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.
Given that with a meal other people can just eat theirs, more apt is if its a Mexican themed night and at the one persons table setting he demands that japanese music be played.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Amen. That's why it's best if player and DM expectations match up. Most of the DMs here wouldn't want players who granted them less authority than they say they "deserve." As DM, I generally don't want players who are too deferential. To me, the correct question isn't "here's the campaign(s) I'm offering, are you in or out?" but rather, "Here's the amount of authority I want, are you offering substantially more or less?"
Amen. That's why it's best if player and DM expectations match up. Most of the DMs here wouldn't want players who granted them less authority than they say they "deserve." As DM, I generally don't want players who are too deferential. To me, the correct question isn't "here's the campaign(s) I'm offering, are you in or out?" but rather, "Here's the amount of authority I want, are you offering substantially more or 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.
So for a player, its fine to insist on specific characters(and only those) but its a subject for mocking, scare quotes and all other sorts of snideness from you for a gm to want restrictions and 'deference'?
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.
But that isnt what I am talking about. I am not talking about someone being a jerk. I am talking about someone who comes to me and says, hey I'd really like to play a dragon rider in your game next week. Can we work something out?
Like I said I play with my friends. No one comes to my game demanding anything. They ask, BEFORE the game. And we work something out. Your example doesnt exist in my group of FRIENDS playing a GAME together.
The person in your example would come to me before the dinner gathering and say, 'hey I have this new fondue set, can I bring some to your tex mex party next week and share with everyone?' And I would say yea, I like Icecream, go for it. Just make sure you get there early to set it up, (assuming such a thing needs setup, I've never made fondue). No one is a jerk, the person in question gets their ice cream and even if I dont want any fondue, it in no way affects my enjoyment of my meal. I dont have to eat it. I just need it to be in the same room as me.
(by the way what the heck is ice cream fondue? I've heard of chocolate and cheese fondue, but ice cream?)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
But that isnt what I am talking about. I am not talking about someone being a jerk. I am talking about someone who comes to me and says, hey I'd really like to play a dragon rider in your game next week. Can we work something out?
Like I said I play with my friends. No one comes to my game demanding anything. They ask, BEFORE the game. And we work something out. Your example doesnt exist in my group of FRIENDS playing a GAME together.
The person in your example would come to me before the dinner gathering and say, 'hey I have this new fondue set, can I bring some to your tex mex party next week and share with everyone?' And I would say yea, I like Icecream, go for it. Just make sure you get there early to set it up, (assuming such a thing needs setup, I've never made fondue). No one is a jerk, the person in question gets their ice cream and even if I dont want any fondue, it in no way affects my enjoyment of my meal. I dont have to eat it. I just need it to be in the same room as me.
(by the way what the heck is ice cream fondue? I've heard of chocolate and cheese fondue, but ice cream?)
The difference is, in a rpg ... The ice cream WILL get mixed into the other food. They are in fact playing wth each other and constantly interacting. They aren't each individually playing the game in separate partitions shut off from everyone else.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...unless you run a campaign where the players actually DON'T interact, merely go round by round against the latest encounter's monsters, aiming to do the most DPR possible given the tactical situation?
And btw, ice cream fondue is chocolate fondue where you dip ice cream.
...unless you run a campaign where the players actually DON'T interact, merely go round by round against the latest encounter's monsters, aiming to do the most DPR possible given the tactical situation?
... And if that's what you want, more power to you. I'm just not going to a: be running it or B: be playing in it.
... And if that's what you want, more power to you. I'm just not going to a: be running it or B: be playing in it.
Hmm... sounds like a viable computer game to me...
... And if that's what you want, more power to you. I'm just not going to a: be running it or B: be playing in it.Hmm... sounds like a viable computer game to me...
... Exactly.
Played in a game like that once. Was pretty fun and got me good exposure to a lot of rules I hadn't seen before.
Restaurant metaphors...
We've successfully blended five threads together. Well done, lads and lasses.
Sure. I play computer games too. It's fun. But, really, while I am happy to let anyone play like that, obviously, it's not something I even consider relevant in what I want when I play.
|
Having read through this thread, the one thing I'm not seeing is an agreed upon definition of what a special snowflake is. It seems to vary from "Playing something outside the established mechanical and fluff character creation guidelines as set forth by the GM (and possibly agreed to by the players" to "A character attempting to disrupt the game by creating a character who, by nature of their own uniqueness, causes said disruption".
I think coming up with an idea of what special snowflake is supposed to mean and agreeing upon a definition might help the discussion out.
Having read through this thread, the one thing I'm not seeing is an agreed upon definition of what a special snowflake is. It seems to vary from "Playing something outside the established mechanical and fluff character creation guidelines as set forth by the GM (and possibly agreed to by the players" to "A character attempting to disrupt the game by creating a character who, by nature of their own uniqueness, causes said disruption".
I think coming up with an idea of what special snowflake is supposed to mean and agreeing upon a definition might help the discussion out.
Something which is different in a way which causes disruption to the game or campaign - often, if not always, created with just that in mind. Quite different from a unique character that the player takes time to work with the gm in order to make it fit and add to rather than detract from the gestalt gaming experience.
|
|
Something which is different in a way which causes disruption to the game or campaign - often, if not always, created with just that in mind. Quite different from a unique character that the player takes time to work with the gm in order to make it fit and add to rather than detract from the gestalt gaming experience.
So for example, an elven bard named Velligostrombosovitravios. He always demands people use his full name, becoming irate if they choose not to (including NPCs). Has an intense hatred of gnomes and refuses to interact with them diplomatically despite being the party face. Refuses to touch dead bodies yet demands a full share of the loot found. Would you classify this as a special snowflake?
Something which is different in a way which causes disruption to the game or campaign - often, if not always, created with just that in mind. Quite different from a unique character that the player takes time to work with the gm in order to make it fit and add to rather than detract from the gestalt gaming experience.So for example, an elven bard named Velligostrombosovitravios. He always demands people use his full name, becoming irate if they choose not to (including NPCs). Has an intense hatred of gnomes and refuses to interact with them diplomatically despite being the party face. Refuses to touch dead bodies yet demands a full share of the loot found. Would you classify this as a special snowflake?
Would seem to fit, yes.
I would say Xzaral that the issue isn't really what is a snowflake, but what are reasonable DM and Player actions during the course of a game, in particular character creation.
These types of threads show up often and the underlining issue is the DM/Player dynamic.
Now, if a thread likes this could stay on the original issue of "Special Snowflakes in games and what does this mean to you" then yeah, having a firm definition would help greatly. Toz is right though in the fact it doesn't have a meaning, it is a very interpretive concept. One person defined it as a anything against sterotype/expectations, one has defined it as a disruptive influnce/attention hog, another as anything with a wild backstory that goes both against social norms and campaign intent, also the idea that all PCs are actually special snowflakes because PCs have some much power and influence in the world compared to a standard NPC, etc.
We all as GMs and Players have personal responses and alerts to ideas we hear or concepts brought to the table. Sometimes there are work arounds, sometimes there aren't. Plain and simple I suppose. Though to be fair if we all really accepted that everyone plays their own style and idealy has a group of like minded players, the gamer talk forum would probably only be "Rasitlin vs Elminister" and "Who's the better archer Legolas or Robin Hood" threads. With the occasional, "Hey X player/GM did this, is it kosher?"
A character which will more or less immediately get used as trebuchet ammo by ANY conceivable group IS a snowflake. Velli here is going for a bit of a flight, I would say.
I would classify it as a straw man
You were right, Lamontius. Total balls.
Would seem to fit, yes.Something which is different in a way which causes disruption to the game or campaign - often, if not always, created with just that in mind. Quite different from a unique character that the player takes time to work with the gm in order to make it fit and add to rather than detract from the gestalt gaming experience.So for example, an elven bard named Velligostrombosovitravios. He always demands people use his full name, becoming irate if they choose not to (including NPCs). Has an intense hatred of gnomes and refuses to interact with them diplomatically despite being the party face. Refuses to touch dead bodies yet demands a full share of the loot found. Would you classify this as a special snowflake?
Maybe, I'm going to Devil's Advocate this one. Except the name thing, that would get old real fast. Does he have a good backstory reason for hating gnomes? Was he sold into gnomish slavery, gnomes killed his mother, or is he just a racist elf? The touching the dead thing can actually be a cultural aspect, in the L5R campaign it is considered a taboo to touch dead flesh. If a character has a phobia they are willing to actually roleplay out, I'd be down for fear of touching the dead.
It is a subjective matter.
EDIT: Sorry left this out. Is the campaign gnome heavy and did the player know about this ahead of time? If the DM said "Yeah gnomes are huge here, but go ahead and bring your gnome hating elf, could be fun." Not a snowflake. If the player knew gnomes were a huge portion of the game, and didn't discuss it with the DM on the rasict aspect of their character might be iffy.
Toz is rightMan, twice in one week. What are the odds?
You should buy a lotto ticket.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having read through this thread, the one thing I'm not seeing is an agreed upon definition of what a special snowflake is. It seems to vary from "Playing something outside the established mechanical and fluff character creation guidelines as set forth by the GM (and possibly agreed to by the players)" to "A character attempting to disrupt the game by creating a character who, by nature of their own uniqueness, causes said disruption".
I think coming up with an idea of what special snowflake is supposed to mean and agreeing upon a definition might help the discussion out.
I don't think anyone will be successful in that, because it's too subjective. Everyone has a different level of tolerance, so what's a special snowflake for one group is perfectly fine in another.
I suppose both of the definitions you used in your post would apply, really.
So for example, an elven bard named Velligostrombosovitravios. He always demands people use his full name, becoming irate if they choose not to (including NPCs). Has an intense hatred of gnomes and refuses to interact with them diplomatically despite being the party face. Refuses to touch dead bodies yet demands a full share of the loot found. Would you classify this as a special snowflake?
As I note above, everyone has a different level of tolerance. My question here would be "how irate"? Is it 'cute' irate (e.g. whenever his name is shortened, you get a "HEY!" from the background) or is it 'annoying' irate (going on and on and on about it and seemingly mad all the time)?
Given the base information, for us, that probably wouldn't qualify as a special snowflake.
But an awakened pony? #1, that's not in our character creation guidelines, and #2) my players would bodily throw the git out of the house. So... yeah. Special snowflake in that instance for us (but not others).
|
|
I would say Xzaral that the issue isn't really what is a snowflake, but what are reasonable DM and Player actions during the course of a game, in particular character creation.
These types of threads show up often and the underlining issue is the DM/Player dynamic.
Now, if a thread likes this could stay on the original issue of "Special Snowflakes in games and what does this mean to you" then yeah, having a firm definition would help greatly. Toz is right though in the fact it doesn't have a meaning, it is a very interpretive concept. One person defined it as a anything against sterotype/expectations, one has defined it as a disruptive influnce/attention hog, another as anything with a wild backstory that goes both against social norms and campaign intent, also the idea that all PCs are actually special snowflakes because PCs have some much power and influence in the world compared to a standard NPC, etc.
We all as GMs and Players have personal responses and alerts to ideas we hear or concepts brought to the table. Sometimes there are work arounds, sometimes there aren't. Plain and simple I suppose. Though to be fair if we all really accepted that everyone plays their own style and idealy has a group of like minded players, the gamer talk forum would probably only be "Rasitlin vs Elminister" and "Who's the better archer Legolas or Robin Hood" threads. With the occasional, "Hey X player/GM did this, is it kosher?"
I bolded that specific sentence because it means a great deal to what I'm trying to say. Meaningful societal interactions requires certain baselines be met. One of these is language. Language developed so that humans could interact with each other in ways other than pointing and grunting. Now language does have problems:
- Language is NOT universal
- Language changes and evolves over time
- Language is man-made, thus prone to interpretation
Honestly, I only see two real discussions popping up in this thread. One is overt, which I would generically state as "What should be allowed in a game". The other isn't quite as overt, and that's really "What is a special snowflake".
The first could be considered the point of the thread despite it's seemingly purposeful antagonistic title, yet without a definition of special snowflake we can't really make progress.
And as far as TOZ being right that it has no definition, then I completely disagree. It may be open to interpretation, but it can be defined. In fact, I've seen a few definitions pop up.
Something which is different in a way which causes disruption to the game or campaign - often, if not always, created with just that in mind. Quite different from a unique character that the player takes time to work with the gm in order to make it fit and add to rather than detract from the gestalt gaming experience.
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
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."
Those are just a few. But until we can reach a consensus on how to define it, how can any meaningful discussion take place on what it means to the game?
Hmm.
I'm working on a setting that has no planes... as far as the players (and the world their characters live in) know.
Want to play a planetouched? Nope! There's no such thing as elemental planes. That's a silly idea!
A planned plot involves the missing plane of elements (yes, it's just one) showing up on a collision course with the material, piloted by evil fire dudes. Even the most knowledgeable wizards and most reliable prophets are surprised. According to their calculations/visions, the material was supposed to be the only extant realm!
More and more rifts appear as the planes draw closer, allowing increasingly free travel between them (and hopefully lead to the PCs stopping the planar collision).
At that point, I can imagine a player that was told 'no' to having planetouched at chargen would be a bit grumpy once they're all over the place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You were right, Lamontius. Total balls.
man
I told you guysI would suggest listening to me more often but 99% of the time that is just basically the worst idea ever
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm.
I'm working on a setting that has no planes... as far as the players (and the world their characters live in) know.
Want to play a planetouched? Nope! There's no such thing as elemental planes. That's a silly idea!
A planned plot involves the missing plane of elements (yes, it's just one) showing up on a collision course with the material, piloted by evil fire dudes. Even the most knowledgeable wizards and most reliable prophets are surprised. According to their calculations/visions, the material was supposed to be the only extant realm!
More and more rifts appear as the planes draw closer, allowing increasingly free travel between them (and hopefully lead to the PCs stopping the planar collision).
At that point, I can imagine a player that was told 'no' to having planetouched at chargen would be a bit grumpy once they're all over the place.
I don't see why the player should be angry at this. The entire propsed adventure was essentially the introduction of the Elemental Plane. If it wasn't there before makes sense that there wasnt a slyph or oread running around. Now, if after this adventure happens and everything is stable and the DM goes, "Cool, how about another go in this world a couple of generations in the future." The DM has no arguement about no planetouched creatures being allowed.
|
|
Having read through this thread, the one thing I'm not seeing is an agreed upon definition of what a special snowflake is. It seems to vary from "Playing something outside the established mechanical and fluff character creation guidelines as set forth by the GM (and possibly agreed to by the players)" to "A character attempting to disrupt the game by creating a character who, by nature of their own uniqueness, causes said disruption".
I think coming up with an idea of what special snowflake is supposed to mean and agreeing upon a definition might help the discussion out.
I don't think anyone will be successful in that, because it's too subjective. Everyone has a different level of tolerance, so what's a special snowflake for one group is perfectly fine in another.
I suppose both of the definitions you used in your post would apply, really.
This is a trap of language itself. The purpose of the definition isn't to say "X is a special snowflake, Y isn't." The purpose of the definition is to give us a starting point so we can discuss and evaluate to determine if it's a special snowflake. Without a definition, the word literally has no meaning whatsoever.
Having read through this thread, the one thing I'm not seeing is an agreed upon definition of what a special snowflake is. It seems to vary from "Playing something outside the established mechanical and fluff character creation guidelines as set forth by the GM (and possibly agreed to by the players)" to "A character attempting to disrupt the game by creating a character who, by nature of their own uniqueness, causes said disruption".
I think coming up with an idea of what special snowflake is supposed to mean and agreeing upon a definition might help the discussion out.
I don't think anyone will be successful in that, because it's too subjective. Everyone has a different level of tolerance, so what's a special snowflake for one group is perfectly fine in another.
I suppose both of the definitions you used in your post would apply, really.
This is a trap of language itself. The purpose of the definition isn't to say "X is a special snowflake, Y isn't." The purpose of the definition is to give us a starting point so we can discuss and evaluate to determine if it's a special snowflake. Without a definition, the word literally has no meaning whatsoever.
Which is why I said ...
Something which is different in a way which causes disruption to the game or campaign - often, if not always, created with just that in mind. Quite different from a unique character that the player takes time to work with the gm in order to make it fit and add to rather than detract from the gestalt gaming experience.
Where those exact lines are vary from table to table. If someone is playing in Fritz Lieber's Nehwon world the lines will be quite different then if someone is playing in, for example, planescape.
|
|
Much like munchkin and pornography, people can't define it, but they know it when they see it.
printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.
This is the definition of pornography as I found from google. So in fact, we have defined it. And from this definition, we can then discuss and come to certain rational subjects.
Example. A video of a woman giving birth. Is this pornography? I would say no. But you could probably find someone who has a fetish for this exact kind of thing. Does that mean it's pornography? I'd still say no despite this fact because that's not the intention of the media. But now we have a definition to springboard this discussion.
This is a trap of language itself. The purpose of the definition isn't to say "X is a special snowflake, Y isn't."
Okay.
The purpose of the definition is to give us a starting point so we can discuss and evaluate to determine if it's a special snowflake.
That's not really the point of this thread/discussion. As I noted above, what is a special snowflake is subjective - it will vary based on the tolerance of every individual group. Believe me, this thread and the people in it will not be telling me what is and is not a special snowflake. I already know what it is based on my and my group's personal preferences.
If that's your goal, I predict it will end mostly in failure. (Though, if pushed, I would say both definitions you used is what I would call a special snowflake. Does it have to be just one of the sentences you used?)
The discussion is (generally) what to do about them. I think.
|
|
Which is why I said ...
Something which is different in a way which causes disruption to the game or campaign - often, if not always, created with just that in mind. Quite different from a unique character that the player takes time to work with the gm in order to make it fit and add to rather than detract from the gestalt gaming experience.
Where those exact lines are vary from table to table. If someone is playing in Fritz Lieber's Nehwon world the lines will be quite different then if someone is playing in, for example, planescape.
Oh no, please don't think I'm disagreeing with you in any way. I actually like your definition. It gives a clear idea of intent. But it also contrasts with other definitions that others have expressed.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Damn. Is this *still* going?
When will people realize that you cannot tell another player how to play.*
If I want to say "Hey, people, I've created this setting, these are my restrictions, who wants to come play in this game? If you don't like what I'm doing, feel free to find a different game." there is nothing wrong with me doing that.
If I want to say "Hey, people, I'd like to play an RPG, lets get together and decide together what we want to do?" there is nothing wrong with me doing that.
You, personally, may like/hate/love/detest one of those methods, your entire group may, everyone you know may, but that does not make it wrong.
Anyone here who is unwilling to accept that some people play RPGs differently to them and that their choices are completely valid is adding absolutely nothing to this conversation (or indeed, this entire message board.) Period.
</end rant>
*(You can, of course, refuse to play with them/refuse to let them into your game)
|
|
what[/i] is a special snowflake is subjective - it will vary based on the tolerance of every individual group. Believe me, this thread and the people in it will not be telling me what is and is not a special snowflake. I already know what it is based on my and my group's personal preferences.
If that's your goal, I predict it will end mostly in failure. (Though, if pushed, I would say both definitions you used is what I would call a special snowflake. Does it have to be just one of the sentences you used?)
The discussion is (generally) what to do about them. I think.
Let's try this.
GM A says core only races. Player B asks if he'll let him use a tiefling. He presents an interesting backstory, a rationale for his character to be present, how to work with the group, etc. The GM agrees to let him play the character, and everyone has fun through the end of the campiagn. By the first definition, this character is now a special snowflake as "Playing something outside the established mechanical and fluff character creation guidelines as set forth by the GM (and possibly agreed to by the players". On the other hand, he isn't by the second, "A character attempting to disrupt the game by creating a character who, by nature of their own uniqueness, causes said disruption".
In my own paragraph I just argued he is and isn't a special snowflake because of the two definitions presented. The What of a special snowflake is still subjective, even with a definition. Is it because they are causing a disruption, or is it because they are playing something outside the box? Is the disruption a necessary part of being a special snowflake or is being different enough? Do you have to argue with your GM to be a special snowflake or does presenting the idea enough to qualify? It's not like I'm saying to define every specific example but when the baseline concept itself is so mutable how can anything meaningful come of the discussion in the first place?
Given this thread is about "getting to play your snowflake", I think the definition as far as this thread goes has to be:
"A character that there is some kind of objection to and you are being asked to find an alternative to."
(I have very intentionally not specified who the objection is from)
Golarion is the default setting that is used in Pathfinder, just like Greyhawk was the default setting for D&D.Last time I checked the campaign setting books, "Anything I can pull out of my butt" was not listed as things that must be allowed by anyone.
Careful, because in the APs, the people who are bad guys run the gamut of "anything the designers can pull out of their butts." Resticting PCs to standard races eventually leads to a universal metagame detect evil ability: "Ah, he's a half-lizard. Must be a bad guy, because heroes are only humans, elves, swarves, or hlaflings. Kill him!"
|
Amen. That's why it's best if player and DM expectations match up. Most of the DMs here wouldn't want players who granted them less authority than they say they "deserve." As DM, I generally don't want players who are too deferential. To me, the correct question isn't "here's the campaign(s) I'm offering, are you in or out?" but rather, "Here's the amount of authority I want, are you offering substantially more or 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.
It is also best if all babies eat and Ice Cream doesn't make you fat...
There is deferential in the sense of "Dude, wait until a break and we'll talk but I don't want the game to grind to a halt so everyone else is standing around watching us argue"
There is deferential in the sense of "Dude, if you don't want to play what I'm running that is fine, but stop trying to tell me I have to run what you want to play or I'm close-minded because that is a completely hypocritical logic chain."
The GM should not be forced to play anything they don't want to play in the same way the player shouldn't be (and arguably can't be) forced to play anything they don't want to play.
You are literally describing the types of players you don't want at your table while arguing you shouldn't say anyone isn't welcome at your table.
Do you not see the disconnect there?
You are literally describing the types of players you don't want at your table while arguing you shouldn't say anyone isn't welcome at your table.
No. And PLEASE stop using "literally" to mean "what I think you're saying seems to be something like X," because that's not what the word means.
Resticting PCs to standard races eventually leads to a universal metagame detect evil ability: "Ah, he's a half-lizard. Must be a bad guy, because heroes are only humans, elves, swarves, or hlaflings. Kill him!"
I doubt this will ever happen on a meaningful scale.
|
|
Careful, because in the APs, the people who are bad guys run the gamut of "anything the designers can pull out of their butts." Resticting PCs to standard races eventually leads to a universal metagame detect evil ability: "Ah, he's a half-lizard. Must be a bad guy, because heroes are only humans, elves, swarves, or hlaflings. Kill him!"Golarion is the default setting that is used in Pathfinder, just like Greyhawk was the default setting for D&D.Last time I checked the campaign setting books, "Anything I can pull out of my butt" was not listed as things that must be allowed by anyone.
Last time I checked, they charged for the APs. Measning if you don't like them, you don't buy them and if enough people agree with you, Paizo goes out of business.
Getting people to play in your setting has a similar need for people to buy into what you are selling.
Paizo doesn't go house to house saying you must use this. Why do you argue a player can go to a GM and say "You must allow this."
You keep talking about who you want at your table and who you want to game with, but you criticize people who are saying what they want at their table...
I doubt this will ever happen on a meaningful scale.
If I noticed that women never became CEOs, and women never did, I might reasonably start wondering about a "glass ceiling." And people do. On a very meaningful scale.
If I noticed that nonstandard races never became heroes, but were always villains, would I not start wondering why that is?
|
|
You are literally describing the types of players you don't want at your table while arguing you shouldn't say anyone isn't welcome at your table.No. And PLEASE stop using "literally" to mean "what I think you're saying seems to be something like X," because that's not what the word means.
Did you not say
"As DM, I generally don't want players who are too deferential."
"A character attempting to disrupt the game by creating a character who, by nature of their own uniqueness, causes said disruption".
That reminds me! Has anyone said that the guy who's going to be disruptive or an attention hog could very well do it(and very well may) regardless of what he plays? That's always an important note.