Of course, there's always the ultimate in-game solution.
Steve brings his Awakened Pony to my game. I groan, but start the game off.
After five minutes, a giant boulder drops on Steve's character for 6d20 damage. Luckily, a passing NPC reincarnates them. Oh, look, you're now an Elf.
Steve likely storms off in a huff at this point, and refuses to play at my table ever again. Half the players at the table will likely never trust me again, either.
So much easier just to tell him in the first place that character doesn't fit the desired theme for the campaign, though, and work with him to find an alternative.
If the setting has no elves and you demand to play one, then there is no way we are both getting what we want in details.
Only if what you really really want is for there to be no elves. Is that really an essential component of your campaign? I could understand if you wanted to not have stereotypical better-than-thou elves, or if you wanted to have the campaign center around the disappearance of an ancient society, or if you wanted to portray a group of dwarves of having committed genocide on another race. Those all seem like legitimate things you might want to put in the setting. They can be fulfilled without having no elves in the setting, however. I'm having a hard time coming up with a desire you could have that can only be fulfilled by having no elves in the fantasy setting with magic, large and strange beasts, and funny-looking humanoids. If it's just a desire to enforce a certain kind of normality on the setting (i.e. humans only) then I'm not sure why we're playing Pathfinder.
Also, it depends on why I want to play an elf. Do I want my character to have lived for hundreds of years? Do I just want the specific combination of mechanical bonuses? Do I want my character to come from a culture with a long history of working with magic? I do think that it's possible for both of us to get what we want.
Vivienne, my understanding of your argument here is that I see your position as essentially assuming that in any dispute between player and GM, the GM is being the "special snowflake".
You misunderstand my position.
Save time, make it a "Reincarnating Boulder"
I like it.
Or maybe even the "Rod of Life and Death" that shoots a bolt that first kills you, and follows up by reincarnating... (dammit, there goes my RPG Superstar entry idea...)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the setting has no elves and you demand to play one, then there is no way we are both getting what we want in details.Only if what you really really want is for there to be no elves. Is that really an essential component of your campaign? I could understand if you wanted to not have stereotypical better-than-thou elves, or if you wanted to have the campaign center around the disappearance of an ancient society, or if you wanted to portray a group of dwarves of having committed genocide on another race. Those all seem like legitimate things you might want to put in the setting. They can be fulfilled without having no elves in the setting, however. I'm having a hard time coming up with a desire you could have that can only be fulfilled by having no elves in the fantasy setting with magic, large and strange beasts, and funny-looking humanoids. If it's just a desire to enforce a certain kind of normality on the setting (i.e. humans only) then I'm not sure why we're playing Pathfinder.
Also, it depends on why I want to play an elf. Do I want my character to have lived for hundreds of years? Do I just want the specific combination of mechanical bonuses? Do I want my character to come from a culture with a long history of working with magic? I do think that it's possible for both of us to get what we want.
Vivienne, my understanding of your argument here is that I see your position as essentially assuming that in any dispute between player and GM, the GM is being the "special snowflake".You misunderstand my position.
Ah, the argument again that if you have one fantastic element there can be no good reason not to have all of them ...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it's just a desire to enforce a certain kind of normality on the setting (i.e. humans only) then I'm not sure why we're playing Pathfinder.
Bear in mind that Pathfinder is just a set of rules mechanics, it doesn't define the settting. If I want to run my game in the Elder Scrolls setting, there are no Dwarves (okay, there's a race called dwarves, but they're just an elf variant), and introducing them would probably annoy any players that came to the game to play in that setting.
Good reasons are so subjective.
Including the 'good reason' they have to, just HAVE to play an elf already stated to be nonexistent?
Yep! And the 'good reason' they have to, just HAVE to make sure elves are completely nonexistent.Good reasons are so subjective.Including the 'good reason' they have to, just HAVE to play an elf already stated to be nonexistent?
Becuase its part of the setting. The setting which was already made and pitched to the players who then chose to play in it. If you didn't want to play in that setting, you shouldn't have decided to.
Vivienne, my understanding of your argument here is that I see your position as essentially assuming that in any dispute between player and GM, the GM is being the "special snowflake".You misunderstand my position.
Good, that's great to hear.
So to demonstrate how that is true, please provide me a couple of examples where you think the GM is perfectly reasonable in saying "No, you can't play your [elf, dwarf, good aligned drow, awakened pony, sentient mud geyser, etc.] in this campaign setting" because so far I've only seen you explain how it is completely unreasonable. Thus my confusion with your position.
Ah, the argument again that if you have one fantastic element there can be no good reason not to have all of them ...
I don't want the setting to have all fantastic elements, just elves. I couldn't care less whether gryphons are in the setting.
Anyway, I'm waiting on what it is you want that can only be fulfilled by having no elves in the setting.
If I want to run my game in the Elder Scrolls setting, there are no Dwarves (okay, there's a race called dwarves, but they're just an elf variant), and introducing them would probably annoy any players that came to the game to play in that setting.
To be honest, this is one reason I generally don't like playing or especially running games in already established settings. It removes power over the setting from the DM and the group. The Elder Scrolls setting being established for a series of video games just compounds the problems. What makes for a good video game setting doesn't necessarily make for a good tabletop game setting, just like what makes for a good book doesn't necessarily make for a good movie.
That aside, if you are committed to following an established 3rd-party canon, then yeah, you can't make changes. I'm willing to admit that this is an exception to my approach and is one reason why I personally wouldn't run a game set in The Elder Scrolls universe.
Ah, the argument again that if you have one fantastic element there can be no good reason not to have all of them ...I don't want the setting to have all fantastic elements, just elves. I couldn't care less whether gryphons are in the setting.
Anyway, I'm waiting on what it is you want that can only be fulfilled by having no elves in the setting.
If I want to run my game in the Elder Scrolls setting, there are no Dwarves (okay, there's a race called dwarves, but they're just an elf variant), and introducing them would probably annoy any players that came to the game to play in that setting.To be honest, this is one reason I generally don't like playing or especially running games in already established settings. It removes power over the setting from the DM and the group. The Elder Scrolls setting being established for a series of video games just compounds the problems. What makes for a good video game setting doesn't necessarily make for a good tabletop game setting, just like what makes for a good book doesn't necessarily make for a good movie.
That aside, if you are committed to following an established 3rd-party canon, then yeah, you can't make changes. I'm willing to admit that this is an exception to my approach and is one reason why I personally wouldn't run a game set in The Elder Scrolls universe.
I am following an established third party cannon: mine.
I am waiting for the character concept that can ONLY be fulfilled by an elf.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I've learned some important things over the past week or so of this and the related threads.
- Not everyone places the same values on the same things.
- Not everyone is willing to accept that not everyone places the same values on the same things.
- It's wrong to expect everyone to be able to get along together in the same game, because it's possible to hold strongly opposing viewpoints that mean the two of you at the same table is likely to result in a large crater and pieces of rulebook fluttering down gently to the ground up to half a mile away.
- Anyone that comes along with a strong demand ("...or I'm not playing!") is probably someone I don't want to be in a game with anyway, so not allowing them in my games is going to keep us both happy, as is avoiding GMs that do the same.
- Even GMs get it wrong sometimes!
- Compromise is not a one-sided thing.
- Joining a group (as either player or GM) without the attitude "I'll do my part to make this work" is not going to make you any friends.
- Communication is probably the most important thing of all. Give players the information they need to see if they even want to play in your game, and discuss issues rather than saying "no" or walking away in a huff. Tell GMs your expectations to avoid problems later. Whoever you talk to, be prepared to accept the possibility that you're not going to be able to work together.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose the humorous thing, to me, about the depth and breadth of this discussion, is that most of the people who disagree are not going to have this problem arise, either at a table or on these game boards with the member they are disagreeing with.
So, what are you arguing about?
If TOZ, Viv, and Cir*were chained to a The Sultan! with a few of the other posters and told that they must play RoRL together or the universe was doomed
…I think it would be hilarious.
*(not meant to imply that these three are argumentative, just a random sampling of names)
Meh. We didn't need the universe anyway.
Good, that's great to hear.
So to demonstrate how that is true, please provide me a couple of examples where you think the GM is perfectly reasonable in saying "No, you can't play your [good aligned drow, awakened pony, sentient mud geyser, etc.] in this campaign setting" because so far I've only seen you explain how it is completely unreasonable. Thus my confusion with your position.
You seem to be identifying being a special snowflake player/DM with being in the wrong on a point of conflict. My contention isn't that one group or another is in the right on this conflict. Rather, my point is that it possible to resolve these conflicts so that everyone can have what they want. The DM is only singled out due to their position of power within the group.
I don't think special snowflake players/DMs exist. Or at least, if they do exist, they are incredibly rare. What I think happens is a group of people come together and have desires that, on the face of it, appear to be contradictory. However, I think that a group of friends coming together to play Pathfinder can work it out so that everyone gets what they want. Sure, people might have to compromise on some unimportant details, but I think everyone can end up with the essential components of what they wanted.
Another hypothetical:
GM is running a game and is completely flexible, to the point that anything a player wants is acceptable. Want to play an intelligent stalk of poison ivy? Done. Want to play a sentient mud geyser? No problem.
Now, the GM sets up the campaign and all the players agree to play by the (lack of) restrictions and they all bring their characters to the table.
But the sentient mud geyser player is filling the role of battlefield control and another player has chosen to play a hive mind swarm of mayflies that is ALSO in the role of battlefield controller. Not wanting to overbalance the party, the mayfly hive mind player demands that the sentient mud geyser player adopt the role of healer or they won't play.
Acceptable behavior? If not, why not?
no idea man. I don't play with party role concepts in mind- its alien to me in many ways. I have no problem with multiples of a class in a party if that's what you're asking.
But for the sentient mud geyser player, it is exactly the same thing Vivianne. She just wants to play a battlefield controller with her sentient mud geyser, but the mayfly swarm hive mind player is saying "You can't play that because it conflicts with my own character concept."The concepts don't conflict. There's nothing conflicting about having two battlefield controllers in one party. From experience, I can tell you it can actually be really effective. The mud geyser player is being unreasonable by demanding that other players change their characters. I would find it unreasonable for someone playing a drow character to demand everyone else not play drow so that they can be the only drow in the party.Ah-ha! This gives me an idea.
Al talks to GM about their character. In this campaign world, Drow are extinct.
They work with the GM to come up with a great back story about being the last surviving Drow, with an ongoing subplot that will hinge on their despair of being alone and possibly resolve itself somehow in a year or so (real time) of play.
Bob talks to GM about their character. Wants to play the last surviving Drow.
Story-wise, this will utterly ruin the concept for both of them. Being "the last two surviving Drow" just isn't the same in dramatic terms, and neither are happy with it.
So, everyone. You're the GM. What do you do?
they are a "mated pair", saved by the dragon of merekle (sp!) and chosen specifically to save their race. So naturally, they hate each other, but the dragon proclaims the survivability of an endangered species to be superior to personal feelings. So they left the island, avoiding/surviving thr dragons servants who have been ordered to make them stay and mate. They are on the mainland now, and there are enchanters hot on their trail, to cast spells upon them to each make the other their hearts desire.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good, that's great to hear.
So to demonstrate how that is true, please provide me a couple of examples where you think the GM is perfectly reasonable in saying "No, you can't play your [good aligned drow, awakened pony, sentient mud geyser, etc.] in this campaign setting" because so far I've only seen you explain how it is completely unreasonable. Thus my confusion with your position.
You seem to be identifying being a special snowflake player/DM with being in the wrong on a point of conflict. My contention isn't that one group or another is in the right on this conflict. Rather, my point is that it possible to resolve these conflicts so that everyone can have what they want. The DM is only singled out due to their position of power within the group.
I don't think special snowflake players/DMs exist. Or at least, if they do exist, they are incredibly rare. What I think happens is a group of people come together and have desires that, on the face of it, appear to be contradictory. However, I think that a group of friends coming together to play Pathfinder can work it out so that everyone gets what they want. Sure, people might have to compromise on some unimportant details, but I think everyone can end up with the essential components of what they wanted.
... So you are saying that both can win by the gm giving in completely, the player getting exactly what they want and the gm getting nothing.
Niiiiice.
Odd definition of a compromise, but if you are the player, niiiiice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am following an established third party cannon: mine.
That's not what third-party means.
If TOZ, Viv, and Cir*were chained to a The Sultan! with a few of the other posters and told that they must play RoRL together or the universe was doomed
…I think it would be hilarious.
I do have an idea for a human paladin I want to play. Basically free Raise Dead from 7th level on isn't special snowflakey, right?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, we should all act like adults.
However, I've been reading this thread, including the dozens of deleted comments, and it has been repeatedly stated or implied that for a GM to have a game preference that conflicts with a player's desire is not acceptable, the GM is EXPECTED to figure out how to accommodate the "special snowflake" player.
Actually many people have posted situations where the player is saying, "Look here is how I can make it work in the setting. I will sacrifice my character's options and resources so that this character fits into the rest of the setting." And we've had people saying the GM should stand their ground saying, "It doesn't matter if you could make it work. I want the idea to fail, thus all your solutions won't work."
My problem is the fundamental assertion I have seen here over and over that the GM has some special "responsibility" to accommodate special snowflakes.
I think the special responsibility is not to keep throwing up roadblocks unnecessarily. If the player offers a solution, even if it is not the 100% most perfect solution in existence, if it allows the game to work, the GM should be willing to go with it a bit.
The setting has all elves being killed off 200 years ago. How can there be an elf PC? Possible solution, elf was stoned by a medusa (effectively in stasis) and was just recently freed by a break enchantment by some good cleric who had just defeated the medusa. The elf now has to hide their race (spending valuable skill points on disguise and/or spells slots and/or wealth).
That is reasonable plausible within a standard game setting (medusas and break enchantments do exist). Some assuming the game setting is fairly standard (except for the missing elves), a reasonable GM should be willing to go with that. It may not be their 100% most desirable outcome, but it is something they can live with. As long as the player knows they can't play up their "elfness" because they are suppose to be keeping it on the down-low. The GM gets his (almost entirely) elf-free setting and the player gets to play an (undercover) elf.
I just don't agree with the assertion that GMs are EXPECTED to accommodate whatever their players want, any more than the sentient mud geyser player should be expected to abandon their concept because the hive mind mayfly swarm player wants them to.
Guess what, we agree. But I don't think it is unreasonable to expect that a GM, given a reasonable way of mainly satisfying the setting and theme and accommodating the player's request, that the GM would agree. And I think if the request is reasonable and can be included in a reasonable fashion, then to deny it is ... unreasonable.
So I've learned some important things over the past week or so of this and the related threads.
- Not everyone places the same values on the same things.
- Not everyone is willing to accept that not everyone places the same values on the same things.
- It's wrong to expect everyone to be able to get along together in the same game, because it's possible to hold strongly opposing viewpoints that mean the two of you at the same table is likely to result in a large crater and pieces of rulebook fluttering down gently to the ground up to half a mile away.
- Anyone that comes along with a strong demand ("...or I'm not playing!") is probably someone I don't want to be in a game with anyway, so not allowing them in my games is going to keep us both happy, as is avoiding GMs that do the same.
- Even GMs get it wrong sometimes!
- Compromise is not a one-sided thing.
- Joining a group (as either player or GM) without the attitude "I'll do my part to make this work" is not going to make you any friends.
- Communication is probably the most important thing of all. Give players the information they need to see if they even want to play in your game, and discuss issues rather than saying "no" or walking away in a huff. Tell GMs your expectations to avoid problems later. Whoever you talk to, be prepared to accept the possibility that you're not going to be able to work together.
Bravo. That is everything that I believe should be taken from this thread.
If it's just a desire to enforce a certain kind of normality on the setting (i.e. humans only) then I'm not sure why we're playing Pathfinder.
Because everything else works well. System =/= setting. The quoted statement is not only entirely invalid, it's also meaningless. Avoid in the future, please.
Actually many people have posted situations where the player is saying, "Look here is how I can make it work in the setting. I will sacrifice my character's options and resources so that this character fits into the rest of the setting." And we've had people saying the GM should stand their ground saying, "It doesn't matter if you could make it work. I want the idea to fail, thus all your solutions won't work."
Probably untrue.
But, to paraphrase TOZ: "Unnecessarily" and "unreasonable/reasonable" are so subjective.
Reincarnate requires a willing soul. Steve's pony is happy with his final reward, thus Steve's pony's brother arrives to avenge his siblings death!
AVENGE ME! !!!!!
So, everyone. You're the GM. What do you do?Make their story "the last two surviving drow" instead and let them deal with being the Adam and Eve (or Adam and Steve) who may hate each others guts.
dammit, ninjaed!
137ben,
In my opinion the GM can sometimes be the "special snowflake" themselves.
It happens. "My world is so awesomely unique and special that it would be a crime against nature for me to modify if."
Most GMs aren't like that. The situation is usually "Geez, to work that into my campaign is a ton of work and not really the direction I wanted to go with it." Which competes on even terms with "I really want to play a hive mind mayfly swarm because it's totally awesome."
The solution is to avoid special snowflakes as players and GMs.
sooo.... awakened pony wizards are cool by you now?
|
I do have an idea for a human paladin I want to play. Basically free Raise Dead from 7th level on isn't special snowflakey, right?If TOZ, Viv, and Cir*were chained to a The Sultan! with a few of the other posters and told that they must play RoRL together or the universe was doomed
…I think it would be hilarious.
Man, if we were playing on a Sultan you wouldn't need chains for me.
Man, if we were playing on a Sultan you wouldn't need chains for me.I do have an idea for a human paladin I want to play. Basically free Raise Dead from 7th level on isn't special snowflakey, right?If TOZ, Viv, and Cir*were chained to a The Sultan! with a few of the other posters and told that they must play RoRL together or the universe was doomed
…I think it would be hilarious.
I've been there man. Its the promised land. Only thing missing were attractive dice bunnies/stallions to *ahem* help you roll.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, I think that a group of friends coming together to play Pathfinder can work it out so that everyone gets what they want. Sure, people might have to compromise on some unimportant details, but I think everyone can end up with the essential components of what they wanted.
I agree to this in principle.
And here's the "but":
What happens if it isn't a group of friends, and instead a GM recruiting random people?
And what if one person's idea of "unimportant details" is not the same as another person's?
When I look at the overall story that's about to be woven, I don't see it changing too much if I ask Bill (who lets say, has just found out about the game and has emailed me his character sheet, asking to join) to switch to a different race because the one he's chosen is a poor fit for the style of game we want, and is certainly a better candidate for compromise than a major change to the flavor of story we're going to be telling together.
On the other hand, playing that particular race can be very important to Bill.
I'm willing to work with Bill on finding an alternative concept he can enjoy, that doesn't spoil the flavor of the story, and even to make setting adjustments such as making room for a new race of his choosing on the map and working with him to write up their history.
The problem is that we hold different values on different parts of the game, and one of us is going to end up unhappy if we play together. Assuming this is a long-term ongoing campaign, I know there's no way I'm prepared to do that, and I don't think it's fair to ask him to either.
In this case, I'm not exactly happy with the label "tyrant" or "dictator" for pointing out to Bill that this isn't going to work, and personally think it's simply a case of "incompatible GM+Player". I certainly don't feel I owe it to Bill (who I only know from a single email he's sent me) to run a game for a year or more, for his enjoyment, at the cost of my own, or feel that setting up a game as GM puts me in any position of responsibility to him until I've taken him on as a player.
dammit, ninjaed!So, everyone. You're the GM. What do you do?Make their story "the last two surviving drow" instead and let them deal with being the Adam and Eve (or Adam and Steve) who may hate each others guts.
Thing is, it's going to be the players hating each others guts, and not their characters. And possibly both hating you as GM for not making the other player change so their concept works.
|
dammit, ninjaed!So, everyone. You're the GM. What do you do?Make their story "the last two surviving drow" instead and let them deal with being the Adam and Eve (or Adam and Steve) who may hate each others guts.Thing is, it's going to be the players hating each others guts, and not their characters. And possibly both hating you as GM for not making the other player change so their concept works.
Then they certainly aren't people I want to spend my time with.
Then they certainly aren't people I want to spend my time with.dammit, ninjaed!So, everyone. You're the GM. What do you do?Make their story "the last two surviving drow" instead and let them deal with being the Adam and Eve (or Adam and Steve) who may hate each others guts.Thing is, it's going to be the players hating each others guts, and not their characters. And possibly both hating you as GM for not making the other player change so their concept works.
Quite :)
dammit, ninjaed!So, everyone. You're the GM. What do you do?Make their story "the last two surviving drow" instead and let them deal with being the Adam and Eve (or Adam and Steve) who may hate each others guts.Thing is, it's going to be the players hating each others guts, and not their characters. And possibly both hating you as GM for not making the other player change so their concept works.
I've thought over this and my response is to ask...Steve (the second player to request a drow, if I got the name wrong)... To come up with a new concept because Al beat him to it question wise. My hope would be that Steve is adult enough to accept that.
I'd probably encourage Steve to play a descendent of or a character that helped in the elimination of the drow so that both players can have their personal dramatic moments in the game.
Matt Thomason, if you don't care about the people you're running a game for, then you don't care about the people you're running a game for. *shrug*
dammit, ninjaed!So, everyone. You're the GM. What do you do?Make their story "the last two surviving drow" instead and let them deal with being the Adam and Eve (or Adam and Steve) who may hate each others guts.Thing is, it's going to be the players hating each others guts, and not their characters. And possibly both hating you as GM for not making the other player change so their concept works.
I've thought over this and my response is to ask...Steve (the second player to request a drow, if I got the name wrong)... To come up with a new concept because Al beat him to it question wise. My hope would be that Steve is adult enough to accept that.
I'd probably encourage Steve to play a descendent of or a character that helped in the elimination of the drow so that both players can have their personal dramatic moments in the game.
Sometimes you don't get to play your first choice. I think that's something people need to accept. That doesn't absolve GMs of responsibility for trying to make it work, but I don't feel it makes them responsible for having to make it work.
So yes, sometimes you have to disappoint someone. Perhaps telling both of them no would work too, so as not to shove it in the other person's face when they see a Drow being played. Perhaps the solution is just to lock them in a room together and the one that crawls out gets to play the Drow. Perhaps you tell them both to find another game cause you don't want people that picky at the table. Perhaps you sit down with them both and manage to work out something they're both happy with.
Personally, I feel going into a game with the expectation you'll get to play a specific character concept no matter what is expecting too much. So is expecting that everyone will fit neatly into the campaign you're GMing. If both sides aren't willing to at least discuss options (if it turns out those options will not work either, that's fine, at least they tried), they're a bit too rigid for me to want either of them around in this or any future game anyway.
Matt Thomason, if you don't care about the people you're running a game for, then you don't care about the people you're running a game for. *shrug*
I never said that :P
I'm not running a game for that person. I'm running a game for the group I end up with. I'm not willing to let anyone into that group if they're not willing to cooperate with me and play nice with others, it just seems to be asking for trouble to do that. Once they're in the game, I most certainly do care about my players.
I care enough about them to want the right people for them to play with in the first place, and not someone that's likely to be a jerk and ruin the game for the entire table through their selfish attitude, or someone whose ideas are just too incompatible for the game to work out. As responsibility was mentioned earlier, it's my responsibility to make sure they get the right people to play with to allow everything to run as smoothly (out of game) as possible.
GEEEET YOUR STRAAAWMEN HERE!Good, that's great to hear.
So to demonstrate how that is true, please provide me a couple of examples where you think the GM is perfectly reasonable in saying "No, you can't play your [good aligned drow, awakened pony, sentient mud geyser, etc.] in this campaign setting" because so far I've only seen you explain how it is completely unreasonable. Thus my confusion with your position.
You seem to be identifying being a special snowflake player/DM with being in the wrong on a point of conflict. My contention isn't that one group or another is in the right on this conflict. Rather, my point is that it possible to resolve these conflicts so that everyone can have what they want. The DM is only singled out due to their position of power within the group.
I don't think special snowflake players/DMs exist. Or at least, if they do exist, they are incredibly rare. What I think happens is a group of people come together and have desires that, on the face of it, appear to be contradictory. However, I think that a group of friends coming together to play Pathfinder can work it out so that everyone gets what they want. Sure, people might have to compromise on some unimportant details, but I think everyone can end up with the essential components of what they wanted.
... So you are saying that both can win by the gm giving in completely, the player getting exactly what they want and the gm getting nothing.
Niiiiice.
Odd definition of a compromise, but if you are the player, niiiiice.
Given she has repeatedly stated that players character concept is important and constantly lists setting details as "unimportant" how is this NOT what is being said?
Given she has repeatedly stated that players character concept is important and constantly lists setting details as "unimportant" how is this NOT what is being said?
Link?
Just read the posts in this thread, I have to link to them?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Heh, I think my points have been amply demonstrated.
I will now return to my previous role as "lurker" on this thread since it is so much fun to read. Keep up the good work folks, this thread could be the raw material for a doctoral dissertation on entitlement of multiple types.
Actually, Vivianne did state here she can see room for compromise on the player side, too:
Also, it depends on why I want to play an elf. Do I want my character to have lived for hundreds of years? Do I just want the specific combination of mechanical bonuses? Do I want my character to come from a culture with a long history of working with magic? I do think that it's possible for both of us to get what we want.
Which to me is along the lines of "Player and GM discussing things to find an alternative that works for both." I'm happy to be corrected if that wasn't the intention of the statement, of course.
If the alternative does not necessitate adding in an elf which has specifically been stated not to exist then I've repeatedly said "what do you want to get out of the character, leaving aside the elf thing, and let's see how to accomplish it with the things that do exist."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
but there's like, wait, one...two...three, um, seventeenteen, scfifty, like a brazillion posts in this thread.
And of course then there's all the other threads related to it. I'm amazed the internet is big enough for it all :)