| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **
In order for your concern to be "making the game the most fun for everyone involved." you would actually need to be concerned about what other people think would be fun.
Since you don't seem to care what the GM (or other players) want...
You seem to be skipping over my posts where I say the opposite of what you claim I think. Nonetheless, I will make one concession. I don't have much sympathy for people who claim they can only enjoy the game if they get to control the choices of everyone else. I don't hold Alice's desire that no one play a spellcaster to be as important as Bob's desire to play a witch. I don't hold Chris's desire that the setting never have dragons to be as important as Diana's desire to run a campaign centered around dragons.
Of course, I don't think such people actually exist. I think Alice could enjoy the game perfectly well playing her barbarian while Bob plays his witch. I think people recognize that other people can like different things and that's okay!
You have plenty of choices. The first and chief among those is choosing which campaign to play in. As the restrictions involved are front and center in the campaign blurbs, if you chose to play in the one with no elves and then decide you have to play an elf, I have very little sympathy for you. Since a campaign doesn't go forward until I have at least four people, all of whom want to play in it ...
.. At that point it is incumbent on you to make something that fits out if the almost infinite variety of choices that can fit. Testing the edges about things not mentioned one way or the other, or that are somewhat nebulous is one thing - but 'I want to play in the campaign with no elves and I demand to play an elf". ... Is right out.
And if it greatly reduces the gms fun quotient, are you telling me there is no other option that would only marginally reduce the players fun quotient that he could play, thus reducing the fun quotient of the entire table by less overall?It's not about good or bad. It's about what the players and DM have the most fun with.And if a GM doesn't want to run a menagerie like that, they are a bad GM...While pondering on the actions of my former DM, I realized the ultimate irony. My current group consists of a Hobgoblin, a Ratfolk, a Tiefling and a Human. The Human is obviously the Special Snowflake around (his background was bordering on Gary Stu now that I think about it), and that character is played by my former DM. This character only ended up "normal" due to Reincarnate, which turned the man into a Bugbear. The fact that said player had hogged the spotlight so much that the other players complained to me about it just highlights the hypocrisy of that man.
At least I have the moral high ground, since I've never mocked his ideas behind his back like he has mine.
Depends on how much it really does reduce the GM's fun quotient.
I am willing to reduce mine for the sake of my players, since they are my friends.
So riddle me this. Does my willingness to do that make me any better or worse as a DM?
The overall fun at my table hasn't been reduced despite my reduction in DM fun, which is still high.
On the contrary, compared to my former DM, the overall fun at the table has been higher than average.
And does it make you a better player if you stretch your imagination to allow more than one concept to fit there and ... Just play something that fits into the campaign that you, after all, agreed to play in?
And does it make you a better player if you stretch your imagination to allow more than one concept to fit there and ... Just play something that fits into the campaign that you, after all, agreed to play in?And if it greatly reduces the gms fun quotient, are you telling me there is no other option that would only marginally reduce the players fun quotient that he could play, thus reducing the fun quotient of the entire table by less overall?It's not about good or bad. It's about what the players and DM have the most fun with.And if a GM doesn't want to run a menagerie like that, they are a bad GM...While pondering on the actions of my former DM, I realized the ultimate irony. My current group consists of a Hobgoblin, a Ratfolk, a Tiefling and a Human. The Human is obviously the Special Snowflake around (his background was bordering on Gary Stu now that I think about it), and that character is played by my former DM. This character only ended up "normal" due to Reincarnate, which turned the man into a Bugbear. The fact that said player had hogged the spotlight so much that the other players complained to me about it just highlights the hypocrisy of that man.
At least I have the moral high ground, since I've never mocked his ideas behind his back like he has mine.
Depends on how much it really does reduce the GM's fun quotient.
I am willing to reduce mine for the sake of my players, since they are my friends.
So riddle me this. Does my willingness to do that make me any better or worse as a DM?
The overall fun at my table hasn't been reduced despite my reduction in DM fun, which is still high.
On the contrary, compared to my former DM, the overall fun at the table has been higher than average.
I have so many characters to choose from that it never becomes a problem.
What does is that I get bored when I'm forced to play these concepts over and over.
The last time I got to play one of my homebrew races was an immensely satisfying change of pace.
Right now, that other group (myself included) are eagerly waiting for the DM of that game to continue it.
And does it make you a better player if you stretch your imagination to allow more than one concept to fit there and ... Just play something that fits into the campaign that you, after all, agreed to play in?And if it greatly reduces the gms fun quotient, are you telling me there is no other option that would only marginally reduce the players fun quotient that he could play, thus reducing the fun quotient of the entire table by less overall?It's not about good or bad. It's about what the players and DM have the most fun with.And if a GM doesn't want to run a menagerie like that, they are a bad GM...While pondering on the actions of my former DM, I realized the ultimate irony. My current group consists of a Hobgoblin, a Ratfolk, a Tiefling and a Human. The Human is obviously the Special Snowflake around (his background was bordering on Gary Stu now that I think about it), and that character is played by my former DM. This character only ended up "normal" due to Reincarnate, which turned the man into a Bugbear. The fact that said player had hogged the spotlight so much that the other players complained to me about it just highlights the hypocrisy of that man.
At least I have the moral high ground, since I've never mocked his ideas behind his back like he has mine.
Depends on how much it really does reduce the GM's fun quotient.
I am willing to reduce mine for the sake of my players, since they are my friends.
So riddle me this. Does my willingness to do that make me any better or worse as a DM?
The overall fun at my table hasn't been reduced despite my reduction in DM fun, which is still high.
On the contrary, compared to my former DM, the overall fun at the table has been higher than average.
I have so many characters to choose from that it never becomes a problem.
What does is...
You have few enough concepts that you have to keep playing them over again?
Okay folks, here is a little Posting 101. If you want to make multiple statements relating to different people, you do not have to post each and every one of them in their own individual post. You can with a bit of cut and paste, combine them into one post. This helps reduce the post count and page length (we don't have the extra spaces or to see your icon more than once). You have up until 1 hour to go back and edit a post. So if you think of something you want to add, you don't have to make a new post.
Now you know, and knowing is half the battle. (*G.I. Joe music plays*)
Compromise does not mean "You must find a way to give me what I want."
Compromise means "We should find something that we both want."
While the first is stated in a douche-baggy way, the idea of "there should be a way for me to get what I want" and "We should find something that we both want." don't necessarily have to be at odds. In many cases, but clearly not all, it is possible to do both.
See Arssanguinus's example earlier where he dropped in an entirely new city, new god, and an order of paladins. It is possible to find a way to fit that idea that the player wants, that doesn't currently exist AND still maintain and possibly enhance the game setting for the GM.
Was the Star Wars prequels better because Lucas had free rein and nobody challenging him and making him address other ideas? Or were the original trilogy better when there was more involvement from others, pushing him in directions he didn't originally want to go?
But I go with the "Make the setting worse and less fun to play" threshold.
How extreme is this? If it reduces the value of the setting and the fun level by 1% for the GM, but increases the player's level of fun by 50%, is that a reasonable trade-off or is any reduction in setting value and GM fun level unreasonable?
I only started having problems with my former DM because EVERY campaign he made had the same restrictions, and probably still do, which means I might never be able to play some of those cool ideas I have wanted to play. He takes the fluff seriously enough for me to enjoy his games otherwise (unlike the other group, where it's sometimes hard to get immersed due to their constant joking around), but his lack of flexibility has been grating on my nerves for quite a while. I'm still enjoying the change of pace that taking the DM seat for myself has given, since I decide what exists and what doesn't. The fact that my players (the former DM being one of them) seem to be enjoying it more than his campaigns only makes it more fun for me.Do you really want to be running your "cool concept" in the game of a gm who viscerally dislikes it anyway?
Why would he have let me DM for him if he hated them that much?
I made it clear to him that my homebrew races will be canon when I DM.
That is, unless I say otherwise, but so far this hasn't really come up with anyone.
You have few enough concepts that you have to keep playing them over again?
I'll forgive your misunderstanding. Those concepts are all "Core only", and that limitation is starting to bore me.
I only started having problems with my former DM because EVERY campaign he made had the same restrictions, and probably still do, which means I might never be able to play some of those cool ideas I have wanted to play. He takes the fluff seriously enough for me to enjoy his games otherwise (unlike the other group, where it's sometimes hard to get immersed due to their constant joking around), but his lack of flexibility has been grating on my nerves for quite a while. I'm still enjoying the change of pace that taking the DM seat for myself has given, since I decide what exists and what doesn't. The fact that my players (the former DM being one of them) seem to be enjoying it more than his campaigns only makes it more fun for me.Do you really want to be running your "cool concept" in the game of a gm who viscerally dislikes it anyway?Why would he have let me DM for him if he hated them that much?
I made it clear to him that my homebrew races will be canon when I DM.
That is, unless I say otherwise, but so far this hasn't really come up with anyone.
You have few enough concepts that you have to keep playing them over again?I'll forgive your misunderstanding. Those concepts are all "Core only", and that limitation is starting to bore me.
Concepts can only be different if they have a different race or class?
Some concepts don't work with just Core races as options. Some concepts only work with Core races as options.
I don't know how to explain it, but it's how I roll. One character fits perfectly as an elf, another only as a dwarf, and so on.
Can you envision Driz'zt as anything else than a drow? I'm pretty sure that not everyone can answer that question with an honest "yes".
You can't expect every person in the world to create characters the same way. It's why we don't roll up our stats the same way, or dream the same dreams.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some concepts don't work with just Core races as options. Some concepts only work with Core races as options.
I don't know how to explain it, but it's how I roll. One character fits perfectly as an elf, another only as a dwarf, and so on.
Can you envision Driz'zt as anything else than a drow? I'm pretty sure that not everyone can answer that question with an honest "yes".
You can't expect every person in the world to create characters the same way. It's why we don't roll up our stats the same way, or dream the same dreams.
Easily I can. Take his core elements.
1: matriarchal society
2: evil backstabbing society
3: rebels from that society
All can be fulfilled with something other than Drow.
Would it invoke the same kind of feel as Driz'zt?
I doubt it would. That's the point I'm trying to drive home.
And again, you just can't expect everyone to behave like you would.
Humanity is not a hivemind. It's why "agree to disagree" is sometimes the only option.
Would it invoke the same kind of feel as Driz'zt?
I doubt it would. That's the point I'm trying to drive home.
And again, you just can't expect everyone to behave like you would.
Humanity is not a hivemind. It's why "agree to disagree" is sometimes the only option.
So reverse that and apply it to the setting then.
Create a setting where humanity is a hivemind? That doesn't sound like such a bad idea, actually.
If I ever do decide to make that happen, maybe I'll name the leader of the hivemind after your username.
You know very well what I'm talking about. You seem to think that character concepts can exist ONLY as a certain race ... But refuse to countenance that a setting might work or "feel" right ONLY without a certain race. It wouldn't 'invoke the right feel' to use your term.
To be honest, I didn't really get what you meant at first. English isn't my native tongue, you know.
For my own part, I can only envision a character of mine in a certain race or class.
Character A can work just fine as a Human Paladin, but character B wouldn't.
Character B works fine as a Pirahnafolk Ranger, but not as an Elf Ranger, which would be Character C or someone else.
You know very well what I'm talking about. You seem to think that character concepts can exist ONLY as a certain race ... But refuse to countenance that a setting might work or "feel" right ONLY without a certain race. It wouldn't 'invoke the right feel' to use your term.
I don't know where you got the image of me claiming this isn't true. While I would work with a DM to include my homebrew races (and thus characters associated with them) into settings like Golarion or Eberron, I understand that they have no place in settings like Dark Sun / Athas or Ravenloft. The setting will naturally affect the kind of character I choose to play, and I don't think I've ever claimed otherwise. Again, my main problem is the options being too similar to one another with regards to campaign setting choices. It's like eating only one type of food every day. You naturally start to get sick of that taste, and want to try something else for a change.
To be honest, I didn't really get what you meant at first. English isn't my native tongue, you know.
For my own part, I can only envision a character of mine in a certain race or class.
Character A can work just fine as a Human Paladin, but character B wouldn't.
Character B works fine as a Pirahnafolk Ranger, but not as an Elf Ranger, which would be Character C or someone else.
You know very well what I'm talking about. You seem to think that character concepts can exist ONLY as a certain race ... But refuse to countenance that a setting might work or "feel" right ONLY without a certain race. It wouldn't 'invoke the right feel' to use your term.I don't know where you got the image of me claiming this isn't true. While I would work with a DM to include my homebrew races (and thus characters associated with them) into settings like Golarion or Eberron, I understand that they have no place in settings like Dark Sun / Athas or Ravenloft. The setting will naturally affect the kind of character I choose to play, and I don't think I've ever claimed otherwise. Again, my main problem is the options being too similar to one another with regards to campaign setting choices. It's like eating only one type of food every day. You naturally start to get sick of that taste, and want to try something else for a change.
You think that just because you remove something means that by default you haven't added something else?
You do know you're just arguing semantics now, right?
You do know you're just arguing semantics now, right?
Not even slightly.
|
It also assumes others agree your concept is good and would make the game better.
And what we know in this discussion is that at least one person doesn't.
Meaning we are discussing if you can force someone to run something they don't like, because you like it and are unwilling or unable to think of something you both might like.
Which is the core of the argument.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay folks, here is a little Posting 101. If you want to make multiple statements relating to different people, you do not have to post each and every one of them in their own individual post. You can with a bit of cut and paste, combine them into one post. This helps reduce the post count and page length (we don't have the extra spaces or to see your icon more than once). You have up until 1 hour to go back and edit a post. So if you think of something you want to add, you don't have to make a new post.
Now you know, and knowing is half the battle. (*G.I. Joe music plays*)
Compromise does not mean "You must find a way to give me what I want."
Compromise means "We should find something that we both want."
While the first is stated in a douche-baggy way, the idea of "there should be a way for me to get what I want" and "We should find something that we both want." don't necessarily have to be at odds. In many cases, but clearly not all, it is possible to do both.
See Arssanguinus's example earlier where he dropped in an entirely new city, new god, and an order of paladins. It is possible to find a way to fit that idea that the player wants, that doesn't currently exist AND still maintain and possibly enhance the game setting for the GM.
Was the Star Wars prequels better because Lucas had free rein and nobody challenging him and making him address other ideas? Or were the original trilogy better when there was more involvement from others, pushing him in directions he didn't originally want to go?
But I go with the "Make the setting worse and less fun to play" threshold.How extreme is this? If it reduces the value of the setting and the fun level by 1% for the GM, but increases the player's level of fun by 50%, is that a reasonable trade-off or is any reduction in setting value and GM fun level unreasonable?
Because there is only one possible idea the player has that they can enjoy....
They don't need to be at odds. The two can come up with some idea that they both think makes the game more fun.
Or one person can demand the other person make the game worse.
Even 1% worse is worse. So let's play your ridiculous math game. If the player is 50% happier, great. But if the player can come up with something that makes everyone 20% happier....
50 - 1 X 4 (all the other people) = 46
20 X 5 = 100
If you can't think of something else that others will actually enjoy having in the game, that is the opposite of being creative.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Very few things have been as hard to navigate in my life as those times when I was certain I was very very right, and a large number of people I knew were convinced I was very very wrong.
And if what is at hand is subjective...
At the end of the day, if you are halfway creative you can play another concept that you will still enjoy just as much, if not more since the GM will actually like the concept and be more invested in writing for it.
So just do that rather than demonizing someone you selected to be the GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And if it greatly reduces the gms fun quotient, are you telling me there is no other option that would only marginally reduce the players fun quotient that he could play, thus reducing the fun quotient of the entire table by less overall?Depends on how much it really does reduce the GM's fun quotient.
I am willing to reduce mine for the sake of my players, since they are my friends.
So riddle me this. Does my willingness to do that make me any better or worse as a DM?
I have no idea if it makes you better or worse, I'm not in your group :)
However, you're right on the nail when you say it depends on how much. It also depends on a lot of other factors, such as whether you're playing with friends or not (you are, others may not be), what it is exactly you're looking for out of the game (some people get their fun mainly from the game, some mainly from spending time with the group), whether there are preexisting social contracts in your group, and many others.
Personally, I'd rate your GM skills from how good a story you wove and whether it drew me in to participate, and would actually rate you better if you pointed out where my character wasn't a good fit for the intended campaign and helped me find a better alternative. Again though, I'm not your player right now so it doesn't really matter how I'd rate you, does it? :)
The only criteria you can rate anyone else's game by is "did everyone enjoy it enough to want to come back another time?" If they did, then the GM did their job well. Whether they could have done it better or worse is only for their specific players to say. Most of mine would likely call me out on doing a bad job if I let an extra player in that didn't suit the group, for example. Another group might just be happy to have an extra person at the table.
I just see far too much in this thread of people holding everyone else to their own personal standards, and not enough "well hey, it wouldn't work for me, but if it works for that group why should I object to how they're doing things?"
For some of us, we don't require that the people be friends to be willing to work a reasonable concept into the game. In fact, I would be a bit worried if only the GM's friends got consideration. That often leads to the GM's pet PC, that all the loot is for, and the challenges can only be overcome by their character and such.
Honestly, I'd rather game with a GM that told everyone, friend and strange alike, to get lost if they didn't like the smallest micrometer of the setting, than one that shows favoritism to their friends.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not to speak for Matt, but I think his points about playing with friends have a lot more to do with getting to know each other's preferences and play style than issues of favoritism.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For some of us, we don't require that the people be friends to be willing to work a reasonable concept into the game. In fact, I would be a bit worried if only the GM's friends got consideration. That often leads to the GM's pet PC, that all the loot is for, and the challenges can only be overcome by their character and such.
Honestly, I'd rather game with a GM that told everyone, friend and strange alike, to get lost if they didn't like the smallest micrometer of the setting, than one that shows favoritism to their friends.
What I mean is a GM that plays regularly with a group of friends is more inclined to bend over backwards and even break/totally rewrite large parts of their campaign to suit their group when they have unreasonable concepts, because the group is more likely to see "spending the time together" as the important thing.
A GM who is recruiting a group from strangers is more likely to draw the line at an unreasonable concept and say "well, I have four other people asking to join and they have characters who will fit far better. Sorry, but unless you're willing to work with me so we can find a way to make adjustments then I think I'll have to give the empty spot to one of those instead."
EDIT: Actually, that would be a pretty horrible way to put it, now I think about it. More likely it'd be a case of simply telling them they'll need to work with the GM on a new character concept if they're looking to play. Throwing "there's other people after that spot too" in their face is a kinda crappy thing to do to someone, even if it is what the GM happens to be thinking at the time.
They simply don't have any emotional investment in needing that particular player at the table when there are others who will fit in far better asking to join.
I wouldn't treat players at the same table differently. I may treat groups at different tables differently, as I may be trying to fulfill a different need from each of those games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, an example closer to my actual situation:
Lets say on Tuesdays I have my regular permanent group. We know and trust one another. We also work together perfectly, and don't get in arguments over silly things like whether or not this character will fit in. When I GM I'm pretty open with what I allow, because we're there to enjoy each other's company just as much as we're there to play the game. Likewise, we're not likely to get upset at each other if someone happens to hate an idea. We'll come out and say it, and usually someone will change something rather than have us falling out at one another over it. Sometimes someone will suggest a setting or system not everyone likes, and we could decide to run that on, say, Saturday with just the people that want in.
While on Thursdays, I'm running with my randomly-recruited group that are only together for the duration of a single campaign. It's usually a campaign with a certain theme in mind. I explain the theme to anyone asking to join, and tell them up front that anyone who wants to play is expected to fit into that theme. If they're happy with that, then they can email me their character (I live in the back of nowhere, it's unlikely anyone is going to come knocking on the door just to hand me a character sheet) and I'll talk to them about it.
In the latter group, usually they throw me a character that fits just fine. Sometimes, they throw me a character that doesn't fit, but it's a cool idea and can be made to work so I'll fit it in somehow. A very few times, it just hasn't fit at all, I've emailed them back and told them why, and we've worked together to fix it. Not once has there been a situation where both I and the player have been at an impasse. Not once have I experienced the sheer outright refusal on both sides to compromise that I've seen given in examples in these threads.
Two different groups. Two different ways of doing things. Two groups that to the best of my knowledge, unless people are talking behind my back about me and lying to my face, enjoy themselves.
If you want an analogy to better understand it:
Group A is the Hollywood blockbuster movie, where the director wants as many people as possible to want to come watch it. He'll make any change necessary in the interest of viewing figures.
Group B is the Indie director attempting to do something very specific for a niche audience. They're not interested in making changes to make the movie mainstream, as long as the people it is intended for show up and are happy with it.
Some of the suggestions I see in this thread are that those indie movies for niche audiences shouldn't exist, due to the fact it's unfair on the people that came to the movie theater and don't want to see them.
For some of us, we don't require that the people be friends to be willing to work a reasonable concept into the game. In fact, I would be a bit worried if only the GM's friends got consideration. That often leads to the GM's pet PC, that all the loot is for, and the challenges can only be overcome by their character and such.
Honestly, I'd rather game with a GM that told everyone, friend and strange alike, to get lost if they didn't like the smallest micrometer of the setting, than one that shows favoritism to their friends.
Nothing at all to do with that. But with someone I know well in the sense of having gamed with them a lot I have a good idea of how they are likely to handle something oddball and if I'll be able to work with them. The new guy? Don't know that ... Yet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Character concepts are a dime a dozen; if a player has one and only one concept that he absolutely MUST play, and he refuses to consider anything else, you don't want him in your game.
Caveat to that; it depends on exactly specific that concept is. If its "this is my concept, in excruciating detail and every bit of it is written in stone". Vs "here are the important parts of what makes this character exciting for me. How can I accomplish these within this milieu?'
If someone says that they desperately want to play someone like John McLain from die hard ... Ok, the basic concept can probably be translated to almost any milieu.
If they insist they have to be from modern earth and have a sidearm, etcetera ... Then, problem.
Oh yeah, John McClane is easy.
Yah. Just something off the top of my head, but you could imitate others that were more difficult ... But you would have to be ... Flexible ... In order to get flexibility back in return.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My basic method, as a player, for any concept is for me to write down the bare essentials of what I like about the concept with as few exact details as possible already filled in - strip it down to its essentials - then go to the gm and say ... I want a character that gives me this ... How can I best get that in this world? I think you would likely find almost all of them happy to try to help you with that. It almost always seems to get positive results for me. And as a bonus, the character fits right into the setting, and often the collaboration of making it fit ends up with a character that was better than what I started with.
On behalf, if somewhat unofficially, of all the other special snowflakes out there, I want to say thank you, we appreciate the dialog.
So I think we've beat down on the races bit of the special snowflake syndrom for a good long while now. Perhaps the next question ought to be if other bits and pieces are on the table, like banned archetypes, magical items and spells, and altered rules (like the recent argument over free actions). Are these deal breakers for people or are they less of an issue in saying yes or no?
I have mentioned it in this thread before, but I tend to dislike playing "evil" campaigns or GMing Evil PCs. I know that I forbid that alignment and request that my players play good aligned or stay on the good side of neutral. If someone goes to far into Evil land and I usually let them know after the game or, if needed, during the game just to give them a heads up. (I don't stop people from "being" evil, but if their character is bad enough that they slip into an evil alignment then it is to NPC land they go.)
Heh, I tell my players there's no point in them trying to play John D Rockefeller. If they start trying to rack up millions of gold by becoming some sort of master merchant, I refer them to the rules on profession and tell them that's all they can expect to achieve.
Luckily I have never had anyone push this issue.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Of course now there's Ultimate Campaign. And before that there were rules for running a business in the DMG II.Heh, I tell my players there's no point in them trying to play John D Rockefeller. If they start trying to rack up millions of gold by becoming some sort of master merchant, I refer them to the rules on profession and tell them that's all they can expect to achieve.
Luckily I have never had anyone push this issue.
All well and good, but I'm not interested in running "Merchants and Markets". If they really want to go that route, they can find another game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i got tired of treehugging elves, axebeard dwarves, and half-orcs born from a sequence involving a particular 4 letter word.
so, i decided, how can i make an elven urban ranger interesting in a mostly core golarion group
the characters works better near either Varisia or the Mwangi Expanse and has been proposed for merely those two regions
so i made the young elven female, a shipwreck survivor whom got saved at a young age by said local savages, and raised as one of their own, a cannabilistic hunter, whom respects the dead by using their remains, or finding a use for their remains, bones being an okay exception due to finding uses for bones being difficult
the young elf used
skins for leather
smaller bones to make arrow heads and other simple tools
the corpse flesh for meat
horn, hair, and sinew to make bows, or to combine with tanned hide to make flexible and resilient clothing
she used humanoid and animal corpses alike, not out of a malicious desire, but as a form of respect. she didn't go out killing people for said resources. but if she found a corpse, was hungry and low on food, or got attacked, she would fight and take the resources, if she couldn't find a use for them immediately, she could either use them later, or share and/or trade them with another for something more useful to her.
the DM had to assign a GP value to each piece of a corpse for the purpose of trade
but yeah, the party wasn't fond of eating Orc stew for 2 weeks straight, despite the fact that orc tastes like a slightly gamier and stronger flavored beef.
she was a huntress, a bounty huntress, a bandit, a swordswoman, an archer. a mounted artillery skirmish unit, an apprentice locksmith, a horse whisperer, a cannibal, a tracker, a "Cavalier" (not as in the class, but as in the military profession), and a trapfinder.
she wasn't C/E, just L/N
she also had her own huntress code
Some concepts don't work with just Core races as options. Some concepts only work with Core races as options.
I don't know how to explain it, but it's how I roll. One character fits perfectly as an elf, another only as a dwarf, and so on.
Can you envision Driz'zt as anything else than a drow? I'm pretty sure that not everyone can answer that question with an honest "yes".
You can't expect every person in the world to create characters the same way. It's why we don't roll up our stats the same way, or dream the same dreams.
Easily I can. Take his core elements.
1: matriarchal society
2: evil backstabbing society
3: rebels from that societyAll can be fulfilled with something other than Drow.
Yeah, Drizgarr the dwarf from such a society could be done. Maybe he uses two small berdiches, one in each hand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Did your character eat the flesh of dead elves?
dead elves, humans, orcs, dragons, you name it
if it was living or undead
it mattered not whether it was
biped or quadreped
sentient or nonsentient
humanoid or animal
outsider or magical beast
natural or unnatural
dwarf or orc
edible meat, was edible meat, though some meats needed to be refined first by means of purification by heat/boiling/sterilizing
she was raised by humans, and most them were unaware of what an elf was
they simply called her "Moon Child." due to a combination of her pale skin, lithe frame, her enhanced photosensitivity (darkvision alternate racial) and her light but silent steps (the silent hunter alternate racial)
the civilized peoples, called her "Selene Huntress" a name she adopted, based off a bit of real world reference, where "Selene" was the goddess of the moon and the hunt, before Artemis took over.
in other words, Selene is either another name for Artemis, or the predecessor to Artemis, can't remember which.
her regional deity, was a powerful animistic spirit they called "Mother Huntress" in the common tongue. "Mother Huntress" being a reference to the Vestige in tome of magic known as "Grandmother Huntress" and to the goddess "Artemis" of Greek Mythology.
i wouldn't fit her in a game that didn't have such savages to raise her by means of at least a country or two away.
My players eat a lot of monsters too.
Boiling is traditionally how all cannibal peoples (that I know of) did it.
A friend ran such a backwoods hunter in one of my games. He ended up becoming a chosen champion of forest spirits, turning into part plant and bleeding sap.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All concepts don't fit into all games and sometimes while it may fit, the DM doesn't want it in the game for various reasons.
I have to know, do you take the same approach once characters are made and the game has started? If one of the players wants to do something that fits within the game but you don't like, do you make it just not work? For example, if the party wants to sneak into the evil necromancer's tower instead of fighting their way through the front gate like you had planned, do you just arbitrarily make it fail?
All concepts don't fit into all games and sometimes while it may fit, the DM doesn't want it in the game for various reasons.I have to know, do you take the same approach once characters are made and the game has started? If one of the players wants to do something that fits within the game but you don't like, do you make it just not work? For example, if the party wants to sneak into the evil necromancer's tower instead of fighting their way through the front gate like you had planned, do you just arbitrarily make it fail?
Why would we do that? Talk about a non sequitur.