Scott--I apologize for hijacking this thread. It's literally my first post on Paizo boards and I don't know either the etiquette or the technical tricks so if this is rude or poorly formatted my apologies in advance. Scott-I have an important question for you. Would you be willing to share your notes/early designs/whatever you have for your Sins of the Saviors conversion? I've just DMed my group through the first four modules and would LOVE to keep them on with your work. I know I'll have to do Xin Shalast on my own as I understand you quit the project but I'd be incredibly grateful to you if you could share even very partial notes on Saviors. If you don't want to post I'll be happy to give you my email just let me know how you want to proceed. I also want to say that your conversion work is excellent! You hit the ball out of the park in your efforts. THanks--Gene
If you go to his profile, there's a Private Message option. :)
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A special snowflake is also a player who knowingly designs a character so exotic and 'different' that it pretty much warrants extra special treatment by everyone he sees. And then has the gall to get insulted when guards hassle him more then the band of humans he comes in with, or when criminals wanna capture him and sell him to someone wealthy like an exotic animal..etc...Gal? That's pretty hateful. Are you sure that's a safe way to think? I've always liked to try and help people fit their ideas in, so I might be a little biased, but I've never tried to sell someone off like an exotic animal, though I might consider it if that was their point. I certainly wouldn't say 'Gal' though. Gotta watch out for thought like those, they can bring some bad karma down and preconceived notions. Worse you might forget to talk to the players about the consequences of your actions and spring it on them to their shock and horror.Err, Hama said 'gall' as in insolence, not 'gal' as in a derogatory term.
I think there's another angle to this issue. In other roleplaying games there tends to be a very narrow focus in terms of the types of characters people can play. For example I am running an L5R game, and in that no one would suggest playing anything other than a Samurai - because it's a game about playing Samurai.
However in D&D/PF that boundry doesn't exist. Perhaps in the past it was a game about playing 'Tolkien' races, but nowadays (especially if you throw the ARG into the mix) it is far broader than that. The issue is that some people still want a game that is about playing 'Tolkien' races in a pseudo Medieval fantasy setting while others want to explore the new options. When these two mindsets are sitting on opposite sides of the screen you can obviously get conflict.
I think it's an issue of communication. If the only description of the game beforehand was "Pathfinder Game" then of course there'll be disagreements when you show up with your Dwarf Fighter...
Actually, in fairness it does exist in D&D/Pathfinder because the game enables you to select what you want and leave the rest. It gives you the restriction button without having to use it.
The problem is coming in to each and every game thinking that everything is fair game.
I stopped allowing special snowflakes a while ago. To me it's just annoying.
I should probably try that. Just force everyone to play a clone of each other.
Because really, by the end of the day, every individual is unique, and thus is a special snowflake.
The problem is coming in to each and every game thinking that everything is fair game.
Half the fun is making your own, to some of us anyway.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not really important, though. The DM putting more time into the game (even if it were true) doesn't give him license to dictate the terms of the game. If you view the act of preparing for and running a game of D&D as a chore that earns you the right to have power over your friends for a few hours a week, maybe being a DM just isn't for you.
It may not be a universal rule, but its part of the social contract in our group and (from what I've seen) we're not alone there.
For our group (who all started playing in the seventies or eighties and who have only played with each other) imposing limits on the campaign world is an enormous part of the DM's job - even the defining part, I'd say. We sometimes even go as far as having the DM turning up with characters they think we'll enjoy (granted thats pretty extreme but it works for us). This debate isn't necessarily one about power and those defending the "DM as limit setter" position are not necessarily seeing it as an adversarial thing.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why does the DM get to declare what kind of game it is without the input of the players (who, in your scenario, obviously want to play in a game that allows for their "odd character" concepts)?
Uh. Because it's really hard to GM a game that's in someone else's head? If I have an idea for a campaign, that's the campaign I'm going to GM. If one of the players would rather play in a free-for-all RIFT game, then he's very welcome to propose running such a game, but he can't tell me to run it. That's not how my brain works work.
Obviously players are always welcome to offer suggestions, and I may incorporate some of them if they fit my vision, but if your suggestion is "I want to play the Trandoshan Han Solo in 1890s San Francisco" this may not be terrible easy to incorporate into our Eberron campaign. At least not without accepting a level of stupid that I'm not open to.
You may be a wonderful GM, but if I don't have a vision of the setting, I can't run a game in it. It's really that simple.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I stopped allowing special snowflakes a while ago. To me it's just annoying.I should probably try that. Just force everyone to play a clone of each other.
Because really, by the end of the day, every individual is unique, and thus is a special snowflake.
You can make very interesting and fun characters without making a half pony half constrictor boa wizard with a sorcerer's bloodline and barbarian's rage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I was trying to say earlier was that anything can be fun and interesting.
The insistence that only "Core" races can be fun and interesting is what I don't agree with.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why do people insist on treating ALL special snowflakes as bad?! There are GOOD special snowflakes... Just like there are GOOD power gamers, optimizers, role players, or any other label. What makes something good or bad is how well you get along with others and has nothing to do with play styles.
Why do people insist on treating ALL special snowflakes as bad?! There are GOOD special snowflakes... Just like there are GOOD power gamers, optimizers, role players, or any other label. What makes something good or bad is how well you get along with others and has nothing to do with play styles.
i only play snowflakes, mostly due to my exotic artistic tastes, which fail to accomodate most of the races that make up the tolkein norm
i'll bend over and play an elf, half-elf or human, if i have no choice, but only after a massive reskinning to more closely resemble the culture or appearance i would have wanted that character to be.
whether by means of dyes and pigments, by means of minor physical alterations, or changes in costume or cultural background
i won't play a traditional tolkein elf, but allow me a petite framed nomadic elf from a caravan native to the snowy north with slightly different features and reselected picks of alternate racials, i'd be happier
|
|
Why do people insist on treating ALL special snowflakes as bad?! There are GOOD special snowflakes... Just like there are GOOD power gamers, optimizers, role players, or any other label. What makes something good or bad is how well you get along with others and has nothing to do with play styles.
i only play snowflakes, mostly due to my exotic artistic tastes, which fail to accomodate most of the races that make up the tolkein norm
i'll bend over and play an elf, half-elf or human, if i have no choice, but only after a massive reskinning to more closely resemble the culture or appearance i would have wanted that character to be.
whether by means of dyes and pigments, by means of minor physical alterations, or changes in costume or cultural background
i won't play a traditional tolkein elf, but allow me a petite framed nomadic elf from a caravan native to the snowy north with slightly different features and reselected picks of alternate racials, i'd be happier
We wouldn't be playing at the same table. I have a strong dislike for the type of characters like that.
We wouldn't be playing at the same table. I have a strong dislike for the type of characters like that.Why do people insist on treating ALL special snowflakes as bad?! There are GOOD special snowflakes... Just like there are GOOD power gamers, optimizers, role players, or any other label. What makes something good or bad is how well you get along with others and has nothing to do with play styles.
i only play snowflakes, mostly due to my exotic artistic tastes, which fail to accomodate most of the races that make up the tolkein norm
i'll bend over and play an elf, half-elf or human, if i have no choice, but only after a massive reskinning to more closely resemble the culture or appearance i would have wanted that character to be.
whether by means of dyes and pigments, by means of minor physical alterations, or changes in costume or cultural background
i won't play a traditional tolkein elf, but allow me a petite framed nomadic elf from a caravan native to the snowy north with slightly different features and reselected picks of alternate racials, i'd be happier
i guess so
you like your core
and i hate the Tolkein Races and their Steriotypes with a passion
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You do know that Elves and Dwarves existed in Nordic mythology for a very very long time before Tolkien used them for his works?
The only original creations that can be attributed to him are Hobbits and Orcs.
Goblins already existed. So did gnomes (not even Tolkinian)...
Half breeds are half-breeds.
you like your core
Wrong. I like everything aside from a few exceptions and 3pp content which i won't touch (except for making craft work).
What i hate is players constantly insisting on playing something "different" and "special". What is wrong with being a mundane character, albeit a very interesting person.
I grew out of playing various "special stuff" a while ago. And boy did i play them. A chitin ranger, a drow sorcerer, a centaur monk, a boumman druid, a fey'ri rogue/assassin. And you know what? It's boring. Give me a plain human over any of those. Any day.
You do know that Elves and Dwarves existed in Nordic mythology for a very very long time before Tolkien used them for his works?
The only original creations that can be attributed to him are Hobbits and Orcs.
Goblins already existed. So did gnomes (not even Tolkinian)...
Half breeds are half-breeds.
you like your coreWrong. I like everything aside from a few exceptions and 3pp content which i won't touch (except for making craft work).
What i hate is players constantly insisting on playing something "different" and "special". What is wrong with being a mundane character, albeit a very interesting person.
I grew out of playing various "special stuff" a while ago. And boy did i play them. A chitin ranger, a drow sorcerer, a centaur monk, a boumman druid, a fey'ri rogue/assassin. And you know what? It's boring. Give me a plain human over any of those. Any day.
either way, the races in the core rulebook have a lot of associated steriotypes, that among groups that hammed them up, reuined them for me.
i am so tired of
Lego Lass Elves
Drizz't Clone Drow
Axebeard Dwarves
Tinker Gnomes
Frodo Halflings
"Hulk Smash" Orcs
and similar cliched portrayals
i need not have a special culture
i just need something that allows to seperate myself from the thousands of clones in my area, so while cultural backgrounds make that easier. being the oddball who subverts steriotypes, such as the dwarven druid, or the Half-Orc wizard is a sufficient subversion. though i like neither race, i use them as examples of my minimum level of subversion
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The insistence to use only non-core stuff is what annoys me to no end.
You have to put it into perspective. Yeah, some people out there only want to use "non-traditional" stuff, but that's just their style. They don't want to be like every other RPG character that came before them. They want to do something that someone else at the table has likely never played as.
Something I've heard, verbatim, from several players at various points is "Dude, I've already played a Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, and Cleric umpteen-thousand times. I want to play something different."
If that "something different" means a new class, new race, or whatever new option that is present and accounted for in the game system, why not let them have it? Barring setting/DM restrictions, of course.
YMMV
Why do people insist on treating ALL special snowflakes as bad?! There are GOOD special snowflakes... Just like there are GOOD power gamers, optimizers, role players, or any other label. What makes something good or bad is how well you get along with others and has nothing to do with play styles.Because of an inability to agree on a definition of what a "special snowflake" is.
For example. I don't think either you or Umbriere would like the definition I have always heard used in my area:
A player / character who, regardless of race/class/feat/spell/ability selection consistently pulls the focus of the game back on them due to their perceived unique specialness.
This perceived "unique specialness" being where the term "special snowflake" comes in, since snowflakes are supposed to each be unique, but this one is more unique than all the others.
I'm paraphrasing the previously linked tvtropes definition, so I don't think I'm alone in this conception of "Special Snowflake".
People tend to jump on esoteric race/class combinations because it's easy to assume they're "special snowflakes". Even though the game already supports these races/classes.
i like my exotic race and class combinations
i'll reskin a race or class with minimal mechanical change if i can
i just feel the urge to not play a steriotype
my Elven Ranger, if i do play one, would not be a steriotypical treehugging hippy, but a savage huntress raised by humans, who beleives in using every part of her kills, and will be raised by a regionally appropriate human settlement with similar values
it be fine in skull and shackles, serpents skull or any of the Varisia APs
i wouldn't play such an elf were such a tribe of humans weren't available
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We wouldn't be playing at the same table. I have a strong dislike for the type of characters like that.
And that's okay! I think that's the most important thing to remember. It's perfectly all right to like different things.
Why do people insist on treating ALL special snowflakes as bad?! There are GOOD special snowflakes... Just like there are GOOD power gamers, optimizers, role players, or any other label. What makes something good or bad is how well you get along with others and has nothing to do with play styles.
Agreed! I tend to play "out there" oddball characters that would seem like "special snowflakes," but I always work with my DM and get full approval before going through with any concept. My current DM loves my half-golem; he and I worked together on a backstory and character motivations. I kept him in the loop step by step, while I used the race builder in the Advanced Race Guide. We didn't agree on every single option, but we compromised and I'm very happy with the character as a result. He even let me write up my own Trait, instead of picking from the books.
Snowflakes aren't always a bad thing.
The insistence to use only non-core stuff is what annoys me to no end.You have to put it into perspective. Yeah, some people out there only want to use "non-traditional" stuff, but that's just their style. They don't want to be like every other RPG character that came before them. They want to do something that someone else at the table has likely never played as.
Something I've heard, verbatim, from several players at various points is "Dude, I've already played a Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, and Cleric umpteen-thousand times. I want to play something different."
If that "something different" means a new class, new race, or whatever new option that is present and accounted for in the game system, why not let them have it? Barring setting/DM restrictions, of course.
YMMV
Sample Characters i have played for Uniqueness
Socially Awkward Tiefling Librarian who specialized in making other people perform better in combat
Sylph Street Magician, a wizard who picked up many roguish skill choices
Dwarven Druid whom was refluffed as a Feng Shui Master/Geomancer and wore Graphite Armor
Elven Huntress whom was a savage raised by humans, whom know how to track, disable traps, was a switch hitter, and had a horse mount.
Why do people insist on treating ALL special snowflakes as bad?! There are GOOD special snowflakes... Just like there are GOOD power gamers, optimizers, role players, or any other label. What makes something good or bad is how well you get along with others and has nothing to do with play styles.
Agreed! I tend to play "out there" oddball characters that would seem like "special snowflakes," but I always work with my DM and get full approval before going through with any concept. My current DM loves my half-golem; he and I worked together on a backstory and character motivations. I kept him in the loop step by step, while I used the race builder in the Advanced Race Guide. We didn't agree on every single option, but we compromised and I'm very happy with the character as a result. He even let me write up my own Trait, instead of picking from the books.
Snowflakes aren't always a bad thing.
such is the scenario with me as well
in a few of my other groups
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is ludicrous to say that "it is ok to limit characters to human samurai in L5R, but not in D&D, because D&D contains much more than that". Guess what? L5R has at least the ratmen and the nagas. These people could make magnificent scouting forces and have great adventures. And even if you do choose to play only humans, there are literally dozens of very different campaign styles to choose from. Military battles, special forces infiltration, martial arts campaigns, diplomatic missions, courtly intrigue, ninja missions, exploration, historical scenarios, trading, and for each of these, different foci depending on which clans are involved. So.... When you decide to play a L5R campaign, you choose to exclude far more options than you include. Doing so when playing D&D or Pathfinder is no different. Excluding elements from a D&D setting is perfectly fine. Not every campaign is improved by kender, gunslingers or even dragons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We wouldn't be playing at the same table. I have a strong dislike for the type of characters like that.And that's okay! I think that's the most important thing to remember. It's perfectly all right to like different things.
Slaunyeh gets it.
I'll be at my table playing the game I like. Someone else can be at their table playing the game they like. We don't have to like the same game, or hold people at the other table to the same standards we do our own.
That's what makes our hobby so much better than an MMORPG - we can all do different things, different ways, with different focuses, in different styles, and with our own sets of rules and guidelines.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The insistence to use only non-core stuff is what annoys me to no end.You have to put it into perspective. Yeah, some people out there only want to use "non-traditional" stuff, but that's just their style. They don't want to be like every other RPG character that came before them. They want to do something that someone else at the table has likely never played as.
Something I've heard, verbatim, from several players at various points is "Dude, I've already played a Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, and Cleric umpteen-thousand times. I want to play something different."
If that "something different" means a new class, new race, or whatever new option that is present and accounted for in the game system, why not let them have it? Barring setting/DM restrictions, of course.
YMMV
Sample Characters i have played for Uniqueness
Socially Awkward Tiefling Librarian who specialized in making other people perform better in combat
Sylph Street Magician, a wizard who picked up many roguish skill choices
Dwarven Druid whom was refluffed as a Feng Shui Master/Geomancer and wore Graphite Armor
Elven Huntress whom was a savage raised by humans, whom know how to track, disable traps, was a switch hitter, and had a horse mount.
Thing is, I'm not seeing anything in the above descriptions that predicate needing a specific race.
The issue I have with the whole stereotype argument, which ties into the perception of "Special Snowflake", is that things are only stereotypical if you make them that way. Nothing in any of the Pathfinder books I have state that all dwarves must be 'axebeards' or all orks are blah or whatever the argument is. Characters are what you make of them; everyone (or let's say most everyone so that argument is headed off) wants to be different/special/interesting with their character. Most aren't going to play some bland nothing.
What interests me is that the very thing Umbriere dislikes is something I'd think about with the things they like: tiny mind controlling female semi-humans and so forth are very very stereotypical in a lot of fantasy literature and games.
I guess for me the term "special snowflake" pertains more to the player than the character. Someone who needs/wants more of my attention and time than every one else gets. Someone who is distracting or disruptive in the name of "fun", someone who wants to overshadow everyone else.
Wanting something different or outside the boundaries of what the table has set isn't the defining character of a special snowflake for me, but it does raise a flag that I might be in the presence of one.
Replants freak flag in this "new" thread. And then plants humans-are-cool-too flag. Because saying humans aren't cool to play would be very strange. Unless I really am a freak.
How isn't this "that other thread"?
And how aren't murder-hobos special snowflakes?
"What's that, you can't sleep at night for all the watch-guard duty you have to do? How about talk to someone without trying to Sense Motive? Ooooookaaaaaaay - let's eat something. Where do you wanna ea... why are you rolling that dice? Oh, Knowledge (Local) +31,0000. But you're not a special snowflake are you? You're just a regular guy/gal. Riiiight. Okay, well, have fun with that, I'm gonna go talk to that completely average (for his species) freakamazoid peddler. I hear he makes the best rice and beans. [tries to push past the not-special snowflake's complete armory of the Eastern and Western real world and just barely avoids the not-special snowflake on all fours checking for completely in-f89king-visible traps before smiling wanly at the SPELLCASTER, which is completely not in any way special, or a snowflake. Looks to the heavens in this "normal" "campaign" and shudders that freakamazoids were let in...]
Also, Tolkien is a bad word. It starts with "t" and ends with "olkien" - the fact that elves and dwarves existed as concepts before the "wen on the arse of fantasy literature"* made them even more boring just makes them even more boring.
*Quote from China Mieville.
The insistence to use only non-core stuff is what annoys me to no end.You have to put it into perspective. Yeah, some people out there only want to use "non-traditional" stuff, but that's just their style. They don't want to be like every other RPG character that came before them. They want to do something that someone else at the table has likely never played as.
Something I've heard, verbatim, from several players at various points is "Dude, I've already played a Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, and Cleric umpteen-thousand times. I want to play something different."
If that "something different" means a new class, new race, or whatever new option that is present and accounted for in the game system, why not let them have it? Barring setting/DM restrictions, of course.
YMMV
Sample Characters i have played for Uniqueness
Socially Awkward Tiefling Librarian who specialized in making other people perform better in combat
Sylph Street Magician, a wizard who picked up many roguish skill choices
Dwarven Druid whom was refluffed as a Feng Shui Master/Geomancer and wore Graphite Armor
Elven Huntress whom was a savage raised by humans, whom know how to track, disable traps, was a switch hitter, and had a horse mount.
I don't play oddball characters just for uniqueness, I just try to roll up whatever concept sounds fun in my head. I have played plenty of human clerics, elf archers, etc. My previous character was a human Ranger(Ranger is my favorite class).
The race I used to love to play back in 3.5, that made my DM's brain hurt, was Illumian. Hands-down my favorite non-core race, I made all sorts of insane multiclass-combo Illumians; not to purposely min/max or wreck campaigns, but just because those were the characters I wanted to play. I RP'ed pretty heavily.
Spoilered list of snowflakey characters
Illumian Noctumancer/Warmage/Shadowcaster - could "nuke" maximized area effect spells and disappear from sight. Nicknamed: "The Nuclear Whack-A-Mole." I retired this character voluntarily after it had single-handedly wrecked a campaign; which is hilarious, since Shadowcaster and Warmage are two of the weakest classes in all of 3.5e.
Illumian(lvl 30-Epic)Abjurant Champion/Argent Savant/Wizard/Sorcerer/Ultimate Magus/Duskblade/Warmage - This character completed an epic paragon path, transcending physical form and becoming the saint of travel and discovery. Highest level character I've ever played, or seen played at a table.
Half-Dragon(Red) Orc Kensai - Raised by an order of Paladins, after being captured from a tribe of Orcs who worshiped a Red Dragon. Had a prosthetic clockwork arm, wielded a greatsword in one hand(3.0 Monkey Grip). This guy was a lot of fun. Just brutal.
I have two thick 3-ring binders full of used character sheets. These are just some of the ones that stick out in my mind this morning. None were made with any sort of game-breaking cheese in mind(okay, the half-dragon orc a little for the STR), they were just unique concepts I wanted to play.
|
\
It's not really important, though. The DM putting more time into the game (even if it were true) doesn't give him license to dictate the terms of the game. If you view the act of preparing for and running a game of D&D as a chore that earns you the right to have power over your friends for a few hours a week, maybe being a DM just isn't for you.
The GM, by definition dictates the terms of the game.
What are we fighting? Where are we fighting it? Who is there, what is the conflict?
Which is why it does take more time and investment for the GM than other people, which is why maybe, just maybe, the GM has as much right to be able to play something the GM would enjoy as a player does.
Don't you think?
I mean, brass tacks the argument for the snowflake is "I need to play this to enjoy myself, and anything else I play I would not enjoy."
If this is true, then the GM and Snowflake may not be compatible. No ones fault, still be friends, etc...
Otherwise if the snowflake could pick something else that is compatible and still have fun...
No one should even make anyone do anything they don't think will be fun, on either side of the table.
The GM can't make the players show up.
|
|
Scott--I apologize for hijacking this thread. It's literally my first post on Paizo boards and I don't know either the etiquette or the technical tricks so if this is rude or poorly formatted my apologies in advance. Scott-I have an important question for you. Would you be willing to share your notes/early designs/whatever you have for your Sins of the Saviors conversion? I've just DMed my group through the first four modules and would LOVE to keep them on with your work. I know I'll have to do Xin Shalast on my own as I understand you quit the project but I'd be incredibly grateful to you if you could share even very partial notes on Saviors. If you don't want to post I'll be happy to give you my email just let me know how you want to proceed. I also want to say that your conversion work is excellent! You hit the ball out of the park in your efforts. THanks--GeneIf you go to his profile, there's a Private Message option. :)
Also apologizing to Scott is like apologizing to me.
No one does that :)
I've heard testimony from members of the forum who claim that their games won't even clear the runway if that one person isn't allowed to play their snowflake and while I'm sure it may exist, I'm just not convinced that it happens like they say it does. What kind of group would ban together and declare they won't play unless Bob gets to play his special character. What makes Bob so special and why should it be allowed if the others don't agree with Bob and want to play with or without him?How does playing a weirdo race (no offence intended, Umbriere) impact on anyone else?
It doesn't seem to me to be at anyone's "expense" (other than maybe the DM, depending on the story).
Sometimes the one playing the weirdo can harm the game. Especially if it is always the same player and he always has to be special.
For example:
You decide to play a game of vampire and the one player insists on playing a werewolf. So when the game ends after some time you decide to play werewolf instead and THE player plays a vampire.
So why should a bunch of vampires have to endure having a flea ridden dog wannabe with them? And why would a pack of noble werewolves accept a 'sucker in their mid?
It is getting worse if the whole party agrees upon a theme and then one player does what he can to disrupt it.
Example: The game is rogue trader and the group agrees on being smugglers of alien artefacts and the PCs are all more or less xenophile (and very much elder fans). Now one player who plays a cleric decides to take the talent hatred: Eldar and openly thinks about taking a talent with which to force this hatred on the other PCs.
Why should they not just kill the cleric and get on without him?
Sure if one player wants to play something that you don't like you can always vote with your feet and walk away. If the others do the same they can make another game without the offending player.
But that's not always a viable option.
Sure if one player wants to play something that you don't like you can always vote with your feet and walk away. If the others do the same they can make another game without the offending player.
But that's not always a viable option.
Actually, if you are this one player's GM, it always is an option.
No one can force you to accept that player at the table.|
|
Sure if one player wants to play something that you don't like you can always vote with your feet and walk away. If the others do the same they can make another game without the offending player.
But that's not always a viable option.Actually, if you are this one player's GM, it always is an option.
No one can force you to accept that player at the table.
That seems to be the other sides central argument.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The insistence to use only non-core stuff is what annoys me to no end.You have to put it into perspective. Yeah, some people out there only want to use "non-traditional" stuff, but that's just their style. They don't want to be like every other RPG character that came before them. They want to do something that someone else at the table has likely never played as.
Something I've heard, verbatim, from several players at various points is "Dude, I've already played a Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, and Cleric umpteen-thousand times. I want to play something different."
If that "something different" means a new class, new race, or whatever new option that is present and accounted for in the game system, why not let them have it? Barring setting/DM restrictions, of course.
YMMV
That is ok. What i am talking is a player who NEVER plays a standard race/class combination and will tie him/herself into knots just to play something "different"
either way, the races in the core rulebook have a lot of associated steriotypes, that among groups that hammed them up, reuined them for me.
i am so tired of
Lego Lass Elves
Drizz't Clone Drow
Axebeard Dwarves
Tinker Gnomes
Frodo Halflings
"Hulk Smash" Orcs
and similar cliched portrayals
i need not have a special culture
i just need something that allows to seperate myself from the thousands of clones in my area, so while cultural backgrounds make that easier. being the oddball who subverts steriotypes, such as the dwarven druid, or the Half-Orc wizard is a sufficient subversion. though i like neither race, i use them as examples of my minimum level of subversion
I don't see how this makes any sort of point. Only completely lazy, unimaginative people will constantly play stereotypical characters. Or new people trying themselves out.
I mostly play Core only classes and none of my characters in the past nine years or so could have been called stereotypical.Its not what you play but how you play it
Sample Characters i have played for Uniqueness
Socially Awkward Tiefling Librarian who specialized in making other people perform better in combat
Sylph Street Magician, a wizard who picked up many roguish skill choices
Dwarven Druid whom was refluffed as a Feng Shui Master/Geomancer and wore Graphite Armor
Elven Huntress whom was a savage raised by humans, whom know how to track, disable traps, was a switch hitter, and had a horse mount.
Tieflings are fine, on occasion. Sylphs too. I don't see anything requiring changing rules or anything that special.
I was merely explaining that the reason people are balking at the concept of a "good special snowflake" is that the commonly accepted definition precludes it. Special snowflakes are, at least by the definition I have always seen used (see my previous post and tvtropes), a means of co-opting the game/plot and undermining it for others.
My experience thus far.
The insistence to use only non-core stuff is what annoys me to no end.You have to put it into perspective. Yeah, some people out there only want to use "non-traditional" stuff, but that's just their style. They don't want to be like every other RPG character that came before them. They want to do something that someone else at the table has likely never played as.
Something I've heard, verbatim, from several players at various points is "Dude, I've already played a Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, and Cleric umpteen-thousand times. I want to play something different."
If that "something different" means a new class, new race, or whatever new option that is present and accounted for in the game system, why not let them have it? Barring setting/DM restrictions, of course.
YMMV
Sample Characters i have played for Uniqueness
Socially Awkward Tiefling Librarian who specialized in making other people perform better in combat
Sylph Street Magician, a wizard who picked up many roguish skill choices
Dwarven Druid whom was refluffed as a Feng Shui Master/Geomancer and wore Graphite Armor
Elven Huntress whom was a savage raised by humans, whom know how to track, disable traps, was a switch hitter, and had a horse mount.
Thing is, I'm not seeing anything in the above descriptions that predicate needing a specific race.
The issue I have with the whole stereotype argument, which ties into the perception of "Special Snowflake", is that things are only stereotypical if you make them that way. Nothing in any of the Pathfinder books I have state that all dwarves must be 'axebeards' or all orks are blah or whatever the argument is. Characters are what you make of them; everyone (or let's say most everyone so that argument is headed off) wants to be different/special/interesting with their character. Most aren't going to play some bland nothing.
What interests me is that the very thing Umbriere dislikes is something I'd think about with the things they like: tiny mind controlling female semi-humans and so forth are very very stereotypical in a lot of fantasy literature and games.
I guess for me the term "special snowflake" pertains more to the player than the character. Someone who needs/wants more of my attention and time than every one else gets. Someone who is distracting or disruptive in the name of "fun", someone who wants to overshadow everyone else.
Wanting something different or outside the boundaries of what the table has set isn't the defining character of a special snowflake for me, but it does raise a flag that I might be in the presence of one.
all 4 of the mentioned examples are fairly normal stuff
petite framed mind controlling female semi-humans are indeed common in fantasy, as Monsters and NPCs. but most of the time, they tend to be very malicious.
none of those samples needed a specific race
the race was mostly picked to fit other aspects
for the librarian
she didn't start as a tiefling, but as a shy librarian, then i got inspiration on shy devils from touhou, so i took Koakuma as inspiration
the Sylph Street magician, i had an idea for a wizard from the streets with roguish skills, later some ideas about a soul as free as the wind itself came, she ended up a sylph for pure irony, mostly because wind is the element of freedom, which was symbolic of her own mindset
the elven huntress, was a matter of how could i make an elven ranger appeal to me
the dwarven geomancer, how can i make a male dwarf that is as close to the complete opposite of an axebeard as i can make him?
i don't pick races because i need to
i pick races that sound good with the concept based on characters that match my appeal
|
|
I've heard testimony from members of the forum who claim that their games won't even clear the runway if that one person isn't allowed to play their snowflake and while I'm sure it may exist, I'm just not convinced that it happens like they say it does. What kind of group would ban together and declare they won't play unless Bob gets to play his special character. What makes Bob so special and why should it be allowed if the others don't agree with Bob and want to play with or without him?How does playing a weirdo race (no offence intended, Umbriere) impact on anyone else?
It doesn't seem to me to be at anyone's "expense" (other than maybe the DM, depending on the story).
Let's assume it is just at the GM's expense.
Why does one person at the table (player) get to dictate what another player must do?
Why does one player get to make the game less fun for another player so they personally can have more fun?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't want to play a stereotype, don't play your character AS a stereotype. There's no need for alien races, third-party feats, or prestige classes to make a character distinctive. All it takes is characterization and roleplay.
If you don't want to do an 'axebeard dwarf,' then make a dwarf who's not a stereotypical axebeard. If you don't want another "Hulk smash" orc, then play an orc who's intelligent and cultured. That's a far greater exercise in creativity than just slapping glitter and wings on your PC and calling him Exotic.
And that is where the paradox begins.
If you do not play the usual "axebeard" dwarf, you're playing a special snowflake.
If you're not playing the usual "Hulk smash" orc, you are playing a special snowflake.
You do know that Elves and Dwarves existed in Nordic mythology for a very very long time before Tolkien used them for his works?
The only original creations that can be attributed to him are Hobbits and Orcs.
Goblins already existed. So did gnomes (not even Tolkinian)...
Half breeds are half-breeds.
you like your coreWrong. I like everything aside from a few exceptions and 3pp content which i won't touch (except for making craft work).
What i hate is players constantly insisting on playing something "different" and "special". What is wrong with being a mundane character, albeit a very interesting person.
I grew out of playing various "special stuff" a while ago. And boy did i play them. A chitin ranger, a drow sorcerer, a centaur monk, a boumman druid, a fey'ri rogue/assassin. And you know what? It's boring. Give me a plain human over any of those. Any day.either way, the races in the core rulebook have a lot of associated steriotypes, that among groups that hammed them up, reuined them for me.
i am so tired of
Lego Lass Elves
Drizz't Clone Drow
Axebeard Dwarves
Tinker Gnomes
Frodo Halflings
"Hulk Smash" Orcs
and similar cliched portrayals
i need not have a special culture
i just need something that allows to seperate myself from the thousands of clones in my area, so while cultural backgrounds make that easier. being the oddball who subverts steriotypes, such as the dwarven druid, or the Half-Orc wizard is a sufficient subversion. though i like neither race, i use them as examples of my minimum level of subversion
Frodo was not optomised, and was pretty weak. Anyone faffing around as frodo would likely have big shoes to fill and could easily leave frodo behind by doing anything of real note not related to rings, or being carried through dungeons by a Sam character.
Oh, this is that other thread. Apologies. [Dies of boredom.]
If you don't want to play a stereotype, don't play your character AS a stereotype. There's no need for alien races, third-party feats, or prestige classes to make a character distinctive. All it takes is characterization and roleplay.
If you don't want to do an 'axebeard dwarf,' then make a dwarf who's not a stereotypical axebeard. If you don't want another "Hulk smash" orc, then play an orc who's intelligent and cultured. That's a far greater exercise in creativity than just slapping glitter and wings on your PC and calling him Exotic.
And that is where the paradox begins.
If you do not play the usual "axebeard" dwarf, you're playing a special snowflake.
If you're not playing the usual "Hulk smash" orc, you are playing a special snowflake.
He is Dwarven lite? What a snowflake.
Let me guess, he was raised by humans?
But... my backstory... no.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought stereotypes and snowflakes were entirely different things. I figured "special snowflake" implied atypical races not part of the normal population, i.e. playing a Beholder, half-dragon(or full dragon), etc.
I don't see how any core race can be considered a "special snowflake" unless you're really trying to break character creation guidelines, like making a rich noble or something(beyond starting wealth and the rich parents Trait).
Sentient Ankheg with Druids levels - "Snowflake."
Orc Barbarian - stereotypical "normal" build.
Orc Wizard - Just an orc with a different class. Nothing to see here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't want to play a stereotype, don't play your character AS a stereotype. There's no need for alien races, third-party feats, or prestige classes to make a character distinctive. All it takes is characterization and roleplay.
If you don't want to do an 'axebeard dwarf,' then make a dwarf who's not a stereotypical axebeard. If you don't want another "Hulk smash" orc, then play an orc who's intelligent and cultured. That's a far greater exercise in creativity than just slapping glitter and wings on your PC and calling him Exotic.
And that is where the paradox begins.
If you do not play the usual "axebeard" dwarf, you're playing a special snowflake.
If you're not playing the usual "Hulk smash" orc, you are playing a special snowflake.
Um ... No? Not even remotely close?
If you are playing a dwarven arcane lore keeper and archaeologist, who is more comfortable with books than an axe ...
That is not a special snowflake.
If you play a deeply serious and somber dwarven cleric who "doesn't touch drink because it fogs the mind" it's not a special snowflake.
As two examples.
People seem to keep conflating 'not a stereotype" with "special snowflake" ignoring the emphasis on "special" in "special snowflake". It's not the uniqueness that makes it bad.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
That seems to be the other sides central argument.
In fact, it is.
I have been burned by at least one too many snowflake who sabotaged the party, the story or both claiming to 'just being playing my character' that I have come to the point of simply refusing to GM a group containing concepts that will not work together.
Likewise, if I offer to GM a certain setting (let's just take the courtiers-in-Kyonin as an example), I will treat a player's idea of "Oh, I will be playing an Ugh-me-tough half-orc neanderthal barbarian, then" as just another way of saying "Not interested in your crap."
Yes, I do have a plot in mind when I offer to GM something. Just tossing your characters out into a world-sized sandbox with the PCs as the only driving force is not what I offer; if you require that kind of play, please find yourself another GM.
I can, and I will help players integrate the occasional oddball into the scenario, as long as things do not get odd enough to break my own suspension of disbelief.
However, I require the player in question to play with me in these cases. Give me a reason why this character is on this setting. Give me a reason why this character would want to travel with the group, and why the group would want to have him. If you bring a snow elf winter witch (from a violently xenophobic tribe, to boot) into a desert campaign, simply stating "Well, she's diffetent" when asked about your reason to be there is not gonna cut it.
I play this game because I want to have fun. As soon as you force me to do things that are un-fun for me, two things happen:
1) The very reason I GM has just disappeared. If I continue, out of shatever sende of duty...
2) My GM'ing suffers. This will lead to less fun on your side.
TL;DR: I offer a certain campaign, in a certain setting, within certain parameters.
If you want to play under these circumstances, fine.
If you'd like to stretch some of these parameters, we can talk, within limits.
If you don't find my offer acceptable, don't play. No one is holding a gun to your head.
Should I find enough players this way, great. If I don't... well, I'll be doing something else, then.
That is not a special snowflake.If you don't want to play a stereotype, don't play your character AS a stereotype. There's no need for alien races, third-party feats, or prestige classes to make a character distinctive. All it takes is characterization and roleplay.
If you don't want to do an 'axebeard dwarf,' then make a dwarf who's not a stereotypical axebeard. If you don't want another "Hulk smash" orc, then play an orc who's intelligent and cultured. That's a far greater exercise in creativity than just slapping glitter and wings on your PC and calling him Exotic.
And that is where the paradox begins.
If you do not play the usual "axebeard" dwarf, you're playing a special snowflake.
If you're not playing the usual "Hulk smash" orc, you are playing a special snowflake.
Depends on who you ask.
Depends on who you ask.That is not a special snowflake.If you don't want to play a stereotype, don't play your character AS a stereotype. There's no need for alien races, third-party feats, or prestige classes to make a character distinctive. All it takes is characterization and roleplay.
If you don't want to do an 'axebeard dwarf,' then make a dwarf who's not a stereotypical axebeard. If you don't want another "Hulk smash" orc, then play an orc who's intelligent and cultured. That's a far greater exercise in creativity than just slapping glitter and wings on your PC and calling him Exotic.
And that is where the paradox begins.
If you do not play the usual "axebeard" dwarf, you're playing a special snowflake.
If you're not playing the usual "Hulk smash" orc, you are playing a special snowflake.
Well, if you require they play an exact stereotype ... Yeah, then that is an unimaginative gm. Members of other races have a right to be at least as diverse as real world humans are.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously, playing something at the expense of the group is not okay.
Here's a question, though: Is it okay for a GM to ban a race or class just because he doesn't like it?
I generally don't allow most of the Bestiary 2-3 races. That's because I feel they were only added as options for a GM, if he wants to include, say, critters from Japanese myth. Some players have asked to play kitsune, and I've been pretty negative on the idea (though I haven't strictly ruled it out yet). I prefer a European theme. I also disparage most of the new planetouched, since I honestly just don't care for them and think the Bestiary creatures are plenty. Long live the kobold/tengu/goblin/hobgoblin/orc/tiefling/aasimar team!
Obviously, players are free to leave over such a restriction (though if they do, it kinda says a lot about their attitude towards gaming). Is the restriction harming fun? Or is it no different from a GM deciding to include a dangerous monster as an enemy--just another choice of the little robed man we call Dungeon Master?
I actually caught myself on these questions a little while ago over a character concept for my upcoming pirate campaign. It is set in Golarion and the player in question brought up a drow. Now, my initial reaction was no as this is a campaign where social interaction is vital and a dark elf would be seriously handicapped. Not only that, it would hurt other players by association.
However, I gave it some thought and began to realize that if I worked with the player for a cool character concept that this could work. It would be a very challenging character to play and the player in question is somewhat clumsy in his playing style, but that way I wouldn't say no. The next time I saw him I mentioned my reconsideration, but he had already shifted to a new character concept without problem.
I love the fact that I have such mature players, but I feel that GMs should try their best to come up with a way to make something fit before dismissing it. "Let me give that some thought" is a better answer than "no" even if it eventually results in a no.
Who knows? Even in a semi-serious game you might become inspired to make a pirate smurf work... ;)
As a DM, I'd allow both the axebeard dwarf and the non-axebeard dwarf.
I'd allow the Hulk smash orc as readily as I'd allow the non-Hulk smash orc.
Best of all, I'm even willing to let a player use a homebrew race (either mine or their own creation), provided it makes sense to exist in the campaign world (since there's everything from Linnorms to Flumphs in Golarion, most things are okay in there if you ask me) and also if the homebrew race isn't overpowered in comparison to the Core options. And so far it seems I'm a million-to-one type of DM among dime-a-dozens just because of that in the area where I live. Much to my chagrin, one DM allows homebrews but doesn't put enough emphasis on RP for my tastes, while another DM is vice-versa.
The Kingmaker group I'm currently running has a tiefling born to a barbarian tribe that abandoned him to be raised by fey (who multi-classes Barbarian and Magus), a human wizard raised in Absalom (who happened to end up dead last session and was reincarnated by a druid as a bugbear), a hobgoblin ninja from Tian Xia who found his brethren too violent for his liking (he also worships Abadar rather devoutly) and a ratfolk ranger (multi-classing as fighter, some archetype that gave gun proficiency) from Alkenstar who worked as a bounty hunter and left for the Stolen Lands after a bandit had run off with his animal companion.
Obviously, playing something at the expense of the group is not okay.
Here's a question, though: Is it okay for a GM to ban a race or class just because he doesn't like it?
I generally don't allow most of the Bestiary 2-3 races. That's because I feel they were only added as options for a GM, if he wants to include, say, critters from Japanese myth. Some players have asked to play kitsune, and I've been pretty negative on the idea (though I haven't strictly ruled it out yet). I prefer a European theme. I also disparage most of the new planetouched, since I honestly just don't care for them and think the Bestiary creatures are plenty. Long live the kobold/tengu/goblin/hobgoblin/orc/tiefling/aasimar team!
Obviously, players are free to leave over such a restriction (though if they do, it kinda says a lot about their attitude towards gaming). Is the restriction harming fun? Or is it no different from a GM deciding to include a dangerous monster as an enemy--just another choice of the little robed man we call Dungeon Master?
I actually caught myself on these questions a little while ago over a character concept for my upcoming pirate campaign. It is set in Golarion and the player in question brought up a drow. Now, my initial reaction was no as this is a campaign where social interaction is vital and a dark elf would be seriously handicapped. Not only that, it would hurt other players by association.
However, I gave it some thought and began to realize that if I worked with the player for a cool character concept that this could work. It would be a very challenging character to play and the player in question is somewhat clumsy in his playing style, but that way I wouldn't say no. The next time I saw him I mentioned my reconsideration, but he had already shifted to a new character concept without problem.
I love the fact that I have such mature players, but I feel that GMs should try their best to come up with a way to make something fit before dismissing...
Oh, if there is a way for it to fit absolutely. And the chances of that happening go up dramatically if, as one of the players in my game, you put forth a lot of effort to make it fit before brining it to me.
Of course, I tend to play games were the entire character creation is me and go player sitting down together and talking until we have a character that fits. Starting from general
Q:"what sort of concept are you looking to create?"
A:"xxx xxx xxx"
A: "Well, here are a few things that you might want to think about. The Dwarves of Xxx xxx, and might make a good choice. Also the city of xxx in xxx has ....
... And so on, going from general to more specific with ideas being batted back and forth until something comes together that s/he wants to play and that I want to gm.
As a DM, I'd allow both the axebeard dwarf and the non-axebeard dwarf.
I'd allow the Hulk smash orc as readily as I'd allow the non-Hulk smash orc.
Best of all, I'm even willing to let a player use a homebrew race (either mine or their own creation), provided it makes sense to exist in the campaign world (since there's everything from Linnorms to Flumphs in Golarion, most things are okay in there if you ask me) and also if the homebrew race isn't overpowered in comparison to the Core options. And so far it seems I'm a million-to-one type of DM among dime-a-dozens just because of that in the area where I live. Much to my chagrin, one DM allows homebrews but doesn't put enough emphasis on RP for my tastes, while another DM is vice-versa.
"Set in Golarion" is the operative phrase there.
Not everywhere is.