|
I'd allow an awakened pony in my Pathfinder game.
I wouldn't allow an awakened porsche.
However, if someone was really keen on playing a porsche, I'd be open to running a "Cars" type game instead. I don't see why this is apparently such an emotive issue for some people. I game with my friends. We do whatever we think might be the most fun for us as a group.
|
I'd allow an awakened pony in my Pathfinder game.
I wouldn't allow an awakened porsche.
However, if someone was really keen on playing a porsche, I'd be open to running a "Cars" type game instead. I don't see why this is apparently such an emotive issue for some people. I game with my friends. We do whatever we think might be the most fun for us as a group.
The "we" is the key.
I don't see why this is apparently such an emotive issue for some people.
Because internet and hyperbole?
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.
As I have pointed out, (a)there are already talking animals in the core rules in the form of a raven familiar and (b)historically the idea of talking animals is a very strong component in "fairy tales" which games like D&D are inspired by, including occurring more frequently than fairies themselves. So while Disney is also inspired by similar sources, suggesting that the ideas originate from Disney would be wrong (not that you made that claim).
So go ahead and ban them, as long as you realize that the inability to imagine a game where there are some animals that talk is anything but a "disney movie" is a feature of yourself and not a feature of the concept. But don't use them as a default "extreme example", because they are not. Anymore than me complaining mushrooms are an "extreme example" of a bad topping for a pizza merely because I don't like them.
|
|
@pres man - So because Ravens can talk sometimes talking ponies should be ok.
But no one say the slippery slope argument could ever be a problem...
How about "The person who I selected to be GM doesn't like my idea, I'm wearing grown up pants today so rather than pout I'll pick something else they might like."
I think it's more, "Because wildshape exists as class feature, the only barrier to a talking pony by RAW is the talking."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As long as the raven ends each sentence with "nevermore..." I'd allow it.
I think it's more, "Because wildshape exists as class feature, the only barrier to a talking pony by RAW is the talking."
Just saying, but a wild shaped Druid in the shape of a pony is not a pony. Its a Druid in the shape of a pony ...
I think it's more, "Because wildshape exists as class feature, the only barrier to a talking pony by RAW is the talking."And I think it is more "Just because I can do it doesn't mean it is a good idea that will make the game enjoyable for everyone involved."
Why isn't that the goal, again?
Well, maybe this is where our table dynamics differ, but how does a druid spending the majority of his time in wildshape ruin anyone else's fun? As always, not to put words in anyone's mouth, but it seems like theres a lot of undue concern about what other people are doing with their own characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, maybe this is where our table dynamics differ, but how does a druid spending the majority of his time in wildshape ruin anyone else's fun? As always, not to put words in anyone's mouth, but it seems like theres a lot of undue concern about what other people are doing with their own characters.I think it's more, "Because wildshape exists as class feature, the only barrier to a talking pony by RAW is the talking."And I think it is more "Just because I can do it doesn't mean it is a good idea that will make the game enjoyable for everyone involved."
Why isn't that the goal, again?
Well, a druid can always turn back into a humanoid for some of the trickier situations the party may encounter. For our table, I'd ask the player "why do you want to play this particular thing", followed by "well, if you do this you, and by extension the party, are going to face some problems depending on where you go and what you do. So I'd make sure that the rest of the table is A-OK with you not having thumbs, Mr. Pony, and dungeon delving, rope climbing, and other issues may arise. So choose wisely."
After that, it is between the players whether this is a problem or burden they want to carry.
Well, maybe this is where our table dynamics differ, but how does a druid spending the majority of his time in wildshape ruin anyone else's fun? As always, not to put words in anyone's mouth, but it seems like theres a lot of undue concern about what other people are doing with their own characters.I think it's more, "Because wildshape exists as class feature, the only barrier to a talking pony by RAW is the talking."And I think it is more "Just because I can do it doesn't mean it is a good idea that will make the game enjoyable for everyone involved."
Why isn't that the goal, again?
It also seems there is undue assumption that the actions of one character and how they play don't effect the other players at the table. When by definition, they kinda do.
Ars, it wasn't a rhetorical question. If I'm playing a Druid, and like to spend as much time as possible in wildshape, how does that make the play experience less fun for you? I'm not saying you have to let me because it's in the CRB, or that you must include druids in your homebrew campaign. I'm asking how imagining my character trotting across the landscape on four hooves instead of two feet ruins your play session.
Ars, it wasn't a rhetorical question. If I'm playing a Druid, and like to spend as much time as possible in wildshape, how does that make the play experience less fun for you? I'm not saying you have to let me because it's in the CRB, or that you must include druids in your homebrew campaign. I'm asking how imagining my character trotting across the landscape on four hooves instead of two feet ruins your play session.
Equal question; why do you need to play something that annoys another player, whatever the reason is? When you could just play something else still have fun, and NOT annoy that player?
Ars, it wasn't a rhetorical question. If I'm playing a Druid, and like to spend as much time as possible in wildshape, how does that make the play experience less fun for you? I'm not saying you have to let me because it's in the CRB, or that you must include druids in your homebrew campaign. I'm asking how imagining my character trotting across the landscape on four hooves instead of two feet ruins your play session.Equal question; why do you need to play something that annoys another player, whatever the reason is? When you could just play something else still have fun, and NOT annoy that player?
I don't think that answered his question, couldn't you just say "This annoys me because X". The druid spending all day in cat form isn't inherently a problem. I'm pretty sure he wasn't saying you should play something that annoys someone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Equal question; why do you need to play something that annoys another player, whatever the reason is? When you could just play something else still have fun, and NOT annoy that player?
Well, that's where things get tricky. There are people (my wife, for instance) who would be annoyed by the gothic lolita shtick that we've discussed in these threads. For others, the (typical? never seen it except in the movie) drunken Scottish dwarf thing bothers, or snooty elf. Still others hate anything Asian related -- katana, samurai, etc -- and turn up their nose when it is displayed.
There are a lot of things out there that annoy people, even at individual tables. It's hard to know what that is until it surfaces unless someone has been very vocal about it, like "I hate it when guys play girl characters" or "If I see one more kender I will kill everyone at the table."
On a scale of one to kender, I'm not sure that wildshaped druid ranks very high. We've had wizards or druids doing recon in bird or animal form for years and people don't even twitch about it. Of course, none of them were purple horses with rainbows ...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given the small stature of kender, do you think a kender riding a purple rainbow pony is out of the question? :P
Of course, none of them were purple horses with rainbows ...
Just to be clear, nobody has suggested purple horses with rainbows. Of course if when someone hear the three words, "awakened pony sorcerer" that is the only thing they are capable of imagining, well then that is an issue with them and not the concept.
@pres man - So because Ravens can talk sometimes talking ponies should be ok.
If the claimed issue was that talking animals = disney movie, then talking ponies should be equally as acceptable or unacceptable as talking ravens.
So I'd make sure that the rest of the table is A-OK with you not having thumbs, Mr. Pony, and dungeon delving, rope climbing, and other issues may arise. So choose wisely."
After that, it is between the players whether this is a problem or burden they want to carry.
Pony's are medium, so anywhere that a human could fit, they could. As for climbing ropes, well mages haven't ever really been know for their physical abilities. It is little different hauling a pony sorcerer up a rope than human sorcerer. Of course most sorcerers don't eventually worry about ropes, due to something known as ... magic. Now magic has a lot of different uses, it might even be able to handle not having hands, with such things as mage hand, open/close, unseen servant, etc.
Also, let's not forget transmutive magic as well that could turn that pony into something else, that wouldn't have the normal quadruped limitations eventually.
So if the issue is that as a player you wouldn't want to "carry" the unusually shaped character, then address that with the player. It may be that they would be willing to spend their resources (spell choices for example) to make it so you don't have to. Maybe they had already been plan to and your concerns were unnecessary.
Equal question; why do you need to play something that annoys another player, whatever the reason is? When you could just play something else still have fun, and NOT annoy that player?
Do you assume that someone that is playing something you dislike, is doing it solely to annoy you, especially if you haven't actually said that it annoys you?
Follow up, if you do inform them, and they try to find out why it annoys you so they can avoid those issues (is it the whole My Little Pony thing, because I wasn't going to do anything like that, in fact I was not going to get anywhere near any prismatic magic at all). Would you be able to live with them trying their best to not overly annoy you by avoiding those major issues while still trying to stay true with their concept, or would any level of annoyance be too great for you?
Of course, none of them were purple horses with rainbows ...Just to be clear, nobody has suggested purple horses with rainbows. Of course if when someone hear the three words, "awakened pony sorcerer" that is the only thing they are capable of imagining, well then that is an issue with them and not the concept.
@pres man - So because Ravens can talk sometimes talking ponies should be ok.If the claimed issue was that talking animals = disney movie, then talking ponies should be equally as acceptable or unacceptable as talking ravens.
So I'd make sure that the rest of the table is A-OK with you not having thumbs, Mr. Pony, and dungeon delving, rope climbing, and other issues may arise. So choose wisely."
After that, it is between the players whether this is a problem or burden they want to carry.
Pony's are medium, so anywhere that a human could fit, they could. As for climbing ropes, well mages haven't ever really been know for their physical abilities. It is little different hauling a pony sorcerer up a rope than human sorcerer. Of course most sorcerers don't eventually worry about ropes, due to something known as ... magic. Now magic has a lot of different uses, it might even be able to handle not having hands, with such things as mage hand, open/close, unseen servant, etc.
Also, let's not forget transmutive magic as well that could turn that pony into something else, that wouldn't have the normal quadruped limitations eventually.
So if the issue is that as a player you wouldn't want to "carry" the unusually shaped character, then address that with the player. It may be that they would be willing to spend their resources (spell choices for example) to make it so you don't have to. Maybe they had already been plan to and your concerns were unnecessary.
Equal question; why do you need to play something that annoys another player, whatever the reason is? When you could...
Why is whether they are actively trying to annoy you relevant, if they know that it does annoy you?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@pres man - The claimed issue was that not wanting talking animals to be player characters isn't an unreasonable guideline for someone to set.
That is may make it seem like a disney movie is one of many reasons why someone may not wish to allow such things.
That Ravens and Parrot can speak a few words therefore talking pony PC is kosher is the slippery slope argument demonstrated.
That you are continuing to argue for what most of us look at as an example of what not to do demonstrates why people make the slippery slope argument of "If I let this in, next thing you know someone will argue I need to let in pony wizards."
Which is kind of what you are doing...so I guess thanks for demonstrating that concern is actually completely founded.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to be clear, nobody has suggested purple horses with rainbows. Of course if when someone hear the three words, "awakened pony sorcerer" that is the only thing they are capable of imagining, well then that is an issue with them and not the concept.
Well, to be fair MLP has been brought up a number of times in this and the threads that spawned it. So while it isn't the first place my mind has gone (see the post I made about Lackey's Companions for example), let's not pretend that we haven't really been talking about Friendship is Magic My Little Pony Sorcerers, because that is what started this.
Pony's are medium, so anywhere that a human could fit, they could. As for climbing ropes, well mages haven't ever really been know for their physical abilities. It is little different hauling a pony sorcerer up a rope than human sorcerer. Of course most sorcerers don't eventually worry about ropes, due to something known as ... magic. Now magic has a lot of different uses, it might even be able to handle not having hands, with such things as mage hand, open/close, unseen servant, etc.
Also, let's not forget transmutive magic as well that could turn that pony into something else, that wouldn't have the normal quadruped limitations eventually.
So if the issue is that as a player you wouldn't want to "carry" the unusually shaped character, then address that with the player. It may be that they would be willing to spend their resources (spell choices for example) to make it so you don't have to. Maybe they had already been plan to and your concerns were unnecessary.
Yes, there are many forms of magic and technology that they could use to circumvent any difficulties. And maybe they thought about it. Maybe I asked them about it in the hypothetical conversation that we had too. Which is why I said I'd talk to them and suggest that they talk to the other players -- which, as an aside, I tell the players to talk to each other about most things before we get started so there aren't problems -- but let's not pretend that being a talking horse, or a tiny fairy, or a half-giant, or something other than a fairly human-sized and shaped creature doesn't come with its own set of social or physical difficulties. Some players -- some, not all -- get enamoured with an idea/concept and forget about what goes along with it. Talking to the other players can help them realize that they might want the suggested spells or technology to overcome such.
Again, I'm not against some of these unusual ideas on the surface. But I do make sure that players know what to expect before they commit themselves and the other players to the idea. Because I'm not going to just ignore what you are and what you do, be you a bog standard human male fighter or a talking pony.
| 5 people 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.
It depends. When I am playing (all too rare these days), if there is someone's concept at the table that I cannot stand, it impacts my desire to play. An example might be a small fae creature that is two apples high, blue, and sings an annoying song, based off a TV Show and recent movies. It, for me, is a one note joke that after you hear it you want to move on.
In that case, if the player continued to push the joke and play the S***F to the hilt, I'd find reasons not to play anymore. Because, for me, it's nails on a chalkboard. My time is precious to me, especially when I get to play rather than GM. I'd rather not be irritated the entire time I play by things like that.
Rather than using food, I'll go with movies. If someone wanted me to go to the movies with them but only wanted to see Sasha Baron Cohen play whatever "funny" role he is currently doing, I'd opt to stay home rather than go out with them. I would not have fun; why bring them down by going and looking at my watch the whole time?
Some concepts -- be they characters in a game, a movie, a food -- are not everyone's cup of tea. This isn't to say that the guy playing the pony or the s***f or the loli is trying to be annoying, but there are just some things that do not work well together.
If the group's dynamics are screwed up because Bob hates Steve's concept and Jan is tired of the Monty Python references and Sally dislikes the durian and mushroom pizza, then it may be time to rethink playing together, or for people to swap out sessions until everyone can get their "interesting" concept out of their system and the table, as a whole, can decide how they want to go from here.
As usual the answer to that impasse is simply that I try to avoid playing with people who get annoyed by my playstyle... I have proclivities against kender but mostly because kender is kind of written to be an a$$ to his own party members and it takes a particular group to be ok with that kinda thing...
I don't think rainbow ponies come anywhere close to that concept but if I had a rainbow pony player at my table and a table full of folks who are fine with it, we'd replace a whole game session with a group exploratory activity into why the player who doesn't like ponies experiences rainbow pony trauma...
We sure wouldn't start that campaign until we resolved the issue by either helping him get over his pony issues, letting him bow out, or choosing a different campaign... It's just as not fair for the pony hater to stop the pony lover from ever getting to play a pony as it is for the pony lover to force the pony hater to be in a party he's not going to enjoy.
So as a group we talk it out. Everyone has an issue with kender mostly because of the whole 'I'm not being an a$$ho73 I'm just playing in character' schtick... But not liking rainbow ponies? Thankfully nobody at our table wants to play rainbow ponies so it hasn't come up yet, but I'd like to think also that thankfully we're the kinda table that would help a player suffering from PTSD (pony traumatic stress disorder) through his issues if it did. It used to go without saying but YMMV.
This issue is starting to crop up at our table a bit with a player who has developed strong proclivities for playing characters that either use bombs or minions a LOT, and another player at our table who hates bombs and minions.... I do get a strong feeling that the player who likes bombs and minions won't be satisfied until he can play a game that lets him get that out of his system and move on to another concept, but doing so also seems like pulling teeth to the guy who doesn't like that playstyle... As a table you just have to hash it out or don't. Every table is different.
Minions is a legitimate concern. It's why master summoner takes a lot of flack on these threads On the one hand It might be a cool concept.... on the other hand hashing out the actions of 7 little nippers in a fight can slow things to a crawl so it may not be the best concept for a table that likes to keep things moving... You find a way around it? You don't? There is no one right answer that works every time for every table.
But speaking of extremes, your peanut analogy.
Actually, I thought it was Shifty's example, not Mr. Sin's.
(Responding to my "extreme example" that, by intent, at least, had little to nothing to do with gaming, though it was made to.)Anyway, at least knightday came up with a good example to answer Ars' question for him, hopefully breaking the cycle of "well what about this?" questions that seem to be brewing between pres man and he.
For me (note that this is personal, and involves no one else), movies are different from gaming in that, while they are a shared group activity, movies are to be consumed whereas gaming is to be created.
Thus, I find it easier to "game" with things that might otherwise be annoying in movies.
The only time I have a real problem is when the character in question is disruptive to the table, either due to GM or due to player action.
If it's due to the GM, I try and help them get around the problem by making suggestions.
If it's due to the player, I try and help them get around the problem by making suggestions.
If it's me, I just try to change, if possible (it isn't always, but that's always my default move).
|
|
As usual the answer to that impasse is simply that I try to avoid playing with people who get annoyed by my playstyle... I have proclivities against kender but mostly because kender is kind of written to be an a$$ to his own party members and it takes a particular group to be ok with that kinda thing...
I don't think rainbow ponies come anywhere close to that concept but if I had a rainbow pony player at my table and a table full of folks who are fine with it, we'd replace a whole game session with a group exploratory activity into why the player who doesn't like ponies experiences rainbow pony trauma...
This is sarcasm right? I'm just checking out of fear some people might actually do this, given that seems to be what some people are arguing for in the thread...
That Ravens and Parrot can speak a few words therefore talking pony PC is kosher is the slippery slope argument demonstrated.
Intelligent raven familiars can only speak a few words? Okay. Sure.
That Ravens and Parrot can speak a few words therefore talking pony PC is kosher is the slippery slope argument demonstrated.Intelligent raven familiars can only speak a few words? Okay. Sure.
Well we're using slippery slope fallacy here, so be careful. You teach him a few words and pretty soon he'll want a soliloquy!
|
|
That Ravens and Parrot can speak a few words therefore talking pony PC is kosher is the slippery slope argument demonstrated.Intelligent raven familiars can only speak a few words? Okay. Sure.
So let me see if I follow.
Ravens can say a few words in the real world so intelligent Ravens can therefore perform Shakesphere, therefore you are closedminded for not understanding that my little pony wizard as a PC character what exactly what the developers of the game had in mind when they wrote the AP and if you don't agree you are being uncreative and closeminded.
No slippery slope there...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Intelligent ravens can speak Common.
A familiar raven also has your skill ranks. Somewhere out there a guy has a raven with 20 ranks in perform(Theatre). Its also untrained, so a bear with 3 intelligence and no speech can do it, though I'm sure that would look a little different...(rawr rawr rawr!)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Intelligent ravens can speak Common.
Familiars I believe. As a supernatural ability. I could be wrong.
Most PC races can speak common because...you know...they are PC races.
So a specific bird, as a supernatural ability in a specific set up can speak a language therefore pony wizard or you are closed minded.
I don't know why she swallowed the fly...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So a specific bird, as a supernatural ability in a specific set up can speak a language therefore pony wizard or you are closed minded.
Did someone actually say that? That's not what I got from my reading.
"If the claimed issue was that talking animals = disney movie, then talking ponies should be equally as acceptable or unacceptable as talking ravens."
pres man
I don't see that being the same as allowing a player to take a talking pony. I also know plenty of people who can see talking animals as something other than a Disney movie, some could be quiet serious, and others who'd be just fine with talking animal NPCs and familiars, though talking pony PCs might be a whole different matter.
Intelligent ravens can speak Common.Familiars I believe. As a supernatural ability. I could be wrong.
Most PC races can speak common because...you know...they are PC races.
So a specific bird, as a supernatural ability in a specific set up can speak a language therefore pony wizard or you are closed minded.
I don't know why she swallowed the fly...
You are half right Ciretose. According to the CRB, it states the following:
"Empathic Link (Su): The master has an empathic link with his familiar to a 1 mile distance. The master can communicate empathically with the familiar, but cannot see through its eyes. Because of the link's limited nature, only general emotions can be shared. The master has the same connection to an item or place that his familiar does."
However, it also states the following later:
"Speak with Master (Ex): If the master is 5th level or higher, a familiar and the master can communicate verbally as if they were using a common language. Other creatures do not understand the communication without magical help.
Speak with Animals of Its Kind (Ex): If the master is 7th level or higher, a familiar can communicate with animals of approximately the same kind as itself (including dire varieties): bats with bats, cats with felines, hawks and owls and ravens with birds, lizards and snakes with reptiles, monkeys with other simians, rats with rodents, toads with amphibians, and weasels with ermines and minks. Such communication is limited by the Intelligence of the conversing creatures."
It appears that the wording dictates the familiar can only speak any languages directly to its master, not to other creatures or persons. However, I could be wrong.
|
|
I don't see that being the same as allowing a player to take a talking pony. I also know plenty of people who can see talking animals as something other than a Disney movie, some could be quiet serious, and others who'd be just fine with talking animal NPCs and familiars, though talking pony PCs might be a whole different matter."If the claimed issue was that talking animals = disney movie, then talking ponies should be equally as acceptable or unacceptable as talking ravens."
pres man
So again.
1. Ravens can talk
2. Raven familiars can talk
3. Therefore awakened pony wizard was intended to
Not saying if you allow it you are doing it wrong. Am say it is absolutely ludicrous to criticize anyone for saying "No awakened pony wizards".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It appears that the wording dictates the familiar can only speak any languages directly to its master, not to other creatures or persons. However, I could be wrong.
Familiars with an asterisk next to them can speak one language of their masters choice as a supernatural ability.
Awoken and Anthropomorphic animals also gain the ability to speak languages, but those are a much different case.
Intelligent ravens can speak Common.Familiars I believe. As a supernatural ability. I could be wrong.
Most PC races can speak common because...you know...they are PC races.
So a specific bird, as a supernatural ability in a specific set up can speak a language therefore pony wizard or you are closed minded.
1. Who the hell cares how they can speak? Do you seriously have commoners running around saying, "Oh that raven can speak because it has a supernatural ability to do so, there for that isn't weird at all. But a pony talking, holy crap! That isn't a supernatural ability thus that is some really weird stuff there!" How many ranks of metagame does your typical person in your campaign world have again?
2. PCs can speak common (typically), because they have the capability to speak. Even if common wasn't a KNOWN language for them, if they have the capability to speak they can learn it. Now common is a known language for the core races because yes they are assumed to be the default character races.
3. Closed minded? Perhaps. You are certainly making an argument for it with your limited ability to imagine anything beyond disney movies and MLP. Yet, I would not use you as example of what other GMs are thinking and capable of, your limitations are your own.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@pres man - So you are making that argument.
Again, thank you, now I can cite this when someone says "No one is saying that!"
I am making the argument that it is the opposite of creative to not be able to come up with concept that doesn't elicit eyerolls from the rest of the group.
That is what I find to be close minded.
If anyone says that nobody is saying: "If you are not capable of imagining anything other than an awakened pony sorcerer as a disney character or MLP, then you are limited in your imagination", please feel free to quote me right here as saying that. Because the limitation is in fact your own, and not the concept.
Now if anyone says that nobody is saying, "If someone decides not to allow an awakened pony sorcerer, then they are limited in their imagination", then quoting me as saying such is in error at best and just a blatant attempt at deception at worse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, thank you, now I can cite this when someone says "No one is saying that!"
Thanks, I found there are a few posters who keep asking for 'proof' that people are saying that - this one is another clear cut example for them, but keep the url handy because within a page or two we will be told 'no one is saying that'.
Again, thank you, now I can cite this when someone says "No one is saying that!"Thanks, I found there are a few posters who keep asking for 'proof' that people are saying that - this one is another clear cut example for them, but keep the url handy because within a page or two we will be told 'no one is saying that'.
See my post above yours. Make sure you are correctly quoting me about what "no one is saying".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think we went off the rails a while back here. The talking animal, as amusing as the argument over it is, is a fringe case at best.
Or is that the rub? Anyone can be disruptive to a game -- but is it the choice of the exotic race/class/look that makes it more disruptive or distasteful? Would a table/GM object less to a druid that stays in horse form rather than a horse that talks and casts spells? Is a small frail elven woman less disruptive than one dressed as a loligoth? Would someone who emulates demons or bats be less of a disturbance than a tiefling?
i can understand that not every group likes the various forms of lolita fashion, but they are a clothing style that has been around for multiple centuries. before Victoria ruled England, the clothing style was restricted to the Nobility, the Wealthy and those with a sizeable Inheritance, and there is plenty of artwork for NPCs that can be considered lolita fashion
most of the lolita fashion substyles, merely take clothing of a well known archetype from history and adapt it for younger female individuals, and a lot of them are very similar in style, 16th century women's pirates garb is close to Renaissance Noblewoman's Garb is close enough to Victorian Doll's Garb. Steampunk is popular. but the only difference between Steampunk Lolita and Renaissance Lolita, is the former covers nearly every inch of skin and the latter has a few revealed zones around the neck, arms and legs
I think we went off the rails a while back here. The talking animal, as amusing as the argument over it is, is a fringe case at best.
Or is that the rub? Anyone can be disruptive to a game -- but is it the choice of the exotic race/class/look that makes it more disruptive or distasteful? Would a table/GM object less to a druid that stays in horse form rather than a horse that talks and casts spells? Is a small frail elven woman less disruptive than one dressed as a loligoth? Would someone who emulates demons or bats be less of a disturbance than a tiefling?
i wouldn't consider any of these less disruptive
a small frail elven woman, whether or not she dresses as a loligoth, isn't an issue on her own, a lot of fantasy clothing can be considered loligoth, i have no problems with a small frail elven woman dressing in what may be a common form of fantasy garb in recent fantasy works
between a horse that talks and casts spells, and a druid whom stays in horse form, both would be seen as eccentric druids. it matters not which
a guy who emulates demons or bats. no less than a tiefling, the guy clearly wanted to play a tiefling and is taking extra effort to mold himself into a tiefling. really, i'd rather allow him to be a tiefling