For once, I agree with you when it comes to this topic.However, I'd like to make it clear that I always inform my players in advance of any noteworthy restrictions
So do we.
It is called the character creation and approval phase prior to the start of the game.
And that's where my former DM had failed, since he usually told the restrictions after we had our characters done.
I'd say around 75% of the issues I had with him could have been avoided if he had actually talked things like that out in advance.
Not allowing one concept while leaving almost all others open is not the equivalent of insisting on only one concept and closing off all others,You are correct. I didn't state otherwise.
Except you just did?
The person insisting on only one concept is being much more inflexible than the person who has one concept they won't put in.
|
If I am going to run a game and I have a certain race and class limit then I can be as inflexible as I want if I have enough players who are fine with that.
As long as I can convince enough players to play in my game then my job is done. If there are one or two who don't, then it's down to them whether they join or not.
For once, I agree with you when it comes to this topic.
However, I'd like to make it clear that I always inform my players in advance of any noteworthy restrictions I have in place for a given campaign world so there wouldn't be situations like the one I ended up in with my former DM happening in my table. Unlike that guy, I'm willing to try out different styles every once in a while instead of making the same campaign world with the same restrictions time and again. Also, please stop with the food comparisons. They're not applicable to these situations (they're too simple), and you're all making me hungry (my lunch break is two hours away) for no good reason.
I always always lay everything out when I propose my game. I then leave it up to the players to decide if they want to play.
Not allowing one concept while leaving almost all others open is not the equivalent of insisting on only one concept and closing off all others,You are correct. I didn't state otherwise.Except you just did?
The person insisting on only one concept is being much more inflexible than the person who has one concept they won't put in.
I did not. You are reading that into what I did say.
I said "insisting on a certain concept". I said nothing about what was disallowed.
I find it weird that I agreed with ciretose, but you disagree with my agreement by... saying that I disagreed?
In fact, I made no moral judgement on being inflexible in the first place: instead, I suggested that if the flexibility of a certain group (whatever that flexibility may be) does not suit your taste, you may wish to find a different group for everyone's sake.
If you read anything else, you mistook my point. It may be my wording (I'll take your critiques of how it could be worded), but no where did I make the claim you are trying to construe.
If anything, it could be taken as a comment on GMs who demand certain archetypes or themes for certain characters. Effectively limiting characters to certain concepts.
So, about the lack of personal sniping?
But the diners at your table who might be gluten free afficionado's might not wish to taste it with you.Yes ma'am.
On topic:
If I have this idea of a gargantuan-sized half-jellied-donut, half-razzleberry pie chocolate moose with twenty levels in "Delicious" class with a full 10 mythic tiers of "Actually Healthy, but it doesn't taste like it", I think I should be allowed to eat it, regardless of the local menu.
Fortunately they don't have to! They can eat their food, and I can eat mine - at the same table, no less! And if there is some sort of offense given because they choose to ignore the "healthy" part, well... we eat at different tables! Easy!
Of course, I wasn't actually applying the example to anything in game or the real discussion before this post. For one, I thought the fact that it was about food (and ridiculous non-existent food at that) made it clear I was trying to discuss, in a goofy way, the Thread title in an attempt to diffuse any stress with humor.
Sorry if it didn't work out.
Not allowing one concept while leaving almost all others open is not the equivalent of insisting on only one concept and closing off all others,You are correct. I didn't state otherwise.Except you just did?
The person insisting on only one concept is being much more inflexible than the person who has one concept they won't put in.
I did not. You are reading that into what I did say.
I said "insisting on a certain concept". I said nothing about what was disallowed.
I find it weird that I agreed with ciretose, but you disagree with my agreement by... saying that I disagreed?
In fact, I made no moral judgement on being inflexible in the first place: instead, I suggested that if the flexibility of a certain group (whatever that flexibility may be) does not suit your taste, you may wish to find a different group for everyone's sake.
If you read anything else, you mistook my point. It may be my wording (I'll take your critiques of how it could be worded), but no where did I make the claim you are trying to construe.
If anything, it could be taken as a comment on GMs who demand certain archetypes or themes for certain characters. Effectively limiting characters to certain concepts.
So, about the lack of personal sniping?
Ok, looks in this case like I misread what you wrote ... But that was definitely what it looked like to me. Sorry 'bout that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No problem. :)
Fortunately they don't have to! They can eat their food, and I can eat mine - at the same table, no less! And if there is some sort of offense given because they choose to ignore the "healthy" part, well... we eat at different tables! Easy!
Same table perhaps, but not the same meal.
See it's like these peanut allergy kids, you just can't prep your food in the same space because the contamination can have bad outcomes - in fact they don't even let you take nuts etc to schools at all, such is the need for diligence and caution in ensuring there is no cross-over.
Now if you have worked out the whole table has no peanut allergy, and indeed you are at a bar and they wish to have nuts with beer then bring all the nuts you like; but if they are strictly beer and pretzel munchers, your nuts are not going to be appreciated and you will be chided, especially so if they made it clear this was a beer and pretzel gig - you would then look like that guy who orders some oddball food no-one likes and we know you brought it because you knew you wouldn't have to share.
But the diners at your table who might be gluten free afficionado's might not wish to taste it with you.Yes ma'am.
On topic:
If I have this idea of a gargantuan-sized half-jellied-donut, half-razzleberry pie chocolate moose with twenty levels in "Delicious" class with a full 10 mythic tiers of "Actually Healthy, but it doesn't taste like it", I think I should be allowed to eat it, regardless of the local menu.
Fortunately they don't have to! They can eat their food, and I can eat mine - at the same table, no less! And if there is some sort of offense given because they choose to ignore the "healthy" part, well... we eat at different tables! Easy!
Of course, I wasn't actually applying the example to anything in game or the real discussion before this post. For one, I thought the fact that it was about food (and ridiculous non-existent food at that) made it clear I was trying to discuss, in a goofy way, the Thread title in an attempt to diffuse any stress with humor.
Sorry if it didn't work out.
Except that doesn't really work. In an RPG, by necessities the foods basically mix. The characters are constantly interacting with each other, so they can't just eat their meal and ignore yours at the same table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know it might sound silly, but I don't usually let a person's character concept ruin my fun unless he's doing things that directly affect it(lying, stealing, PvP, etc.) The guy who comes with a catfolk? Idc that much that he wants a princess catfolk. The guy playing the goblin who slit the druid's throat in a game a few years ago? That was a no-no. The guy who rolled the exact same thing as me to try and prove he can do it better? Also a no-no.
The guy who eats next to me isn't a problem. The guy who steals my food or puts his stuff on my plate is a pain in the butt though.
Everyone's different I guess.
Edit: The peanut allergy analogy is a little weird because to my knowledge there aren't character concepts that can make you violently ill.
Oddly enough, for me at least, in a "role playing game". I tend to 'role play' with the others at the table, which involves interacting with them.
Oddly enough, for me at least, in a "role playing game". I tend to 'role play' with the others at the table, which involves interacting with them.
Who said you didn't?
Oddly enough, for me at least, in a "role playing game". I tend to 'role play' with the others at the table, which involves interacting with them.Who said you didn't?
The theory of "just ignore it it doesn't effect you" doesn't work unless that is not the case.
If someone plays an awakened pony sorcerer, to resurrect the example, it affect the environment being played in and effects immersion. It is not, in fact, a self contained unit that only effect itself and nothing else.
To be fair Ars, Sin did include two negative examples that are a lot more likely to happen than the awakened pony.
To be fair Ars, Sin did include two negative examples that are a lot more likely to happen than the awakened pony.
True enough - just pointing out that the basic theory doesn't work. You can say that you shouldn't let it bother you, or you should just accept the bother and move on, etcetera, fine. But saying that its some sort of compartmentalized thing that won't effect the other players at the table and that they don't have to deal with it, that really doesn't work.
EDIT: I'm totally not angry at all with the all-caps thing below. I'm being emphatic, not angry or yelling. Hope that comes across. Sorry if it doesn't!
Everyone keeps ignoring the fact that my (completely ridiculous and goofy) food analogy had the word "healthy" in it, just so they can say they don't like that style of play! Mythic Tiers of "Healthy"! It can't hurt you! Allergen-free!
But anyway, it's funny, because I'm not actually advocating that style of play.
()
What I am saying is: IF IT DOESN'T WORK FOR YOUR GROUP EITHER CHANGE OR GET A NEW GROUP.
For example:
And if there is some sort of offense given because they choose to ignore the "healthy" part, well... we eat at different tables! Easy!
So, you know.
I really don't think one particular style of play is wrong.
I think one person, whoever they are, making demands of others that the others don't like, results in an over-all negative experience for the group.
Group activity; do what makes everyone (including you) happy. Sometimes that means short-term sacrifices (or even long-term ones), whether you're GM or player.
Some groups do special or weird things.
Other groups are by the book(s).
Other groups are in between.
Find one that works for you and get to it.
None around you? Build one yourself! Or do stuff online! Or something else!
"Everything is more important than D&D - including D&D." as the saying goes (and the same is true of Pathfinder).
The point of that saying is to not get so caught up on one thing that you harm the social experience for everyone.
It's funny. D&D (and Pathfinder by extension) is a Lawful system that presumes a Lawful Good group of players (regardless of the characters played), with leeway for Chaotic ideology built-in, that's utilized by people of most every alignment.
That's... pretty cool.
To be fair Ars, Sin did include two negative examples that are a lot more likely to happen than the awakened pony.True enough - just pointing out that the basic theory doesn't work. You can say that you shouldn't let it bother you, or you should just accept the bother and move on, etcetera, fine. But saying that its some sort of compartmentalized thing that won't effect the other players at the table and that they don't have to deal with it, that really doesn't work.
Well, let's say someone does come to the table with a pony wizard. How does it make you feel and what would you say? Pretend the GM was totally on board with it.
and yes, the pony is a little extreme compared to other things you might see. The Pony changes the rules of the game by being a talking quadruped that exist in real life doesn't usually talk nor are very sapient. Goblins and catfolk are bipeds we see in fiction and are usually sapient. Its in a way in many ways a different comparison.
To be fair Ars, Sin did include two negative examples that are a lot more likely to happen than the awakened pony.True enough - just pointing out that the basic theory doesn't work. You can say that you shouldn't let it bother you, or you should just accept the bother and move on, etcetera, fine. But saying that its some sort of compartmentalized thing that won't effect the other players at the table and that they don't have to deal with it, that really doesn't work.Well, let's say someone does come to the table with a pony wizard. How does it make you feel and what would you say? Pretend the GM was totally on board with it.
and yes, the pony is a little extreme compared to other things you might see. The Pony changes the rules of the game by being a talking quadruped that exist in real life doesn't usually talk nor are very sapient. Goblins and catfolk are bipeds we see in fiction and are usually sapient. Its in a way in many ways a different comparison.
The pony's a bit of a special case, but I also find that in your (Sin's) examples, dealing with the player's behavior by restricting character class and race would do nothing to solve the problem. In the second example (the guy who rolled the exact same thing as me to prove he can do it better) it would actually further ruin the game for the aggrieved player.
I didn't say to restrict those guys, I said they were the ones being jerks and making your life hard.
Yeah, I agree. My point was that not playing with jerks is a separate issue from race/class/character build and whatnot. That is, I agree with your someone's else food on their own plate vs. stealing food off mine and putting your butt on my plate distinction.
Yeah, I agree. My point was that not playing with jerks is a separate issue from race/class/character build and whatnot. That is, I agree with your someone's else food on their own plate vs. stealing food off mine and putting your butt on my plate distinction.
Thanks, usually not good with analogies.
In the past few years I think the only concept that's really gotten to me is a guy who played a liar. He lied to NPCs and PCs about just about everything. His name, his home, his quest, his reason for partying, etc. By the end I didn't know a thing about his character other than the fact he was a liar who lies about everything. We heard "This time its the truth" at least 3 times and out of character it just annoyed me. The guy missed session 0 so I didn't get to say a thing about his character before we started. Probably would've advised against it. The guy wasn't trying to be a jerk or anything, just an idea that didn't sit well with me. Had nothing to do with his race or class selection, but with the way he interacted with everyone and we had to deal with the consequences of his in game actions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The peanut allergy analogy is a little weird because to my knowledge there aren't character concepts that can make you violently ill.
I envy you. You obviously haven't played with some of the characters people have played around me. =)
Human characters of Good alignment actually make me violently ill.
You know, because we're all actually Evil deep down inside.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The peanut allergy analogy is a little weird because to my knowledge there aren't character concepts that can make you violently ill.I envy you. You obviously haven't played with some of the characters people have played around me. =)
Is it Alan Moore?
Oddly enough, for me at least, in a "role playing game". I tend to 'role play' with the others at the table, which involves interacting with them.Who said you didn't?The theory of "just ignore it it doesn't effect you" doesn't work unless that is not the case.
If someone plays an awakened pony sorcerer, to resurrect the example, it affect the environment being played in and effects immersion. It is not, in fact, a self contained unit that only effect itself and nothing else.
It might, depending on the game being played. But I imagine if a game has (a)the awaken spell, (b)ponies, and (c)sorcerers, then it probably wouldn't ruin the game environment or immersion by default. Now it could if person playing it makes it run around singing about sunshine and rainbows. But an intelligent animal casting spells is not in and of itself a concept that need be disruptive. If the problem is with someone wanting to be a My Little Pony, ok, say that. But don't keep bringing up an awakened pony sorcerer as if that in itself is disruptive.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It might, depending on the game being played. But I imagine if a game has (a)the awaken spell, (b)ponies, and (c)sorcerers, then it probably wouldn't ruin the game environment or immersion by default. Now it could if person playing it makes it run around singing about sunshine and rainbows. But an intelligent animal casting spells is not in and of itself a concept that need be disruptive.
Going to go with a different example for the sake of variation:
(and donning some flame-proof clothing as I know there are people out there, although not necessarily on the Paizo forums, who will not like the fact that I'm targeting this character)
If I'm running a Middle-Earth campaign, then characters like Tom Bombadil exist. I'm probably going to say outright at the beginning of a Middle-Earth game that I don't want that kind of character in the party.
For a relatively small part of the book, it was a side-story I didn't have an issue with. Had he joined the Fellowship and been there throughout the entire plot, I'd have probably thrown away Fellowship of the Ring and not bothered with the other two. Peter Jackson has my eternal thanks for writing him out of the movie altogether.
He had his place in the book, but that place was not alongside the main cast. For some of us, that can be true of RPG characters, too. There are characters whose existence you can accept as part of the game world, and possibly even enjoy for a short stint as an NPC, but whom you really don't want to feel the presence of during every single turn, every week, for the entire length of the campaign.
That doesn't make Tom Bombadil a bad character, or even a bad fit for Middle-Earth. It's just that I, personally, have a dislike for the character and the cheery mood he brought with him (despite recognizing precisely why Tolkien wanted that in the book.)
Now, admittedly, it could be said that is down to how a character like that is played in a game.
In the case of awakened animals, it's the very fact they're an awakened animal in a "serious fantasy" setting that I don't get along with (it's actually a spell I'd consider removing from the setting so the very subject of them being possible didn't carry any validation, if I ever found myself with a player that started to argue it with me) It isn't that the player is being disruptive, it's that I don't want the constant experience of that character existing during the game. For whatever reason (I don't know, but if anyone wants to psycho-analyze me for free, please do!) I don't have the same issue with humanoids that resemble animals, with half-humanoid half-animal hybrids, with quadrupedal fantastic creatures that can talk, or with intelligent animal companions that can communicate in their own language. I don't even have a problem with talking animals in general, they're fine in games full of talking animals! It's only the idea of them walking around as PCs and chatting with the locals in their own language in a fantasy setting where the norm for their species is to sit in a field grazing that gets me. It's too much of a deviation from what I'm expecting to experience, and there's something in my brain that just says "ugh, please change the channel!". It'd be like asking me to sit through a genre of movie that I don't enjoy watching. Repeatedly. In the knowledge I have to sit through it again same time next week, the week after, ad infinitum...
If I'm reading a book and it has a character in it I don't like to read about in that setting, whether I want to keep reading that book will depend on how much that character shows up. Too much Bombadil in LotR and my copy would likely have ended up donated to a charity store. Too much exposure of awakened animals in my "standard fantasy" RPGs and I feel the same way. Running a Mouse Guard game, though? Sign me up.
There are people that don't want the sci-fi part of Golarion in their games. I wouldn't think they'd be very receptive to an android PC, no matter how you played it. They might be okay with journeying to Numeria for a single adventure.
At this point though, I'm pretty certain most of us have covered all of this in the other threads on the topic. There are some things that some of us just don't want in a game we have a long-term commitment to.
There are some things that some of us just don't want in a game we have a long-term commitment to.
And I have no problem with that. As long as the person realizes the problem is they don't like the concept, not that the concept in and of itself is unlikable. When I see comments like, "If someone plays an awakened pony sorcerer, ..., it affect the environment being played in and effects immersion." It is like me saying, "If someone puts mushrooms on a pizza, it ruins the pizza." merely because I have a disdain for mushrooms on MY pizza.
But see I don't say things like that because I know that my dislike of mushrooms is a characteristic of myself and not a characteristic of mushrooms. That realization, sadly seems to be missing when it comes to the awakened pony sorcerer for some people. It seems as if they think the concept is inherently silly (which the link to the Camel of the Pearl that I provided gives evidence that such concepts need not be silly) and not merely that they personally can't help but find it silly.
There are some things that some of us just don't want in a game we have a long-term commitment to.And I have no problem with that. As long as the person realizes the problem is they don't like the concept, not that the concept in and of itself is unlikable. When I see comments like, "If someone plays an awakened pony sorcerer, ..., it affect the environment being played in and effects immersion." It is like me saying, "If someone puts mushrooms on a pizza, it ruins the pizza." merely because I have a disdain for mushrooms on MY pizza.
But see I don't say things like that because I know that my dislike of mushrooms is a characteristic of myself and not a characteristic of mushrooms. That realization, sadly seems to be missing when it comes to the awakened pony sorcerer for some people. It seems as if they think the concept is inherently silly (which the link to the Camel of the Pearl that I provided gives evidence that such concepts need not be silly) and not merely that they personally can't help but find it silly.
But it does effect it. Some might not mind the effect, some might even like it, but it's not some compartmentalized thing that has no effect on the game around it.
But it does effect it. Some might not mind the effect, some might even like it, but it's not some compartmentalized thing that has no effect on the game around it.There are some things that some of us just don't want in a game we have a long-term commitment to.And I have no problem with that. As long as the person realizes the problem is they don't like the concept, not that the concept in and of itself is unlikable. When I see comments like, "If someone plays an awakened pony sorcerer, ..., it affect the environment being played in and effects immersion." It is like me saying, "If someone puts mushrooms on a pizza, it ruins the pizza." merely because I have a disdain for mushrooms on MY pizza.
But see I don't say things like that because I know that my dislike of mushrooms is a characteristic of myself and not a characteristic of mushrooms. That realization, sadly seems to be missing when it comes to the awakened pony sorcerer for some people. It seems as if they think the concept is inherently silly (which the link to the Camel of the Pearl that I provided gives evidence that such concepts need not be silly) and not merely that they personally can't help but find it silly.
Of course there is an effect, but there is an effect for any character being present. Whether that is an awakened pony sorcerer or a dwarf fighter.
EDIT: So I guess I could reasonably read your comment as equivalent to, "If someone plays a dwarf fighter, ..., it affect the environment being played in and effects immersion." Is that the type of point you were trying to make? I doubt it.
EDIT2: I just found this.
"Whether shape-shifted or merely having the magical ability to speak, the talking creature is perhaps the most common trait of fairy tales. The motif is certainly present in many more tales than fairies."
Yes, actually. Someone said more or less that in the meal terms someone could just sit in their place at the table and eat there meal and it would have no effect on the other eaters; I'm saying that that analogy fails utterly as an analogy for a roleplaying game.
|
(which the link to the Camel of the Pearl that I provided gives evidence that such concepts need not be silly)
You've linked to that a couple of times now...
But those creatures served as mounts for giants and genies, and only really interacted with parties on a limited basis.
And as such, only affected the campaign for the short time they were "on screen"
The awakened pony example is something that would always be "on screen" so it affects the campaign on a constant basis...
To some, having the horse from Tangled or "Donkey" from Shrek show up as a cameo might be cool and fun, but to have them stay for the entire campaign might just draw the line from cool to downright silly.
"Whether shape-shifted or merely having the magical ability to speak, the talking creature is perhaps the most common trait of fairy tales. The motif is certainly present in many more tales than fairies."
This is true, and guns and laser rifles have been in "fantasy" for a long time as well, but just look at how many on these very forums downright DISTAIN their presence within any game(s) they play.
YMMV...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(which the link to the Camel of the Pearl that I provided gives evidence that such concepts need not be silly)You've linked to that a couple of times now...
But those creatures served as mounts for giants and genies, and only really interacted with parties on a limited basis.
And as such, only affected the campaign for the short time they were "on screen"
Unless the campaign was about giants and genies.
(which the link to the Camel of the Pearl that I provided gives evidence that such concepts need not be silly)You've linked to that a couple of times now...
But those creatures served as mounts for giants and genies, and only really interacted with parties on a limited basis.
You say that as if it was an absolute.
"Camels of the pearl seek out people and places where they can be of service. They are glad to shoulder burdens, but they also insist that those they help help themselves. They often serve noble djinn and some desert giants as steeds and symbols of authority.
...
Camels of the pearl most enjoy the company of other lawful good beings, but they are also willing to try to convert others through their good example. They frequently minister to those who would exploit them, but camels of the pearl are wise enough to see through these attempts and leave any situation where their good works are twisted to selfish ends."
They often serve as mounts for such folk, it is not that they only serve as such.
|
|
Unless the campaign was about giants and genies.
And unless the PCs themselves are giants and genies, then chances are that the "on screen" time would not be "constant" (i.e. from campaign start ALL the way through to campaign end)...
And if you meant a campaign of giants and genies as PCs, well, I would think that the same GMs that would have issue with awakened ponies, might just have issue with PC giants and genies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyway, my point is, if someone can't help but only conceive of an awakened pony as something like this, then most likely they can only think of a talking camel as something like this. And in that case, that is a limitation of the person, not of the concept, because the concept can be much more expansive than either of those two.
|
|
You say that as if it was an absolute.
No, it's not an absolute, but if the discussions on these boards about NPCs (in general) is any indication, NPCs are rarely "on screen" from the start of a campaign until the campaign's end. What seems to happen most of the time (again according to the past discussions on these boards about NPCs in general) is an NPC comes in, helps the PCs out, perhaps stays an adventure or three, then LEAVES... Perhaps to come back later, but until that time, that NPC in question is "off screen", and thus does not directly affect the campaign like an awakened pony PC would...
EDIT: An awakened pony does not have to be portrayed as a character from MLP to have a negative impact on the campaign.
Just sayin'
YMMV...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: An awakened pony does not have to be portrayed as a character from MLP to have a negative impact on the campaign.
Of course. ANY character can be disruptive. My point has been that the three word description, "awakened pony sorcerer" does not in and of itself describe something that MUST be disruptive. To imply otherwise is a limitation of the person making the implication, not the concept.
Yes, actually. Someone said more or less that in the meal terms someone could just sit in their place at the table and eat there meal and it would have no effect on the other eaters; I'm saying that that analogy fails utterly as an analogy for a roleplaying game.
You're either talking about me or Mr. Sin.
If you're talking about me, I was responding to Shifty responding to my purposefully goofy food "example(s) taken to the extreme(s)" to be "on topic".
But let's put it this way, and include Shifty's inclusion of those with peanut allergies besides.
If what you have on your table bothers me, the problem is not with the plate.
If what you have on our shared pizza bothers me, the problem is not with the topping.
If what you have on your table or a topping on our shared pizza causes me serious problems, the best idea is for me to not eat at your table or share a pizza with you.
If it literally can kill me, than I need to see a specialist right away, because that's a major issue; also, I need to inform everyone ahead of time, and that burden lies with me, as you'd have no way of knowing otherwise.
In all cases we should talk.
In either of the first two cases, the onus lies on both of us to discuss and come to a reasonable solution - those reasonable solutions include (but are not limited to) me accepting your preferred topping, you ditching your preferred topping, or us ordering two different pizzas that we might share with similar people.
In the last case, it entirely depends on how attached you are to your table-spread or pizza topping.
In all cases, none of those solutions are wrong.
In game terms...
If what you play at your table bothers me, the problem is not with what you play.
If what you play in our shared game bothers me, the problem is not with the the character concept.
If what you play at your table or in our shared game causes me serious problems, the best idea for me is to not play at your table or share a game with you.
(If it literally can kill me, than I need to see a specialist right away, because that's probably a serious brain or heart problem caused or exacerbated by emotional instability stemming from a medical issue.)
None of those things are bad.
(Also, the "you" and "I" and stuff can be switched.)
Everyone wants to play - that's why we're fans of these games enough to be on these forums. It can sound harsh (and can be harsh) to say, "find a different table", but it's not meant in a harsh way. If we've found a table that functions well in our style, that's great! Wonderful! Otherwise, we should keep looking.
Not everyone has the luxury of that, of course, so, in that case, a new person should be respectful and try to get he feel for the game-style of the others, but the older guard should be interested to hearing new ideas and perhaps trying new play-styles. They might like it! Either group forcing things to be "their way" can cause problems.
No, it's not an absolute, but if the discussions on these boards about NPCs (in general) is any indication, NPCs are rarely "on screen" from the start of a campaign until the campaign's end. What seems to happen most of the time (again according to the past discussions on these boards about NPCs in general) is an NPC comes in, helps the PCs out, perhaps stays an adventure or three, then LEAVES... Perhaps to come back later, but until that time, that NPC in question is "off screen", and thus does not directly affect the campaign like an awakened pony PC would...
We play strange games, then. I mean, yeah, not all of the NPCs will, but in every game I've run the players have gotten attached to (at least) one specific NPC (only sometimes the one or ones I "have" for them to get attached to) which enforces that (or those) character(s) into a recurring, and even constant presence. Often recruited into the party. For the campaign.
I'm also generally a very lenient GM, though, so my experience run pretty counter to those on the boards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Holy crap that pony over there talked!", says the raven sitting on the wizard's shoulder. ;D
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Holy crap that pony over there talked!", says the raven sitting on the wizard's shoulder. ;D
"Hiss!"(Great, now I'm the only one who can't get a word in!) says the witch's snake.
"It could be worse. You could be hanging with this freak!" said the vivisectionist/beastmorph's tumor.
Magic breaks all the rules I tells ya's.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We play strange games, then. I mean, yeah, not all of the NPCs will, but in every game I've run the players have gotten attached to (at least) one specific NPC
I purposefully omitted my personal experiences from my post as those would be purely anecdotal.
In my own games, NPC often do play an integral part of the campaign (e.g. I'll often run those dreaded "DMPCs" when the players request that their party be "shored up")...
There are some things that some of us just don't want in a game we have a long-term commitment to.And I have no problem with that. As long as the person realizes the problem is they don't like the concept, not that the concept in and of itself is unlikable. When I see comments like, "If someone plays an awakened pony sorcerer, ..., it affect the environment being played in and effects immersion." It is like me saying, "If someone puts mushrooms on a pizza, it ruins the pizza." merely because I have a disdain for mushrooms on MY pizza.
But see I don't say things like that because I know that my dislike of mushrooms is a characteristic of myself and not a characteristic of mushrooms. That realization, sadly seems to be missing when it comes to the awakened pony sorcerer for some people. It seems as if they think the concept is inherently silly (which the link to the Camel of the Pearl that I provided gives evidence that such concepts need not be silly) and not merely that they personally can't help but find it silly.
See, I have no problems saying outright that I just don't want certain things in my games, because I simply don't like them. But, sometimes I don't like an option because I have found it to be disruptive and unfit for the game I am trying to run.
Strix rant:
For a PF example, in the next (mostly non-evil)game I run, Strix will not be a playable race. Period. I don't dislike the race, but given the way they are written up(justifiably waging death and hatred for all humans), I have a hard time seeing them as a playable choice for any game I run, given just how much of the population of most default settings are human.
It's not even so much that they are unplayable, it's that every Strix I've seen played, comes off as a human-hunting psychopath who can't set foot in an even minimal human-populated area without trying to go on a murder spree. Given that most "neutral" areas(towns, cities, etc) in most AP's, base settings, etc, are predominantly populated by humans, this tends to make games overly complicated and just get dragged down.
When even the most mundane npc interaction(staying at an inn, selling off loot, purchasing supplies) is a constant trial of not getting the PC's hunted down and lynched for harboring a known serial killer, I deem that to be disruptive to the game and unfit for my table. Strix exist as npc's and potential foes to fight, but not as a playable race.
Again, it's not that Strix are a bad race, it's just that I have seen nothing but disruption(attacking quest-giving npc's on sight, attacking shopkeepers when the party tries to sell loot) and in-fighting(threatening other human PC's) from people who choose to play them. It is absolutely a player issue, not a game issue, but unless I get "wowed" by an idea for a non game-disrupting Strix, they are off the menu.
Rather than telling my players how to play their characters(and denying that race what it is written up to basically do), I'm removing that race as an option. I've only done this one other time, ever(I disallowed Kender from Ravenloft, due to fear-immunity), so this is not something I make a habit of. I'm a fan of options; I do not like taking options away, unless they cause more harm to a game than good.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: The peanut allergy analogy is a little weird because to my knowledge there aren't character concepts that can make you violently ill.
Well Kender...
But speaking of extremes, your peanut analogy.
If I am going to die if there are peanuts, no peanuts = Extreme.
If I'm going to break out in hives = Mildly extreme.
If I think peanuts taste like ass, and we all are going to be eating the same meal and we all like Pizza...= Realistic.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, let's say someone does come to the table with a pony wizard. How does it make you feel and what would you say? Pretend the GM was totally on board with it.
I'd politely finish out the session if it started or politely bow out if it hadn't. Then I'd shake my head and look for another game.
Whatever floats your boat, but not the game for me.
What I wouldn't do is tell the table that likes pony wizards they must play my way with my concepts.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyway, my point is, if someone can't help but only conceive of an awakened pony as something like this, then most likely they can only think of a talking camel as something like this. And in that case, that is a limitation of the person, not of the concept, because the concept can be much more expansive than either of those two.
And not everyone wants to play in a disney movie full of talking animals.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair Ars, Sin did include two negative examples that are a lot more likely to happen than the awakened pony.
And the question at root is why is the player doing something the table finds less fun when they have the option of doing something the table finds more fun.
The player who can only enjoy one concept is the one who is creative in the equation, not the GM or the rest of the table...
If I am in an Asian Themed campaign and I want to play a traditional knight of the round, and everyone else says "Dude, we don't get to visit this setting often, we would really like everyone to be a part of this setting and not have a fish out of water scenario" that is a perfectly reasonable request for the table to make.
If everyone wants to do an awakened pony game, and I want to play the same knight, it is also perfectly reasonable to ask me to make a pony or walk.
The idea is to make the most fun game for everyone sitting at the table, on both sides of the screen.
If you can only find concepts that make the game less fun for your fellow players, you are the problem, not them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair Ars, Sin did include two negative examples that are a lot more likely to happen than the awakened pony.And the question at root is why is the player doing something the table finds less fun when they have the option of doing something the table finds more fun.
The player who can only enjoy one concept is the one who is creative in the equation, not the GM or the rest of the table.
If I am in an Asian Themed campaign and I want to play a traditional knight of the round, and everyone else says "Dude, we don't get to visit this setting often, we would really like everyone to be a part of this setting and not have a fish out of water scenario" that is a perfectly reasonable request for the table to make.
If everyone wants to do an awakened pony game, and I want to play the same knight, it is also perfectly reasonable to ask me to make a pony or walk.
The idea is to make the most fun game for everyone sitting at the table, on both sides of the screen.
If you can only find concepts that make the game less fun for your fellow players, you are the problem, not them.
Yeah, I've been saying that since the beginning of the skien of exotic race/special snowflake threads. My point is (or rather, has been for countless posts at this point) that banning various player options is treating the symptom, and being selective about who you play with is treating the cause.