|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Something you seem to forgot or not understand is the fact that the way I run my games isn't wrong nor does it make me a bad DM. A few people in this thread can't seem to grasp that concept and think their way is the right way. My way is right for me and my group. I run restrictive games to achieve a certain atmosphere, I run kitchen sink style games to give everyone a chance to play what they want to play. I do run both so if you don't like one then wait for the other.Then why ask to hear from both sides then. I may not agree with how you run your games. Yet almost every time you start a thread along the lines of "Does 2+2+4" then when the majority answer back that it's 4. You then go "your all wrong dammit it's 5 and nothing you say or post will change my mind". Again your more than welcome to that on these board. Except just be more honest in what you want to see in a thread.
It just seems to me that your looking just to hear from those that agree with you. Seeking some sort of validation and getting bothered that most of the time your not getting a echo chamber. If you want to run restrictive games run them. All I ask is that post a thread where you just want to hear from one side. To take this thread as a example post "I don't allow special snowflakes and here why". If as a DM your not interested in such characters why even star a thread to get feedback when your mind is set up. Seems like a waste of all our time.
The whole thread being started was in reference to certain people claiming DMs are bad if they don't allow a player to play what they want nor is a DM allowed to run a restricted game unless he still allows the player to plat what they want which in turn validates the idea of a restricted game.
If you notice, you won't see anyone here who disagreed with the other side, trying to tell them how to play but the same can't be said when the shoe is on the other foot. I don't care how you play your games nor how you run them. What I do care about is when my way of gaming is attacked because I don't game the way you may game.
I run multiple types of games that covers everyone's gaming tastes but not everyone gets exactly what they want in each and every game, like a few around here think they should.
|
Then why ask to hear from both sides then. I may not agree with how you run your games. Yet almost every time you start a thread along the lines of "Does 2+2+4" then when the majority answer back that it's 4.
Well that is all predicated on the presumption that there is a quantity that is equal to "1" :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The whole thread being started was in reference to certain people claiming DMs are bad if they don't allow a player to play what they want nor is a DM allowed to run a restricted game unless he still allows the player to plat what they want which in turn validates the idea of a restricted game.If you notice, you won't see anyone here who disagreed with the other side, trying to tell them how to play but the same can't be said when the shoe is on the other foot. I don't care how you play your games nor how you run them. What I do care about is when my way of gaming is attacked because I don't game the way you may game.
I run multiple types of games that covers everyone's gaming tastes but not everyone gets exactly what they want in each and every game, like a few around here think they should.
Unlike some posters in this thread your not even attempting to even understand the other side.
Should a player be allowed to have a special snowflake. Within reason and if it works in a DMs game. Or if a DM wants to include them. All some of us are saying is that the both the DM doe not have to be rude or disrespectful about it towards each other. At first I was firmly in the player be allowed to play anything. Yet after running a few games that way sometimes it just does not work and sometimes it does. The consensus at least from some posters is that both sides need to at least communicate with each other first. As equals.
No matter what is said your just "My game, My rules the door to leave is on the way out". I'm not seeing any concession on your part. Most posters at least imo agree that both sides need to talk it out. If both sides can agree so much the better. If not either side or both can go their seperate ways. It's been established that most DMs at least in this thread don't expect to give a special snowflake to everyone. Nor are the Dms and espcially the players made out to be as bad as some in this thread and others want to portray. All I'm seeing is the worst case scenarios dragged out of the mighty hyperbole land of stereotypes.
I know you have a certain way of running your game. I disagree with it. I respect it. Yet with all the respect due to you no one is going to change your mind. Post threads all you like. Just don't pretend to want to hear from others that have a difference in opinion. When your not even going to consider let alone listen to the opposite side.
|
|
Why don't we just say: "Hey, guys. This game is a group effort. Let's take a session to set some ground rules for character creation, the setting, and how we're gonna play together so that we can all have fun and not worry about a bunch of drama?" Then we could just be nice and friendly about the whole process and not create a hostile situation.
Seems like the easiest solution to me. >_>
That would be be portraying what actually happens at most game tables now would it. Better to pull the mighty sterotypes from hyperbole land. Portraying both sides as extremes. Not saying they don't happen. It's very rare. Unlike what some posters are trying to present in this thread.
Pfff, why don't you go back to your imaginary hippy fairyland where this stuff actually "happens", and leave the serious people to talk about the inevitable conflicts that must occur while playing RPGs.Sheesh. We're trying to discuss the real world here.
Who needs the real world when we can have a world where no one st the table is reasonable. Where the DM rules his table with a iron fist and refuses to listen to anything. Where a player so wants to play a concept or character. That he is willing to sabotage or get kicked out of a DMs game.
Yes it is at silly as it sounds and it's not the norm. Unlike some in this thread try to pass it off as.
|
|
The whole thread being started was in reference to certain people claiming DMs are bad if they don't allow a player to play what they want nor is a DM allowed to run a restricted game unless he still allows the player to plat what they want which in turn validates the idea of a restricted game.If you notice, you won't see anyone here who disagreed with the other side, trying to tell them how to play but the same can't be said when the shoe is on the other foot. I don't care how you play your games nor how you run them. What I do care about is when my way of gaming is attacked because I don't game the way you may game.
I run multiple types of games that covers everyone's gaming tastes but not everyone gets exactly what they want in each and every game, like a few around here think they should.
Unlike some posters in this thread your not even attempting to even understand the other side.
Should a player be allowed to have a special snowflake. Within reason and if it works in a DMs game. Or if a DM wants to include them. All some of us are saying is that the both the DM doe not have to be rude or disrespectful about it towards each other. At first I was firmly in the player be allowed to play anything. Yet after running a few games that way sometimes it just does not work and sometimes it does. The consensus at least from some posters is that both sides need to at least communicate with each other first. As equals.
No matter what is said your just "My game, My rules the door to leave is on the way out". I'm not seeing any concession on your part. Most posters at least imo agree that both sides need to talk it out. If both sides can agree so much the better. If not either side or both can go their seperate ways. It's been established that most DMs at least in this thread don't expect to give a special snowflake to everyone. Nor are the Dms and espcially the players made out to be as bad as some in this thread and others want to portray. All I'm seeing is the...
What is there to understand? Some people feel entitled to be able to play their special snowflake whenever they want and I am telling them no they can't. My game being proof that there is at least one DM that I can say for certain won't allow that kind of behaviour.
What is there to understand? Some people feel entitled to be able to play their special snowflake whenever they want and I am telling them no they can't. My game being proof that there is at least one DM that I can say for certain won't allow that kind of behaviour.
is it wrong to request any of the following?
to reskin my "half-elf" as a "half-nymph" in a world where both humans and nymphs exist?
to play a sylph in a world that has creatures themed around the Air element? such as an elemental itself, a djinn, or a similar creatures?
|
|
What is there to understand? Some people feel entitled to be able to play their special snowflake whenever they want and I am telling them no they can't. My game being proof that there is at least one DM that I can say for certain won't allow that kind of behaviour.
is it wrong to request any of the following?
to reskin my "half-elf" as a "half-nymph" in a world where both humans and nymphs exist?
to play a sylph in a world that has creatures themed around the Air element? such as an elemental itself, a djinn, or a similar creatures?
You can request anything you like, just don't expect it always be allowed.
What is there to understand? Some people feel entitled to be able to play their special snowflake whenever they want and I am telling them no they can't. My game being proof that there is at least one DM that I can say for certain won't allow that kind of behaviour.
is it wrong to request any of the following?
to reskin my "half-elf" as a "half-nymph" in a world where both humans and nymphs exist?
to play a sylph in a world that has creatures themed around the Air element? such as an elemental itself, a djinn, or a similar creatures?
It is not wrong to request it. It is not wrong for the GM to refuse.
Nor is it just the setting, but it could be the intended theme or focus of the campaign.
if it is feasible within that portion of the setting, it should generally be allowable. especially if it's something that may not even earn much more than a mini arc within an arc.
i doubt that Air Elementals or the Plane of Air, are going to be a major long term plot, maybe a mini arc within an arc, and i doubt there are many nymph villains because most villain archetypes you can use a nymph for, a succubus is more likely to be chosen to fill.
You can request anything you like, just don't expect it always be allowed.What is there to understand? Some people feel entitled to be able to play their special snowflake whenever they want and I am telling them no they can't. My game being proof that there is at least one DM that I can say for certain won't allow that kind of behaviour.
is it wrong to request any of the following?
to reskin my "half-elf" as a "half-nymph" in a world where both humans and nymphs exist?
to play a sylph in a world that has creatures themed around the Air element? such as an elemental itself, a djinn, or a similar creatures?
in a world where humans, nymphs, an Air elementals existed in the universes canon, not neccessarily as core races, but as creatures known to occasionally interact
would you allow half-nymphs (Essentially reskinned half-elves) or sylphs?
the 2 races about no more odd than half-elves
What is there to understand? Some people feel entitled to be able to play their special snowflake whenever they want and I am telling them no they can't. My game being proof that there is at least one DM that I can say for certain won't allow that kind of behaviour.
is it wrong to request any of the following?
to reskin my "half-elf" as a "half-nymph" in a world where both humans and nymphs exist?
to play a sylph in a world that has creatures themed around the Air element? such as an elemental itself, a djinn, or a similar creatures?
It is not wrong to request it. It is not wrong for the GM to refuse.
Nor is it just the setting, but it could be the intended theme or focus of the campaign.
if it is feasible within that portion of the setting, it should generally be allowable. especially if it's something that may not even earn much more than a mini arc within an arc.
i doubt that Air Elementals or the Plane of Air, are going to be a major long term plot, maybe a mini arc within an arc, and i doubt there are many nymph villains because most villain archetypes you can use a nymph for, a succubus is more likely to be chosen to fill.
I disagree very strongly. Not that I have anything against nymphs or half-nymphs, and don't have any campaigns in mind where I would ban them in particular. Unless it was a game intended to focus specifically on something else: halfling protectors of their village or something like that.
I just disagree with the basic premise that "not existing in the setting" is the only valid reason not to allow something. "Doesn't fit the campaign" is just as valid. Possibly more so. It's probably simpler to add a race to a world than to rework a game for something that doesn't fit.
exotic hybrids don't even have to be a campaigns focus
i personally wouldn't enjoy playing halfling villagers protecting their village. mostly due to being prejudice against, halflings, gnomes, and kender in equal volumes.
every time i think of halflings, gnomes, or kender i think of
Elijah Wood and his constant whining, his poor acting which ruined several movies in my childhood. i can't stand Elijah Wood, and have associated his image in my mind, with Frodo Baggins.
Rainbow haired gadgeteers who create explosions and engage in absurd looney toons antics with their fancy ACME gadgets
Kleptomaniac 7 Year Olds on a perpetual Sugar High who steal, break, eat pixie sticks. and generally engage in looney toons type antics
i'd rather not play in the all halfling, all gnome or all kender campaign
the social diplomacy campaign with a focus on political intrigue and sylvan races, the thieves guild campaign willing to accomodate a sylph street urchin among their recruits, or the Maidsassassins group where a guild of bounty hunters whom use a Tea House as a cover job, are more likely to please me than halfling villagers out to protect the halfling village.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is there to understand? Some people feel entitled to be able to play their special snowflake whenever they want and I am telling them no they can't. My game being proof that there is at least one DM that I can say for certain won't allow that kind of behaviour.
So ultimately threads such as these are just so that you can feel validated in your opinions. Nothing is going to change your mind. Good to know. Next time I know not to waste my time then trying to find any common ground then. Whats the point in wasting my time. And your not just telling them they cant. Your telling them they cant or else to leave if they are not happy. Not the same thing imo.
|
|
Everyone wants a soapbox, but no one has to listen.
I just wish people would not even waste time getting on the soapbox in ther first place. If allt they want to do is hear themselves talk and nothing else. I did learn one thing though. T oavoid Shallowsoul threads like the Black Plague. Waste of time taking to a bilogical equivalent of a wall.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alrighty after reading this thread it's clear what I'm doing wrong as a GM. I watched too many Saturday morning cartoons as a child. Coupled with too much comic books. It causes me to instead of blanket barring of things based in concept to wrap my head around a way to fit the square peg in the round hole. Sure a bit of cutting might happen, but whether it's to the peg or hole remains to be seen.
So ultimately threads such as these are just so that you can feel validated in your opinions. Nothing is going to change your mind. Good to know. Next time I know not to waste my time then trying to find any common ground then. Whats the point in wasting my time. And your not just telling them they cant. Your telling them they cant or else to leave if they are not happy. Not the same thing imo.
What is there to understand? Some people feel entitled to be able to play their special snowflake whenever they want and I am telling them no they can't. My game being proof that there is at least one DM that I can say for certain won't allow that kind of behaviour.
To Shallowsoul
i debate with DMs all the time, i negotiate, i try to find a middle ground
neutral ground is a must, better for both sides to find a compromise, a true snowflake isn't bound to one lone concept.
though some characters i will most likely never get a chance to RP
a fire lolimental bard (an anthropomorphic flame shaped like a young girl, could drop the racial hit dice off a small fire elemental and it wouldn't be too powerful a PC race)
a lilligant "Sun Dancer" (gen 5 anthropomorphic plant type pokemon, dancer), "Sun Dancer" is lilligant speak for fire mage
a meinshao invulnerable rager beast totem barbarian (gen 5 anthropomorphic ferret martial artist pokemon)
a gardevoir Psychic Warrior (gen 3 psionic humanoid fairy pokemon)
a mawile ninja who fights with it's hair-jaws as a primary weapon (gen 3 fairy/steel pokemon, anthropomorphic, likes to eat, it's hair gives it a bite attack with reach)
a plushie assassin animated by an angelic spirit
Just understand you show up with a Pokemon expect team rocket.
Alrighty after reading this thread it's clear what I'm doing wrong as a GM. I watched too many Saturday morning cartoons as a child. Coupled with too much comic books. It causes me to instead of blanket barring of things based in concept to wrap my head around a way to fit the square peg in the round hole. Sure a bit of cutting might happen, but whether it's to the peg or hole remains to be seen.
i don't see it something wrong, i see it as something right
i don't blanket ban, i try to fit the square peg into the round hole
even if i have to whittle the square peg into a rounded shape with a boxcutter or letter opener
Just understand you show up with a Pokemon expect team rocket.
bring on the team rocket
my Lilligant has made fertilizer out of 3 Team Plasma pokemon enslavement sites in one month
i'm sure she could find a solution for team rocket
pokemon liberation for the win
though some characters i will most likely never get a chance to RP
a fire lolimental bard (an anthropomorphic flame shaped like a young girl, could drop the racial hit dice off a small fire elemental and it wouldn't be too powerful a PC race)
I'd love to see that work out in practice in a game would be awesome! Gods I would love to have my player come up with such concepts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd love to see that work out in practice in a game would be awesome! Gods I would love to have my player come up with such concepts.though some characters i will most likely never get a chance to RP
a fire lolimental bard (an anthropomorphic flame shaped like a young girl, could drop the racial hit dice off a small fire elemental and it wouldn't be too powerful a PC race)
fire is the element of Arousal, Innovation, and Passion and her performances, raise one's passion alongside their body heat, inspiring their drive to work harder, increased Arousal and Innovation are side effects of the increased passion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At the end of the day the DM does the heavy lifting so just don't be a jerk. it really isn't that hard to understand.
neither side has the right to be a jerk
the player who won't budge on a disruptive character
nor the DM who claims to have worked so hard on their setting that they deliberately restrict races and classes they don't like without a valid in setting reason
the DM may have put massive effort into their setting
but each player, put a similar number of hours into their characters
the effort the players put into one character, exceeds that of any single NPC
but both sides distribute equal efforts
a player who couldn't keep multiple concepts in case of bans or group setup, is no better or worse than a DM who always plays one world
some call them fanboys, others call them specialists
i'd personally rather play with the planetouched party member than the furry or pony, and i'd definitely rather deal with a planetouched, than a deliberately disruptive halfling thief or gnome oracle
in fact, if a character was intentionally disruptive, it is a problem with the player that could be done with any race or class, including core ones.
the real problem
isn't snowflakes playing planetouched, half-nymphs, small awakened elementals or fairies,
it's disruptive players, and DMs who associated exotic races or classes, with said disruptive players and are afraid, that every tiefling or sylph, is going to disrupt their campaign because of one guy who played a highly disruptive drizz't clone, goblin, kobold, or catfolk.
What is there to understand? Some people feel entitled to be able to play their special snowflake whenever they want and I am telling them no they can't. My game being proof that there is at least one DM that I can say for certain won't allow that kind of behaviour.
is it wrong to request any of the following?
to reskin my "half-elf" as a "half-nymph" in a world where both humans and nymphs exist?
to play a sylph in a world that has creatures themed around the Air element? such as an elemental itself, a djinn, or a similar creatures?
I played a half-nymph once, she was a psion. Lot of snowflake on show. She died in her first combat, because her hp was rubbish and a sole orc crit with a javelin. You just don't survive that.
I wasn't singled out though, it was not punishment. I get there are some real bad dms out there, but just because a dm likes to challenge the players, enjoys some good rolls and kills them off doesn't make them a vile creature right then and there. They may be smiling at the giant mess in front of them, a smile of surprise--we shouldn't have a go at claiming the dm is out for us just because some of our snowflakes die.
After all, if we just made it, and it died the first session, make a few rolls and gen the same thing again. It is already mostly prepared. Play it until it gets stronger. I have played with some terrible dms, but because a snowflake dies on their watch, doesn't make them evil or even responsible by default.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At the end of the day the DM does the heavy lifting so just don't be a jerk. it really isn't that hard to understand.neither side has the right to be a jerk
the player who won't budge on a disruptive character
nor the DM who claims to have worked so hard on their setting that they deliberately restrict races and classes they don't like without a valid in setting reason
the DM may have put massive effort into their setting
but each player, put a similar number of hours into their characters
the effort the players put into one character, exceeds that of any single NPC
but both sides distribute equal efforts
This is certainly not the case in my experience. (Edit: that players spend equal time and effort on their PCs as a GM does on, well, everything.)
I don't dictate to my players, but they are thankful enough that I GM for them (and thus they don't have to) that they respect the lines I do occasionally draw.
Having said that, I said for one of my current campaigns "no evil characters". Guess what? One player has en evil character. I'm a big softy when faced with an impassioned argument.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
At the end of the day the DM does the heavy lifting so just don't be a jerk. it really isn't that hard to understand.neither side has the right to be a jerk
the player who won't budge on a disruptive character
nor the DM who claims to have worked so hard on their setting that they deliberately restrict races and classes they don't like without a valid in setting reason
the DM may have put massive effort into their setting
but each player, put a similar number of hours into their characters
the effort the players put into one character, exceeds that of any single NPC
but both sides distribute equal efforts
a player who couldn't keep multiple concepts in case of bans or group setup, is no better or worse than a DM who always plays one world
some call them fanboys, others call them specialists
i'd personally rather play with the planetouched party member than the furry or pony, and i'd definitely rather deal with a planetouched, than a deliberately disruptive halfling thief or gnome oracle
in fact, if a character was intentionally disruptive, it is a problem with the player that could be done with any race or class, including core ones.
the real problem
isn't snowflakes playing planetouched, half-nymphs, small awakened elementals or fairies,
it's disruptive players, and DMs who associated exotic races or classes, with said disruptive players and are afraid, that every tiefling or sylph, is going to disrupt their campaign because of one guy who played a highly disruptive drizz't clone, goblin, kobold, or catfolk.
I'm with you on some of this, namely don't be a jerk. That said, I have a few comments on the rest:
1. I'd disagree that the player puts in as much effort and number of hours in their character as the GM puts into the setting. Given the number of posters that have remarked on decades spanning world settings, it would seem that their efforts might eclipse those of a single character. It might be better to say that some players put a great deal of effort into their creations, and some GMs play it fast and loose with a set of notes on a cocktail napkin.
2. The second point of contention comes with the comment that the GM deliberately restricts races that they don't like without a valid in setting reason. Dislike is a valid reason. You yourself have commented that you like to play certain races/descriptions of characters and dislike 'axebeard dwarves' and other Tolkien influenced races. How is that any different? You are doing what you are doing out of your likes and dislikes, and I daresay you would be put out to be told that you need to play in a certain way. The GM should be afforded the same courtesy; that isn't to say that you cannot make a request. But throwing their likes out in a dismissive way seems to edge near hypocrisy.
At the end of the day the DM does the heavy lifting so just don't be a jerk. it really isn't that hard to understand.neither side has the right to be a jerk
the player who won't budge on a disruptive character
nor the DM who claims to have worked so hard on their setting that they deliberately restrict races and classes they don't like without a valid in setting reason
the DM may have put massive effort into their setting
but each player, put a similar number of hours into their characters
the effort the players put into one character, exceeds that of any single NPC
but both sides distribute equal efforts
a player who couldn't keep multiple concepts in case of bans or group setup, is no better or worse than a DM who always plays one world
some call them fanboys, others call them specialists
i'd personally rather play with the planetouched party member than the furry or pony, and i'd definitely rather deal with a planetouched, than a deliberately disruptive halfling thief or gnome oracle
in fact, if a character was intentionally disruptive, it is a problem with the player that could be done with any race or class, including core ones.
the real problem
isn't snowflakes playing planetouched, half-nymphs, small awakened elementals or fairies,
it's disruptive players, and DMs who associated exotic races or classes, with said disruptive players and are afraid, that every tiefling or sylph, is going to disrupt their campaign because of one guy who played a highly disruptive drizz't clone, goblin, kobold, or catfolk.
I agree for the most part. I find "the setting" to be a very valid reason though.
Take your love of planetouched. That is good, glad you get chars from it, but my games don't have planetouched much at all (except Calimshan and other such Arabian nights games). The groups I've been in have never had an interest in it, it has never been a possible player race for us. I get pf is letting it in, we saw a fair bit in 3.5, but it has never flown in our imaginations. Consequently, the worlds I make (and I do love to world build) are filled with things other than planetouched. There is also the casting off of many of the planes, a severing if you will. So a dark souls themed world may have a lot of monster types around, but no links to elemental planes (fire connects to demons and witches though) and no genies or genasi or whatever. So I say the setting is king, but!
Players should be able to grumble if the setting doesn't provide many options (there should be options, there should be a lot of options, but not every new or trendy idea in fantasy should be allowed. Note: I also run a lot of non-drow stuff. I and others I game with are pretty tired of drow. We were gaming in the late 90s to naughts. Drow everywhere.
What is there to understand? Some people feel entitled to be able to play their special snowflake whenever they want and I am telling them no they can't. My game being proof that there is at least one DM that I can say for certain won't allow that kind of behaviour.
is it wrong to request any of the following?
to reskin my "half-elf" as a "half-nymph" in a world where both humans and nymphs exist?
to play a sylph in a world that has creatures themed around the Air element? such as an elemental itself, a djinn, or a similar creatures?
I played a half-nymph once, she was a psion. Lot of snowflake on show. She died in her first combat, because her hp was rubbish and a sole orc crit with a javelin. You just don't survive that.
I wasn't singled out though, it was not punishment. I get there are some real bad dms out there, but just because a dm likes to challenge the players, enjoys some good rolls and kills them off doesn't make them a vile creature right then and there. They may be smiling at the giant mess in front of them, a smile of surprise--we shouldn't have a go at claiming the dm is out for us just because some of our snowflakes die.
After all, if we just made it, and it died the first session, make a few rolls and gen the same thing again. It is already mostly prepared. Play it until it gets stronger. I have played with some terrible dms, but because a snowflake dies on their watch, doesn't make them evil or even responsible by default.
my problem isn't a snowflake on dying on the DM's watch, it's the suspicious activity of the DM specifically targetting the snowflake above and beyond all worse threats. ignoring the heavily armored fighter and the obvious wizard, just to target the young half-nymph whom put major efforts into looking like the least threatening member of the group by means of actions and feigning weakness through subtle support.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At the end of the day the DM does the heavy lifting so just don't be a jerk. it really isn't that hard to understand.neither side has the right to be a jerk
the player who won't budge on a disruptive character
nor the DM who claims to have worked so hard on their setting that they deliberately restrict races and classes they don't like without a valid in setting reason
the DM may have put massive effort into their setting
but each player, put a similar number of hours into their characters
the effort the players put into one character, exceeds that of any single NPC
but both sides distribute equal efforts
a player who couldn't keep multiple concepts in case of bans or group setup, is no better or worse than a DM who always plays one world
some call them fanboys, others call them specialists
i'd personally rather play with the planetouched party member than the furry or pony, and i'd definitely rather deal with a planetouched, than a deliberately disruptive halfling thief or gnome oracle
in fact, if a character was intentionally disruptive, it is a problem with the player that could be done with any race or class, including core ones.
the real problem
isn't snowflakes playing planetouched, half-nymphs, small awakened elementals or fairies,
it's disruptive players, and DMs who associated exotic races or classes, with said disruptive players and are afraid, that every tiefling or sylph, is going to disrupt their campaign because of one guy who played a highly disruptive drizz't clone, goblin, kobold, or catfolk.
agree for the most part. I find "the setting" to be a very valid reason though.
Take your love of planetouched. That is good, glad you get chars from it, but my games don't have planetouched much at all (except Calimshan and other such Arabian nights games). The groups I've been in have never had an interest in it, it has never been a possible player race for us. I get pf is letting it in, we saw a fair bit in 3.5, but it has never flown in our imaginations. Consequently, the worlds I make (and I do love to world build) are filled with things other than planetouched. There is also the casting off of many of the planes, a severing if you will. So a dark souls themed world may have a lot of monster types around, but no links to elemental planes (fire connects to demons and witches though) and no genies or genasi or whatever. So I say the setting is king, but!
Players should be able to grumble if the setting doesn't provide many options (there should be options, there should be a lot of options, but not every new or trendy idea in fantasy should be allowed. Note: I also run a lot of non-drow stuff. I and others I game with are pretty tired of drow. We were gaming in the late 90s to naughts. Drow everywhere.
i can agree with this entirely
a setting should definitely have a decent number of options
core rulebook and advanced player's guide aren't enough options for me
open up the entirety of the advanced race guide. and the privelege of certain CR 1 or lower bestiary monsters, and i can come up with something interesting
like the small fire lolimental bard who inspires passion directly through her performances, despite being unable to wear armor without it melting.
At the end of the day the DM does the heavy lifting so just don't be a jerk. it really isn't that hard to understand.neither side has the right to be a jerk
the player who won't budge on a disruptive character
nor the DM who claims to have worked so hard on their setting that they deliberately restrict races and classes they don't like without a valid in setting reason
the DM may have put massive effort into their setting
but each player, put a similar number of hours into their characters
the effort the players put into one character, exceeds that of any single NPC
but both sides distribute equal efforts
a player who couldn't keep multiple concepts in case of bans or group setup, is no better or worse than a DM who always plays one world
some call them fanboys, others call them specialists
i'd personally rather play with the planetouched party member than the furry or pony, and i'd definitely rather deal with a planetouched, than a deliberately disruptive halfling thief or gnome oracle
in fact, if a character was intentionally disruptive, it is a problem with the player that could be done with any race or class, including core ones.
the real problem
isn't snowflakes playing planetouched, half-nymphs, small awakened elementals or fairies,
it's disruptive players, and DMs who associated exotic races or classes, with said disruptive players and are afraid, that every tiefling or sylph, is going to disrupt their campaign because of one guy who played a highly disruptive drizz't clone, goblin, kobold, or catfolk.
I'm with you on some of this, namely don't be a jerk. That said, I have a few comments on the rest:
1. I'd disagree that the player puts in as much effort and number of hours in their character as the GM puts into the setting. Given the number of posters that have remarked on decades spanning world settings, it would seem that their efforts might eclipse those of a single character. It...
Yeah, a bit of hypocrisy. The removal of a typical fantasy race as a player option but keep it partly in, can in a few ways help a setting. I don't mean the removal to make way for something else, which also really works (I've seen elves replaced with more fey, that was good), I mean kill it and only have a few remain as npcs and kill them off to provide ruins and dungeons. I'll explain.
In one dark souls themed world, I took out dwarves. They were killed off. This is a human vs monsters/corruption world. Now their ancient mountain cities are still there. This provides plenty of dungeons to raid and dive into. It is possible some dwarves in stasis could be found (wake up Axebeard Ripley) and reintroduced into the world. Making them now the last of their kind, but with some really potentially shattering intel (want to know how we died kid?). So take out the player option to play them (allow half-dwarf if you really must, so you tie the player into the exploration to find the truth), have a few scant npcs remain hidden away, and use the rest of their territory for deathtrap dungeons of guardian spirits, golems, traps and LOOT! Not so dissimilar to what Skyrim did. Big spaces, its not filled with a fleshed out race, it is filled with adventure!
Just an aside on removing something you don't like (dwarves) and converting it into something useful for a setting (intel, adventure grounds, traps, golems).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't count the number of times I've seen creature tactics written as 'tries to pick off the easiest/weakest target' in modules.
Or "targets spellcasters first". I always tell/show the wizard that after the battle, so they know I'm not just being nasty :)
...At the end of the day the DM does the heavy lifting so just don't be a jerk. it really isn't that hard to understand.neither side has the right to be a jerk
the player who won't budge on a disruptive character
nor the DM who claims to have worked so hard on their setting that they deliberately restrict races and classes they don't like without a valid in setting reason
the DM may have put massive effort into their setting
but each player, put a similar number of hours into their characters
the effort the players put into one character, exceeds that of any single NPC
but both sides distribute equal efforts
a player who couldn't keep multiple concepts in case of bans or group setup, is no better or worse than a DM who always plays one world
some call them fanboys, others call them specialists
i'd personally rather play with the planetouched party member than the furry or pony, and i'd definitely rather deal with a planetouched, than a deliberately disruptive halfling thief or gnome oracle
in fact, if a character was intentionally disruptive, it is a problem with the player that could be done with any race or class, including core ones.
the real problem
isn't snowflakes playing planetouched, half-nymphs, small awakened elementals or fairies,
it's disruptive players, and DMs who associated exotic races or classes, with said disruptive players and are afraid, that every tiefling or sylph, is going to disrupt their campaign because of one guy who played a highly disruptive drizz't clone, goblin, kobold, or catfolk.
agree for the most part. I find "the setting" to be a very valid reason though.
Take your love of planetouched. That is good, glad you get chars from it, but my games don't have planetouched much at all (except Calimshan and other such Arabian nights games). The groups I've been in have never had an interest in it, it has never been a possible player race
Yataaa!
We should be friends.
I can't count the number of times I've seen creature tactics written as 'tries to pick off the easiest/weakest target' in modules.Or "targets spellcasters first". I always tell/show the wizard that after the battle, so they know I'm not just being nasty :)
Orcish shotputs into the back ranks. Awwwwww yeaaaah.
Then again, taking out the seemingly weakest opponent on the field is always a fine strategy.
works for animals in desperate need for an easy meal
but i think intelligent humanoids, would logically ignore the weakest opponent because their efforts aren't worth much, and target/gang up on the bigger threats because those weaklings are easy to ignore
would you rather kill the guy who does next to no damage and has mostly supportive effects you barely notice?
or would you rather quickly take out the guy who drops one of your allies each round before you lose more allies.
i'd take out the latter personally
taking out the force multiplier does little change to a fight compared to taking out the big hulking brutes whose forces are being multiplied
...At the end of the day the DM does the heavy lifting so just don't be a jerk. it really isn't that hard to understand.neither side has the right to be a jerk
the player who won't budge on a disruptive character
nor the DM who claims to have worked so hard on their setting that they deliberately restrict races and classes they don't like without a valid in setting reason
the DM may have put massive effort into their setting
but each player, put a similar number of hours into their characters
the effort the players put into one character, exceeds that of any single NPC
but both sides distribute equal efforts
a player who couldn't keep multiple concepts in case of bans or group setup, is no better or worse than a DM who always plays one world
some call them fanboys, others call them specialists
i'd personally rather play with the planetouched party member than the furry or pony, and i'd definitely rather deal with a planetouched, than a deliberately disruptive halfling thief or gnome oracle
in fact, if a character was intentionally disruptive, it is a problem with the player that could be done with any race or class, including core ones.
the real problem
isn't snowflakes playing planetouched, half-nymphs, small awakened elementals or fairies,
it's disruptive players, and DMs who associated exotic races or classes, with said disruptive players and are afraid, that every tiefling or sylph, is going to disrupt their campaign because of one guy who played a highly disruptive drizz't clone, goblin, kobold, or catfolk.
agree for the most part. I find "the setting" to be a very valid reason though.
Take your love of planetouched. That is good, glad you get chars from it, but my games don't have planetouched much at all (except Calimshan and other such Arabian nights games). The groups I've been in have never had an interest in it, it has never been a possible player race
I hereby approve of fire lolimental bards.
Don't judge me.
On a side note, I threw a lot of fey into a series of games, and a player remarked "everyone is naked, and trying to kill us or have sex with us." Fey really can shake things up.
Then again, taking out the seemingly weakest opponent on the field is always a fine strategy.works for animals in desperate need for an easy meal
but i think intelligent humanoids, would logically ignore the weakest opponent because their efforts aren't worth much, and target/gang up on the bigger threats because those weaklings are easy to ignore
would you rather kill the guy who does next to no damage and has mostly supportive effects you barely notice?
or would you rather quickly take out the guy who drops one of your allies each round before you lose more allies.
i'd take out the latter personally
taking out the force multiplier does little change to a fight compared to taking out the big hulking brutes whose forces are being multiplied
Some intelligent strategies I've had monsters run with.
Kill spellcasters, wizards, and yes, bards as quickly as possible from range or with traps.
Retreat and skirmish the melee to death, as they now lack support and may lack maneuverability and healing.
I've also had skirmishers attack the most burdened and encumbered, and then opt to flee. The idea being they won't be able to return the attack, but may pursue for vengeance. As Sun Tze says, "tire them by flight".
I've yet to work the dex poison hard and then the end boss being a team of pro archers, but one day (my players will throw me out).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hereby approve of fire lolimental bards.
Don't judge me.
On a side note, I threw a lot of fey into a series of games, and a player remarked "everyone is naked, and trying to kill us or have sex with us." Fey really can shake things up.
taking out the buffer does little to end the buffs that are in place
i have found, a far more effective way to take out the wizard, bard, or other buffing or debuffing oriented arcanist is to eliminate the bodyguards in focused fire because it matters not whether you have 1 hit point or 100 hit points, you are equally effective.
Then again, taking out the seemingly weakest opponent on the field is always a fine strategy.works for animals in desperate need for an easy meal
but i think intelligent humanoids, would logically ignore the weakest opponent because their efforts aren't worth much, and target/gang up on the bigger threats because those weaklings are easy to ignore
would you rather kill the guy who does next to no damage and has mostly supportive effects you barely notice?
or would you rather quickly take out the guy who drops one of your allies each round before you lose more allies.
i'd take out the latter personally
taking out the force multiplier does little change to a fight compared to taking out the big hulking brutes whose forces are being multiplied
I believe the mantra in most games, not just Shadowrun, is "Geek the mage first."
In the vast assortment of games, the lightly armoured and armed person is a spell caster of some sort and is just waiting to whip out some nasty area effect. Killing/disabling them prevents that. Killing/disabling them prevents buffs, heals, and other effects that they'll put on the big fighter.
Tactically, removing that possible threat is just good sense.
We prefer Gank and insta-gib.