Why would we do that? Talk about a non sequitur.
Not sure why you are answering for shallowsoul.
Anyway, so you are okay with players doing things you don't like after the game has started, but not before? I am confuse.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would we do that? Talk about a non sequitur.Not sure why you are answering for shallowsoul.
Anyway, so you are okay with players doing things you don't like after the game has started, but not before? I am confuse.
What the character does in the game is an entirely separate thing than what the player does to create the character, obviously.
That's a rather odd position to conflate the two.
Arssanguinus, clearly they are different things. What I am confused about is what you see that makes it so it's okay to say no to a player solely because you don't like an idea in one of them but it's not okay in the other.
Clearly they are different things. What I am confused about is what you see that makes it so it's okay to say no to a player solely because you don't like an idea in one of them but it's not okay in the other.
Look, in both cases the world is reacting in a realistic way. In one situation the world is reacting to you trying to create a character of a race that doesn't exist by it continuing not to exist. In the other its reacting to what you do, by all the people reacting the way they would react,
There is no comparison at all between the two.
Your example doesn't fall under what shadowsoul was saying. They said that as a DM, they think it's okay for them to veto a character idea that fits perfectly within the setting as is just because they don't like it. Playing a race that doesn't exist in the setting obviously doesn't fit perfectly within the setting as is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Clearly they are different things. What I am confused about is what you see that makes it so it's okay to say no to a player solely because you don't like an idea in one of them but it's not okay in the other.
In my "recruited player" games, I guess you could say player freedom begins at the first game session. The time spent before that, such as character creation, I see as "setup time". Getting people into their positions on the starting grid, I guess. If someone is in an illegal starting position, I'm going to pull them back behind the line. Once I fire the starting pistol, where they run is up to them.
As I just posted in another discussion, I even encourage my players to have subplots detrimental to the group's in-character success if it's what they want to do (you want to play the guy that's out to steal the treasure once the group has killed the dragon? sure!). That's yet another reason though why I'm picky who I let play in those games - I don't want a player in the group if they can't handle the other players doing that type of thing and bring it into an out-of-character problem.
Matt Thomason, are you pulling your players back behind the line solely because you don't like their character concept? If no, then your situation is different from shallowsoul's. Shallowsoul stated that even if a character fits within the setting (so no trying to play banned races/classes/etc. or trying to play a CG drow in a setting where 100% of drow are evil), they think it's okay to shoot down a player's character concept if they happen to just not like it.
Your example doesn't fall under what shadowsoul was saying. They said that as a DM, they think it's okay for them to veto a character idea that fits perfectly within the setting as is just because they don't like it. Playing a race that doesn't exist in the setting obviously doesn't fit perfectly within the setting as is.
The gm is responsible for making sure the game as a gestalt can work, the player is responsible for their own character. Also, if I can't stand, let's pick something entirely at random that for me isn't even true - paladins ... Then I'm not having them in my game, because it's not going to just impact my fun, it will Impact those of others.
I have a right to say, 'no, I won't gm for that. You have a right to say 'no, I won't play in that or play with that.'.
Why do YOU want to deny people e right to say no and leave them only the right to say yes?
Matt Thomason, are you pulling your players back behind the line solely because you don't like their character concept? If no, then your situation is different from shallowsoul's. Shallowsoul stated that even if a character fits within the setting (so no trying to play banned races/classes/etc. or trying to play a CG drow in a setting where 100% of drow are evil), they think it's okay to shoot down a player's character concept if they happen to just not like it.
Depends how you define "not like"
I don't let my personal hatred of a particular type of race affect it.
If I feel it's not going to fit the style of story that campaign is aimed at, then it's discussion time.
I personally hate the idea of an awakened pony sorcerer, but if I'm running a Toon type of game or some kind of fantasy parody, it'll be welcome.
(P.S. People using my full name feels weird, only my mom and schoolteachers ever did that!)
Also, if I can't stand, let's pick something entirely at random that for me isn't even true - paladins ... Then I'm not having them in my game, because it's not going to just impact my fun, it will Impact those of others.
Under this hypothetical, let's say one of your players wants to play a paladin and you say no. Instead they roll up a LG inquisitor. Once the game starts, they roleplay their character as respecting legitimate authority, acting with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), helping those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punishing those who harm or threaten innocents.
Would you tell this person they had to roleplay their character differently?
Why do YOU want to deny people e right to say no and leave them only the right to say yes?
At this point I'm setting aside that question and trying to figure out why someone would allow player's choice once the game began, but before the game restrict choice based solely on whim and personal desire. It seems inconsistent. If you are okay with your players doing things you don't personally like (but still fit within the setting, etc.) after the game has started, then why wouldn't you also be okay with your players doing things you don't personally like (but still fit within the setting, etc.) before the game has started? What's so magical about that moment?
Also, if I can't stand, let's pick something entirely at random that for me isn't even true - paladins ... Then I'm not having them in my game, because it's not going to just impact my fun, it will Impact those of others.Under this hypothetical, let's say one of your players wants to play a paladin and you say no. Instead they roll up a LG inquisitor. Once the game starts, they roleplay their character as respecting legitimate authority, acting with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), helping those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punishing those who harm or threaten innocents.
Would you tell this person they had to roleplay their character differently?
Why do YOU want to deny people e right to say no and leave them only the right to say yes?At this point I'm setting aside that question and trying to figure out why someone would allow player's choice once the game began, but before the game restrict choice based solely on whim and personal desire. It seems inconsistent. If you are okay with your players doing things you don't personally like (but still fit within the setting, etc.) after the game has started, then why wouldn't you also be okay with your players doing things you don't personally like (but still fit within the setting, etc.) before the game has started? What's so magical about that moment?
If you want to set aside my question, I think I might set aside yours, out of a sense of fairness.
Depends how you define "not like"
I don't let my personal hatred of a particular type of race affect it.
If I feel it's not going to fit the style of story that campaign is aimed at, then it's discussion time.
In that case, I'd say there's more content to your objection to the character than not liking it. Shallowsoul seemed to be asserting that it's okay for a DM to forbid a character they personally dislike, even if it fits perfectly with the campaign and doesn't contradict the tone or setting. That's absurdly harsh and, well, selfish in my opinion.
(P.S. People using my full name feels weird, only my mom and schoolteachers ever did that!)
Sorry. I was just copypasting the username from above your post.
If you want to set aside my question, I think I might set aside yours, out of a sense of fairness.
I set aside that question because it has already been tossed about a lot in this thread. I was interested in fleshing out a side issue. But if you feel that way, I'm not sure why you even responded to me in the first place.
Depends how you define "not like"
I don't let my personal hatred of a particular type of race affect it.
If I feel it's not going to fit the style of story that campaign is aimed at, then it's discussion time.In that case, I'd say there's more content to your objection to the character than not liking it. Shallowsoul seemed to be asserting that it's okay for a DM to forbid a character they personally dislike, even if it fits perfectly with the campaign and doesn't contradict the tone or setting. That's absurdly harsh and, well, selfish in my opinion.
(P.S. People using my full name feels weird, only my mom and schoolteachers ever did that!)Sorry. I was just copypasting the username from above your post.
If you want to set aside my question, I think I might set aside yours, out of a sense of fairness.Eh, I'm not sure why you responded to me in the first place, then.
Ah so. Why don't you want to answer the question?
Ah so. Why don't you want to answer the question?
Check my edit on that post. And start cropping what you copy in your replies.
Check my edit on that post. And start cropping what you copy in your replies.Ah so. Why don't you want to answer the question?
It hasn't really been answered adequately - I don't start a game with a character concept that anyone playing doesn't like. Sometimes that means a few people go to their second choice. But everyone has the right of "no".
It hasn't really been answered adequately - I don't start a game with a character concept that anyone playing doesn't like. Sometimes that means a few people go to their second choice. But everyone has the right of "no".
Well I think there is something just kind of rubs some people the wrong way about a situation like:
Player 1: Hey guys, I think I'll play halfling barbarian.
Player 2: No, you won't. I don't like that, so you can't play it.
Player 1: Ah ... okay? I guess I'll play gnome barbarian, he has the spirit of the badg...
Player 3: Nope. I don't like gnomes. You can't play one.
Player 1: Well ... alright ... whatever. Okay, how about this. A dwarf barbarian, he has tried to tap into his primal ...
Player 4: No. I think dwarf barbarians are dumb. You can't play that character.
Player 1: Now come on guys. This is getting ridiculous.
GM: What is it about the character you want to play, maybe we can find something that will work for everyone.
Player 1: Well I want a kind of non-standard barbarian race, something you don't usually think of as a barbarian.
GM: Oh, okay guys, I have just the thing that will work. How about if he plays a half-orc barbarian.
Players 2, 3, and 4: Yeah!
Player 1: That isn't really what I want. Half-orcs as barbarians is pretty stereotypical.
GM: Fine. *freaken snowflake* How about this ... a ... human barbarian. What do you think guys?
Players 2, 3, and 4: Yeah, can't disagree to that could you.
Player 1: *sigh*
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It hasn't really been answered adequately - I don't start a game with a character concept that anyone playing doesn't like. Sometimes that means a few people go to their second choice. But everyone has the right of "no".Well I think there is something just kind of rubs some people the wrong way about a situation like:
Player 1: Hey guys, I think I'll play halfling barbarian.
Player 2: No, you won't. I don't like that, so you can't play it.
Player 1: Ah ... okay? I guess I'll play gnome barbarian, he has the spirit of the badg...
Player 3: Nope. I don't like gnomes. You can't play one.
Player 1: Well ... alright ... whatever. Okay, how about this. A dwarf barbarian, he has tried to tap into his primal ...
Player 4: No. I think dwarf barbarians are dumb. You can't play that character.
Player 1: Now come on guys. This is getting ridiculous.
GM: What is it about the character you want to play, maybe we can find something that will work for everyone.
Player 1: Well I want a kind of non-standard barbarian race, something you don't usually think of as a barbarian.
GM: Oh, okay guys, I have just the thing that will work. How about if he plays a half-orc barbarian.
Players 2, 3, and 4: Yeah!
Player 1: That isn't really what I want. Half-orcs as barbarians is pretty stereotypical.
GM: Fine. *freaken snowflake* How about this ... a ... human barbarian. What do you think guys?
Players 2, 3, and 4: Yeah, can't disagree to that could you.
Player 1: *sigh*
Argumentum ad adsurdum at its finest!
Oddly enough, I've never actually seen players be conflicted about each other's choices like that in my tables.
If someone has issue with a player's character, it's usually the DM. Players are usually okay with each other's ideas.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen about an equal number of cases where the GM objected to a particular player's "special snowflake" and where one or more of the other players did.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Our table uses a Player Veto. But I have yet to see any such tyranny against fellow players of the sort pres man is suggesting... could it be another straw man argument? I find it odd they would be against multiple core races in most cases. I did have to practically plead with my group to play a Naga once, but I had a list of back up concepts in case I couldn't convince them it would work out fine.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would we do that? Talk about a non sequitur.Not sure why you are answering for shallowsoul.
Anyway, so you are okay with players doing things you don't like after the game has started, but not before? I am confuse.
What the character does in the game is an entirely separate thing than what the player does to create the character, obviously.
That's a rather odd position to conflate the two.
Well that argument wasn't getting traction so...
|
|
Why do YOU want to deny people e right to say no and leave them only the right to say yes?At this point I'm setting aside that question and trying to figure out why someone would allow player's choice once the game began, but before the game restrict choice based solely on whim and personal desire. It seems inconsistent. If you are okay with your players doing things you don't personally like (but still fit within the setting, etc.) after the game has started, then why wouldn't you also be okay with your players doing things you don't personally like (but still fit within the setting, etc.) before the game has started? What's so magical about that moment?
Putting it aside because it was a weak argument...
I don't know why the criteria would be different either. So we agree.
The criteria should always be "I character that will make the game better for everyone"
So, back to the question I posed upthread:
Is it just races that draw this sort of reaction out of people or do other issues gain the same sort of problems in character creation? Things like:
A world with no guns/gunslingers?
A world of limited magic?
A world with no ninja, katanas, samurai or Asian influences?
Not allowing certain archetypes?
House rules that may limit or reduce the viability of character concepts like removal of raise dead/Resurrection, limits on teleporting, limits on free actions, and any of the myriad of threads we've had here about this or that rule?
I'm basically trying to see if the "special snowflake syndrome" is limited to just race and if not, how are people handling it.
I think it's any facet of character creation using things that don't typically exist(or are not intended for PC's). I've had players want to make Gunslingers and Alchemists in setting where there was no precedent for them existing, for example. Race was fine, just the class choices themselves were esoteric.
I wound up allowing it, simply because it was a "kitchen sink/anything goes" style adventure anyway, so we made a precedent for the classing being this newfound technology, and the player being one of the first known to use them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Both the removal and the adding of new things to a campaign change it.
Removing things is not automatically a good thing.
Adding things is not automatically a good thing.
What measures the good or bad of such is how the players and DM feel about such changes.
|
|
Both the removal and the adding of new things to a campaign change it.
Removing things is not automatically a good thing.
Adding things is not automatically a good thing.
What measures the good or bad of such is how the players and DM feel about such changes.
Yes.
And if the GM and players think your idea is not good...
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, back to the question I posed upthread:
Is it just races that draw this sort of reaction out of people or do other issues gain the same sort of problems in character creation? Things like:
A world with no guns/gunslingers?
A world of limited magic?
A world with no ninja, katanas, samurai or Asian influences?
Not allowing certain archetypes?
House rules that may limit or reduce the viability of character concepts like removal of raise dead/Resurrection, limits on teleporting, limits on free actions, and any of the myriad of threads we've had here about this or that rule?
I'm basically trying to see if the "special snowflake syndrome" is limited to just race and if not, how are people handling it.
It is about a player trying to force what they personally want on people. It isn't about anything other than that.
Taking a Jeff Foxworthy approach.
If you are playing in a monster campaign and you ironically submit a human fighter, you may be a special snowflake.
If you are playing second darkness, and you submit a Drow, you may be a special snowflake.
If you are playing in an elf based campaign, and you submit a dwarf, you may be a special snowflake.
It isn't about what you submit, it is about how what you submit reflects what was proposed and you agreed to.
|
|
Oddly enough, I've never actually seen players be conflicted about each other's choices like that in my tables.
If someone has issue with a player's character, it's usually the DM. Players are usually okay with each other's ideas.
Agreed and seconded. It's never happened to me in all my years of gaming. I think those truly conflicted players don't exist.
Both the removal and the adding of new things to a campaign change it.
Removing things is not automatically a good thing.
Adding things is not automatically a good thing.
What measures the good or bad of such is how the players and DM feel about such changes.
Yes.
And if the GM and players think your idea is not good...
...then there is a problem, and stop pretending I'd claim otherwise.
So, what if the players think the idea is good, and only the GM doesn't?
So, back to the question I posed upthread:
Is it just races that draw this sort of reaction out of people or do other issues gain the same sort of problems in character creation? Things like:
I've seen this happen with things besides race. This happened to another player in a game I was playing in:
Player: I want to play a gunslinger!
DM: No. I don't like guns.
Player: I want to play a kensai magus!
DM: No. That archetype has Asian flavor.
The end result of this was that this player clearly didn't enjoy playing the character he eventually was allowed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How dare that player try and think of a concept outside the super narrow view of western civilization the DM has?
HERESY! BLASPHEMY! AN ABHORRENT MOCKERY OF ALL THAT D&D AND PATHFINDER STAND FOR!!
That's an "apples and oranges" comparison, Calybos.
From how I see it, those two things are problematic for completely different reasons.
Adding to that, the concept of a character is only a problem if the DM or a player considers it to be one.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Both the removal and the adding of new things to a campaign change it.
Removing things is not automatically a good thing.
Adding things is not automatically a good thing.
What measures the good or bad of such is how the players and DM feel about such changes.
Yes.
And if the GM and players think your idea is not good...
...then there is a problem, and stop pretending I'd claim otherwise.
So, what if the players think the idea is good, and only the GM doesn't?
They picked the wrong GM.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is it just races that draw this sort of reaction out of people or do other issues gain the same sort of problems in character creation? Things like: /snip/
I suspect all those things would apply, though I do believe there a hierarchy or 'degrees' of importance that gets a different amount of visceral rejection.
Races are a biggie, because it generally requires the introduction of a brand new culture and some sort of integration into existing societies and realms... something that some time-strapped DMs have little desire to bother doing. (Or, alternately, allowing the weird race and then simply treated it entirely in all aspects as a human and/or generally ignoring it.)
Classes less so, then archtypes, feats, etc. Anything that might have a cultural impact I would say is probably bigger than non-cultural impacts (ignoring broken mechanics, of course, which usually tops the list above all else - but I don't think anyone argued otherwise, so we can ignore that for the purposes of this thread).
I know for my group, my players and I are generally pretty picky when it comes to races, as none of us are all that interested in Mos Eisley. There's at least a few people in this thread that would get bodily thrown out of our group by my players (much less before I get my hands on them) if they somehow sneaked by a screening process due to their 'weird' race preferences. (For example, even the idea that a DM is 'obligated' to 'seriously consider' an orc or a drow in an agreed-upon Dragonlance campaign would make my players aghast at such idiocy - instead, simply don't be a dishonest git and actually come out and say you're not interested in a DL campaign, for pete's sake.)
In the end (and this bears repetition), the DM is not in a service position, and is under no obligation to DM anything he/she doesn't like; and a player is under no obligation to play anything that he/she dislikes. End of story. Sometimes a campaign just isn't compatible with certain people.
This:
The end result of this was that this player clearly didn't enjoy playing the character he eventually was allowed.
...who played something they didn't enjoy - and played anyways - is just a dumb person. It's their own fault, no one else's.
I've seen this happen with things besides race. This happened to another player in a game I was playing in:
Player: I want to play a gunslinger!
DM: No. I don't like guns.
Player: I want to play a kensai magus!
DM: No. That archetype has Asian flavor.
The end result of this was that this player clearly didn't enjoy playing the character he eventually was allowed.
Didn't the DM give any guidance beforehand on what would and wouldn't be appropriate in his campaign? That is a very negative way to start a game - just shooting down idea after idea a player has. Far better to give the players a list of 'things that just won't work' right from the start.
I do find it distressing that the player couldn't find a single thing he would find enjoyable to play in the DMs game. That really shows a fundamentally incompatible DM/player dynamic. Both sides have to give a little to make a game work - once one side becomes entrenched the game is screwed, imo.
In your example while I can't see a way around the guns/no guns debate (and that is a whole other can of worms for another thread) there is NO reason the kensai magus couldn't have been re-skinned to a more "western medieval" flavour. Both sides get what they want and harmony reigns!
So, back to the question I posed upthread:
Is it just races that draw this sort of reaction out of people or do other issues gain the same sort of problems in character creation? Things like:
A world with no guns/gunslingers?
A world of limited magic?
A world with no ninja, katanas, samurai or Asian influences?
Not allowing certain archetypes?
House rules that may limit or reduce the viability of character concepts like removal of raise dead/Resurrection, limits on teleporting, limits on free actions, and any of the myriad of threads we've had here about this or that rule?
With me, any of the above that fit the campaign theme are fine, but if its just the mechanics they want then reskinning is easy.
The gun problem, especially, is easy to get around by allowing the character an NPC contact that is the inventor or one of the very first to make them, and introduces some interesting plot hooks such as the bad guys trying to get that NPC to make guns for them, too.
The limited magic thing - I'd likely have already worked out what the limits were, and let people know before they make their characters. If they're willing to make, say, a sorcerer when I've already stated magic above third level spells doesn't work here, then I'm not going to stop them making a sorcerer.
The Asian (or other cultural) influences thing - again I'm going to let my decision be led by the theme of the campaign here.
Archetypes I can't see being too much of an issue. If someone wants the Draconic bloodline for their Sorcerer, and there's no dragons in that world, then it's easy enough to tweak it to refer to some other creature or monster race instead. Okay... an Undead Scourge Paladin might be a problem if the Undead don't exist, but nine out of ten options should at least be adaptable. My main concern is ensuring that the archetype fits their back story.
I've seen this happen with things besides race. This happened to another player in a game I was playing in:Player: I want to play a gunslinger!
DM: No. I don't like guns.
Player: I want to play a kensai magus!
DM: No. That archetype has Asian flavor.
The end result of this was that this player clearly didn't enjoy playing the character he eventually was allowed.
I respect everyone's right to dislike things and not want to play in a game that has them. However, shooting things down on the fly like this sounds (from the limited convo snippet so far) like they're either doing it to be purposefully awkward or could use sitting down and having the basics of running a game politely explained to them.
If they're wanting to run a Song of Ice and Fire-like fantasy setting as opposed to something more generic, they need to tell people that up front along with some idea of what restrictions they'll be imposing, and then see if anyone is even interested in playing that.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, back to the question I posed upthread:
Is it just races that draw this sort of reaction out of people or do other issues gain the same sort of problems in character creation? Things like:
I've seen this happen with things besides race. This happened to another player in a game I was playing in:
Player: I want to play a gunslinger!
DM: No. I don't like guns.
Player: I want to play a kensai magus!
DM: No. That archetype has Asian flavor.
The end result of this was that this player clearly didn't enjoy playing the character he eventually was allowed.
I have never seen anything like this happen. Now, one reason might be because when I run a game, before I even invite a player to play, I send out my campaign guidelines and notes. Those notes include both summaries of my unique world and a list of what content is or isn't allowed in the game. Then they submit their characters to me through email. Long before we sit down to play, we've already worked out characters, backstories and origin of the party.
If the GM isn't doing that, or something like that, in your games, maybe they should?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have never seen anything like this happen. Now, one reason might be because when I run a game, before I even invite a player to play, I send out my campaign guidelines and notes. Those notes include both summaries of my unique world and a list of what content is or isn't allowed in the game. Then they submit their characters to me through email. Long before we sit down to play, we've already worked out characters, backstories and origin of the party.
If the GM isn't doing that, or something like that, in your games, maybe they should?
Same here. But what actually seems to be the argument they are making is that the GM is not allowed to have guidelines.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Same here. But what actually seems to be the argument they are making is that the GM is not allowed to have guidelines.
Maybe that's why I don't encounter the problem then ciretose. I guess the players who look at my guidelines and say "what a horrible, dictatorial, hidebound GM!" don't bother to respond to my player requests and so we never have the problem.
Which is absolutely fine with me.
|
|
Somehow I suspect some of these people wouldn't object to a "no western style characters in an eastern flavor campaign" type restriction. That flavor restriction would likely be seen as ... Fine.Same here. But what actually seems to be the argument they are making is that the GM is not allowed to have guidelines.I have never seen anything like this happen. Now, one reason might be because when I run a game, before I even invite a player to play, I send out my campaign guidelines and notes. Those notes include both summaries of my unique world and a list of what content is or isn't allowed in the game. Then they submit their characters to me through email. Long before we sit down to play, we've already worked out characters, backstories and origin of the party.
If the GM isn't doing that, or something like that, in your games, maybe they should?
Literally have been told that not allowing Pony Wizards is a failure on the GM's part in another thread.
And it was strongly implied not allowing Drow is bigoted in this thread.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
The part of the argument in this thread that really makes me shake my head is the one that goes like this:
Player: "I want to play a XXX character!
GM: "I don't want to include a XXX character in my world."
Player: "My want is more important than your don't want."
I literally cannot fathom the mental machinations behind that logical construct. It is literally saying the player's desire is more important than the GM's.