Golarion is the default setting that is used in Pathfinder, just like Greyhawk was the default setting for D&D.
Golarion is the default setting that is used in Pathfinder, just like Greyhawk was the default setting for D&D.
So? Is that somehow relevant?
Unless you are playing a pathfinder society game that means exactly nothing.
Default only means "what you go to if you don't go to something else."
I'd say it could be relevant to someone on this thread.
For myself, it's not very relevant, but it plays a part in this debate.
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.
I found myself considering the ban because I really am tired of the drow as heroes concept. I modified them heavily for my last campaign to allow for them PC use. Even then I found myself very glad no one took one. There are very few choices I outright hate, but even those I feel compelled to consider.
Hence the smurf reference. My first reaction to such a concept would be, "No way in Hell." But if the player really wanted to, I would try and make the concept work. By the time I was done, I doubt the player would still want to if it was for spotlight hogging purposes. If it was for real roleplaying potential, we could get something really cool out of it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Golarion is the default setting that is used in Pathfinder, just like Greyhawk was the default setting for D&D.
Generally, the "anti-player" people here are starting from the standpoint that allowing something they didn't think of first will ruin their Special Snowscape, so, yeah, Golarion is sort of beside the point.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's also funny to note, the most normal character in my Kingmaker campaign (the Human Wizard) was the one hogging the spotlight.
So that claim that people pick special races just to get attention doesn't apply to all people who prefer the more exotic options.
I've seen plenty of "normal" human rogues utterly trainwreck campaigns.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[Aaaaaand resurrected] Thanks Kirth. Phew, it was getting stuffy in here.
Hopefuly someone will make a "What makes you so special that you get to run your snowscape anyway?" thread.
I suppose the answer will be...."beekozz I umm the Gee-Emm!!!" or sumfink equally intelligent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My snowscape welcomes all snowflakes with open arms.
I couldn't really call it a snowscape without snow, now could I?
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.
I found myself considering the ban because I really am tired of the drow as heroes concept. I modified them heavily for my last campaign to allow for them PC use. Even then I found myself very glad no one took one. There are very few choices I outright hate, but even those I feel compelled to consider.
Hence the smurf reference. My first reaction to such a concept would be, "No way in Hell." But if the player really wanted to, I would try and make the concept work. By the time I was done, I doubt the player would still want to if it was for spotlight hogging purposes. If it was for real roleplaying potential, we could get something really cool out of it.
Which is fine. One campaign world had only gods that had a neutral component alignment and no paladins ... Until someone who wanted one, in the conversation, pitched a specific city state and tied it to a bit of dangling lore I left sitting around in the initial player notes. They fit it in well enough that the campaign turned into one where there were three paladins, a ranger and a sorcerer.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hopefuly someone will make a "What makes you so special that you get to run your snowscape anyway?" thread.
What about 'because people asked me to GM for them, and my snowscape appears to be to their liking'?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This happened:
GM says he's going to run a M&M space game, as a sequel to his previous M&M game. The last game ended with the heroes aboard a newly constructed space station, built around an alien relic and with hints that these aliens weren't as long-gone as we thought.
I came to the game with a character equipped with a space-capable mecha complete with FTL drives and a gravitic arsenal.
The other characters were:
A journalist on a bicycle.
A Catholic priest (who had uncanny skill with knives).
An engineer with a pet blob of nanogoo that could scout and hack and stuff.
They all worked quite well as the game turned out to be an Earth-based undercover investigation of the alien presence and only in the epilogue did the party go into space.
The mecha didn't get used once.
Who was the snowflake? D:
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
[Aaaaaand resurrected] Thanks Kirth. Phew, it was getting stuffy in here.
Hopefuly someone will make a "What makes you so special that you get to run your snowscape anyway?" thread.
I suppose the answer will be...."beekozz I umm the Gee-Emm!!!" or sumfink equally intelligent.
The fact that I pitched the concept with the restrictions in place and they CHOSE to play in it?
The fact that you invited them in the first place and you CHOSE to invite them?
2 questions.
1) what is M&M
2) what is a Snowflake (besides frozen atmospheric condensation)
M&M is candy. Snowflake is a pejorative term.
Hopefuly someone will make a "What makes you so special that you get to run your snowscape anyway?" thread.What about 'because people asked me to GM for them, and my snowscape appears to be to their liking'?
Not all people protest openly when they disagree with a given decision.
|
1) Mutants and Masterminds?
2) Common term is a player who insist on playing something very uncommon/exotic and unique so that they would feel "special". Also a player who makes something like that to hog the spotlight as much as possible.
Not all people protest openly when they disagree with a given decision.Hopefuly someone will make a "What makes you so special that you get to run your snowscape anyway?" thread.What about 'because people asked me to GM for them, and my snowscape appears to be to their liking'?
That is their problem now. Isn't it? Its not my fault that i cannot read minds. Unless players tell me that they disagree with something i cannot know to change it.
M&M is Mutants & Masterminds, a superhero D20 system.
Special Snowflake is a term I've always understood to mean a prima donna player, but for the purpose of this thread would seem to mean "GM disapproved race/class/build."
The fact that you invited them in the first place and you CHOSE to invite them?
I repeat. The fact that I "invited them to play one of these campaigns with these restrictions AND THEY CHOSE ONE OF THEM.
That is their problem now. Isn't it? Its not my fault that i cannot read minds. Unless players tell me that they disagree with something i cannot know to change it.Not all people protest openly when they disagree with a given decision.Hopefuly someone will make a "What makes you so special that you get to run your snowscape anyway?" thread.What about 'because people asked me to GM for them, and my snowscape appears to be to their liking'?
Is that you can not, or is it that will not?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I repeat. The fact that you invited them to roll up a character for your game then AND YOU CHOSE NOT TO ALLOW IT.
See, we can do this forever... or at least until it sinks in that all the arguments cut both ways, which I've been stating pretty consistently.
I repeat. The fact that you invited them to roll up a character for your game then AND YOU CHOSE NOT TO ALLOW IT.
You are making no sense.
They are perfectly well allowed to play any character within the campaign rules of the campaign THEY agreed to play in. That argument doesn't even come close to cutting both ways. If I agreed to allow elves and then once at the table said "no elves" you might have a point ..
1) Mutants and Masterminds?
2) Common term is a player who insist on playing something very uncommon/exotic and unique so that they would feel "special". Also a player who makes something like that to hog the spotlight as much as possible.
1) D'oh! should've got that one i guess.
2) aren't we all snowflakes tho:) also glad i asked i was way off. i figured it was someone who made a character that was a burden onto everyone else.if someone wants to make a super weird out there character i say let them, as long as its supported by the rules out there already, no half construct-half nymph players in my game for sure. but if someone wants to make a Vanara ninja- cleric combo i'll find a way to make it work
You are making no sense.
To you. I'm making no sense to you.
You are making no sense.To you.
Arssanguinus makes no sense to me either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are making no sense.To you. I'm making no sense to you.
No, actually. At all.
|
|
Is that you can not, or is it that will not? Most cases I've seen have unsurprisingly gone with the latter.That is their problem now. Isn't it? Its not my fault that i cannot read minds. Unless players tell me that they disagree with something i cannot know to change it.Not all people protest openly when they disagree with a given decision.Hopefuly someone will make a "What makes you so special that you get to run your snowscape anyway?" thread.What about 'because people asked me to GM for them, and my snowscape appears to be to their liking'?
If i don't know something needs adapting, why in the hell would i change it in the first place? Because when i mentioned it the player gave a twitch of their mouth? Should i know to read people now as well as Cal Lightman? If they don't come forward with their concerns, i assume all is well and proceed with the game. If they can't bother to tell me, i consider it irrelevant.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are making no sense.To you.
If the gm had agreed to allow elves and then once at the table said "well, no elves, I changed my mind" you might have a point.
But this is not that situation.
I repeat; the players AGREED TO THAT CAMPAIGN.
No, actually. At all.
At all, to either of you. I appear to be making sense to the people "favoriting" my posts, though. Maybe -- just a thought -- you might step out of your trench for a minute, look at things from another perspective, and see if you can follow it. You can still disagree at that point -- that's fine; no harm, no foul -- but at least you'd be disagreeing with something you understood.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are making no sense.To you.Arssanguinus makes no sense to me either.
** spoiler omitted **
So it makes no sense to you that if you make a pitch for several campaigns, each of which have their own restrictions and features, and the players select one of them, that they have any obligation whatsoever to abide by what they agreed on?
So it makes no sense to you that if you make a pitch for several campaigns, each of which have their own restrictions and features, and the players select one of them, that they have any obligation whatsoever to abide by what they agreed on?
Since when are you pitching several campaigns? First you pitched only one. Now you're pitching several. Which is it?
No, actually. At all.At all, to either of you. I appear to be making sense to the people "favoriting" my posts, though. Maybe -- just a thought -- you might step out of your trench for a little, look at things from another perspective, and see if you can follow it. You can still disagree at that point -- that's fine; no harm, no foul -- but at least you'd be disagreeing with something you understood.
On the face of it, this specific argument, makes _no logical sense_
Its like asking "which do you like better, bandanna or grapefruit" and replying with "fish!"
Mu.
So it makes no sense to you that if you make a pitch for several campaigns, each of which have their own restrictions and features, and the players select one of them, that they have any obligation whatsoever to abide by what they agreed on?Since when are you pitching several campaigns? First you pitched only one. Now you're pitching several. Which is it?
No. I've never pitched only one campaign. Look back through the entire campaign and I've always said "her are the campaigns I'm willing to run, with the restrictions in place on each of them. Pick which one you like, if you don't like any of them, then I'm perfectly willing to play and let one of you take the seat.
I've never said I run only one campaign world, ever.
Talk about putting words in my mouth. Rather blatantly doing what you accuse others of doing here.
you accuse others of doing her.
Typo, or Freudian slip?
you accuse others of doing her.Typo, or Freudian slip?
Autocorrect.
Autocorrect.
You are making no sense.To you.If the gm had agreed to allow elves and then once at the table said "well, no elves, I changed my mind" you might have a point.
But this is not that situation.
I repeat; the players AGREED TO THAT CAMPAIGN.
Y'know what the thing is Ars, in this and the creativity vs gaming the system thread, the only restriction I've seen you mention is banning elves. It's your game and your table, but I don't like banning CRB materiel. Given that an entire campaign is months if not years of play time, and that people's taste can change, I think the options (even the ones I dislike) should be available to my players.
But seriously, it's been repeated throughout the thread, these are the campaigns(plural) I am willing to run along with their restrictions. Chose one, Or I chose to play. Rather simple.
Y'know what the thing is Ars, in this and the creativity vs gaming the system thread, the only restriction I've seen you mention is banning elves. It's your game and your table, but I don't like banning CRB materiel. Given that an entire campaign is months if not years of play time, and that people's taste can change, I think the options (even the ones I dislike) should be available to my players.You are making no sense.To you.If the gm had agreed to allow elves and then once at the table said "well, no elves, I changed my mind" you might have a point.
But this is not that situation.
I repeat; the players AGREED TO THAT CAMPAIGN.
I just used elves as a convenient example. I see no reason to just pick something random every time for the sake of a hypothetical example.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, actually. At all.At all, to either of you. I appear to be making sense to the people "favoriting" my posts, though. Maybe -- just a thought -- you might step out of your trench for a minute, look at things from another perspective, and see if you can follow it. You can still disagree at that point -- that's fine; no harm, no foul -- but at least you'd be disagreeing with something you understood.
I did not say I did not understand it. I understood your statement perfectly. It just did not make sense. I am sure you understand the difference.
Rolling up a character is a long process. As I interpreted Ars, he had an agreement from the players for a certain campaign, with certain limitations, and then a player wanted something outside those limitations. Which you make sound like he invited them to make any kind of character but the GM then did not allow. Entirely different situations, and not an answer to what he said.
At best, that's dishonest.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I'm running a game and make a restriction (on race/class/technology/prehensileness of organs and someone wants to make/play a character that doesn't fit with the restriction, then I tell them they won't be able to play that character. I will listen to all "offers" that might sway me, but ultimately I am god - if the offer is intriguing/interesting/compelling then I will go with it... I'm very happy to now be labelled a fascist.
If someone is running campaign with restrictions and I really want to play "against type" then I'll approach them with my "offer" - if they don't accept I'll likely move on to a different game - not because I've been rejected, but because the character I wanted to play has no place there. No hard feelings at all - I'm not into being vindictive or small-hearted or minded.
I once tried a bunch of concepts for a Birthright PbP, but in the end couldn't come up with a character that just "fit" for me. One did for a while, but then I pulled out because on second thoughts I couldn't connect to the personality anymore. Wasn't because he was Human - I actually really relish playing Humans, as much as Lizardfolk and Vegepygmies.
Look, I'm a diehard grognard who started playing back when Elves and Dwarves were a class and now homebrew and publish gonzo like there is no tomorrow. I home-brewed new classes and played monster races from the get go - I made a class called the Battlelord in ADnD and made an Orc called Br'luk Screltch that was one (okay I was 11 or 12 at the time). So:
I understand all the arguments from folk who say the character/personality concept, not the race/class combo is enough, and that wacky races and classes are a crutch for interest. It doesn't always hold true. I've seen some cheesy mechanical builds that were A-grade, creepy/moody compelling. And human. Fantastically role-played.
I guess both of these threads at their core are really about being able to compromise, and the focus just gets muddier and muddier with folk throwing around phrases like "entitled player/freak/special snowflake" and "inflexible GM/worldvision creator/special snowscape"...
Onward forum posters!!!! Thankfully by the time I post this, the thread will still be about the same thing.
I like to allow many different variations on classic fantasy races in my games
On my primary campaign setting I have two distinct Dwarven cultures, the larger population (of the two) does not originate in mountain caves, they have a strong "Western Idealization of Feudal Japanese Culture" theme, - Their country is called Holdandun.
There are four distinct elven cultures (including a Halfling sized, green skinned “elf” race called Eysturluns). Two of the cultures are closely related, in look and behavior, but separated by geography (they derive from the same early culture and divided when a large population travelled over a land/ice bridge that has since been lost to the passing of time). These two elven cultures (The Drasbians, modeled on “Fictionalized Representations of Scottish Highland Culture”; and the “Barbarians” modeled on a mix-up of various “Fictionalized Representations of native North American Cultures” ) are average height, light build, freckled skinned and light haired elves.
There are two Halfling cultures, the Bascondes and Eshians (modeled on “Fictionalized representations of 17th century Spanish and Northern European Cultures”)
And the Half Orcs exist not as a “half-breed” concept, but as a full race unto themselves, and are the largest and oldest culture on the world (modeled on “Western Idealized Representations of Ancient Chinese Cultures – i.e. traditional Hong Kong cinema portrayals of pre industrialized China).
Gnomes exist in isolation on remote islands in the North Sea, and are the least developed of this world’s races
There are three distinct Human Cultures
And then there are the Gymnagaopthians and Maetaurs, the two newest Races of my campaign setting.
Can I play an android? ;p
Srsly. Nice to hear your voice Terquem. Long time listener, first time fan-poke.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, as a host, Kolokotroni, if you have invited a bunch of people for a tex-mex dinner, and one guest then, said evening when you have prepared the food already, insists that you instead make ice cream fondue for everybody, what would your reaction be?
If I had a particular theme in mind for my gathering, I'd talk to them about said theme, via any of a dozen easy forms of communication we have nowadays, then work with them to ensure there was something they liked at the party.
But generally, if they wanted ice cream and I hadnt planed on ice cream, I'd have them bring it, and pull out a few bowls and a scoop for them to use. Which would be a closer analogy then me having to prepare something different.
In my game if someone wants to be something I didnt initially think to include in my world, they have to do the work for the most part. I'll work with them, but I wont be spending alot of time writing it up. Thats their job, I sort of do a development pass and we bring it into the fold. I dont have to make or prepare the icecream, I just have to fascilitate them bringing it to the party.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Golarion is the default setting that is used in Pathfinder, just like Greyhawk was the default setting for D&D.
Generally, the "anti-player" people here are starting from the standpoint that allowing something they didn't think of first will ruin their Special Snowscape, so, yeah, Golarion is sort of beside the point.
Well, I wouldn't characterize my view as anti-player, but I am advocating for the GM's editorial authority, so I guess your statement is meant to apply to me.
I like the term Special Snowscape. It shows that what we're really dealing with is a synthesis of multiple creative visions. The only time we actually see anything as a "special snow*" is when there is a difference of opinion.
Now, the issue of who gets deference in that case is something that MUST be settled on a case-by-case basis. Recall my liberal sprinkling of the word "tradition" in a post upthread. For some groups, it must be the GM's editorial authority or the game simply won't get played. Not necessarily out of spite on the GM's part — it may be that the motivation isn't there, or the game is too fractious without a single clear vision.
For other groups, like the one I met with last night for our third pre-campaign planning session, the GM's editorial authority is drastically lessened. This is a variable. There is no point in saying "the GM must have *this* much power no more no less".
Now, Mr. Betts poked a hornet's nest by asking "why does the GM get this power?" when in truth only some GMs do... and everyone chose to answer his question as though the answer was universal. It's not.
Heck, I GM different campaigns in different systems, and the answer isn't even consistent in the context of a single gaming group, let alone whole game.
And if the dinner was served, and the person demanded for hours that everyone else should have ice cream fondue, or at least ice cream fondue in the tex mex food, and called you a bad host because you didn't get him that, would you take that complaint seriously? Would you invite that person again?
I'm guessing no.