, when just coming up with natural examples, mentioned human fighters.
Not true.
However, when you are giving examples, you don't tend to give examples using the edge cases, you give examples using the more common cases.
I guess at this rate I'll just have to keep linking to the definition. It's all in there.
Drizzt WAS very creative and unique. Does copying a unique idea remove it's creativity? No.
I disagree, but I fail to see the relevance of this.
Drizzt clones aren't especially creative or unique. What's your point?Drizzt WAS very creative and unique. Does copying a unique idea remove it's creativity? No.
Of the original? No*. Of the copies? Absolutely.
*Actually it can. Take the case of John Carter. So many writers and screen writers have used aspects of the John Carter stories that when a movie was actually made based around (a hollywood version of) the original character, it was seen as derivative itself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a guy who is "technically" a Drizzt clone in my campaign. He's a NG Drow Alchemist, but with a very cool twist: He has a murderous alter-ego who takes over every now and then. Let's just say that whenever he goes Feral Mutagen, someone is in for a rather horrific death.
So he is kind of the "token good-aligned Drow" but he plays his character with such passion and flair that I don't really care.
I guess that's the real message: If you're gonna play a special snowflake, you should acknowledge your special snowflakeness and play it for all it's worth.
I just wonder why some people here consider the restricting of race selection and refusal for compromise to be things worth bragging about.
When a race is clearly overpowered or just goes against the campaign setting itself (this latte being rare IMO), then I can understand a ban or two.
When a race is clearly overpowered or just goes against the campaign setting itself (this latte being rare IMO), then I can understand a ban or two.
There's also the possibility that while the race exists in the setting, it just doesn't fit the desired flavor of the specific campaign. That isn't just applicable to the character's race though, it's more the entire character concept.
That is also something I can understand. If the race choice goes against what the campaign stands for, then a ban might be appropriate.
However, I usually see the person asking for such a race or class to just be the kind of distruptive jerk who deliberately tries to mess with the DM.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is also something I can understand. If the race choice goes against what the campaign stands for, then a ban might be appropriate.
However, I usually see the person asking for such a race or class to just be the kind of distruptive jerk who deliberately tries to mess with the DM.
I'd be tempted to agree with that. If I told someone the setting and theme of the game, and they came back with a totally off-the-wall concept that obviously didn't fit and then refused to even enter a discussion about how we could adapt the idea to make it work, then proceeded to tell me what a terrible GM I am for not automatically accepting them, I'd certainly be considering placing them in disruptive jerk territory.
That's pretty much the only time I'd be telling someone "no". I'm far less likely to refuse just because it's a non-core race, for example. My usual rules are "Any core race is fine, anything else just run it past me." - as long as they come up with a neat story that doesn't feel forced as to why they're there, and it's an overall fit for the theme, I'm probably going to agree to it.
It's unfortunate the title of this thread makes it sound overly hostile towards players with any kind of unusual character concept whatsoever, when for many of us it's only the ones that go way too far over the top that are the problem.
(That said, I have been known to run games that are extremely restrictive on race, but they're very much the exception rather than the rule and are for very specific purposes such as telling the story of a band of elven rangers. Usually I'm a lot more open than that, but in the interests of being completely honest I felt I should highlight that too.)
You said that a character has to be unusual in order to be a special snowflake. Drizzt clones don't qualify, since they are so common and well-known.
To be fair, your special and uniqueness has nothing to do with how many players across the world may or may not be drooling over your character concept, and has everything to do with how you fit into the setting.
Drizzt is certainly 'special and unique' in a setting where good surface-dwelling drow never happen. Just as dark haired human fighters might be 'special and unique' in a drow-only campaign.
Really, I find that it all tends to come down to 'that one guy'. You know the one. The GM is pitching a drow-focused game. The players are all "yay!" and then one guy goes "Cool. I'll play a sun elf cleric of Corellon Larethian."
Maaaybe he has an amazing idea for how to fit that into a drow-only game. More likely he wasn't really paying attention and missed the campaign premises. Or maybe he just likes to be the 'special and unique' guy; the changeling in a pack of werewolves.
And that's fine if everyone's cool with it. Heck, some settings (RIFT, Planescape, etc.) were specifically written to cater to that sort of preference (although, ironically, most of the 'special and unique' guys I've dealt with don't like it if they can't be the only 'special and unique' guy.)
But there's a time and a place for everything. If you end up with an evil GM who wants to repress your freedom of speech by denying you your star elf vampire (half) concept, instead of getting angry, think of it as a good thing: an opportunity to try something different than what you usually play.