There are usually more players than GMs.Again, if the GM is the first among EQUALS, than why is a greater priority placed on the player having fun than the GM having fun?Kthulu: probably because the gm gets to decide on the inclusion/exclusion of dozens of races,and what race dozens of npcs are; then it seems quite small-minded to ban the single race that a player wants just because the gm doesnt like them. When its the only thing players get to decide, i think its a sign of good dming to cut them some slack. Exceptions occur of course, but they should ve kept rare exceptions, not anything close to default.
With the caveat that kirth mentioned of course; if other players too want to exclude catfolk that is a different thing.
That is because no one else wants the ruddy headaches that come with the job...
Sorry old grognard saying...
But it is something Players should remember.
There are more players than GMs.
The GM is not in any way obligated to acquiesce to your demands.
As my games demonstrate, there is always someone willing to take your spot.
If I restrict any thing (race, class, spell, feat, skill, etc) I have a reason. That reason may just be as simple as "I do not like it and therefore do not want it in my games" or as complex as I find it broken (Fabricate I am looking at you) or it could be for story reasons, or as my most common one is "your first campaign with me you are restricted to core races and classes only. This is non-negotiable." is because I want to see what kind of player you are before I will allow you to branch out into more "unique characters." (Personally I think all characters are unique but some players just are not happy with that).
|
Again, if the GM is the first among EQUALS, than why is a greater priority placed on the player having fun than the GM having fun?There are usually more players than GMs.
Oh, I'll agree that if it's a whole table-full of people wanting to play catfolk, then one of them should give up their desire to play a catfolk and be the GM instead. Because I do NOT think that the catfolk-hating GM should be forced to GM for a all-catfolk group.
But what if it's just ONE player who wants to play a catfolk? Does his desire to play a catfolk automatically overrule the GM's desire to play a catfolk-free game?
What if nobody else wants to GM? Does the collective unwillingness of any of the players to step into the GM role mean that the catfolk-hating GM must be forced to GM the game, regardless of his catfolk-hatred?
If the catfolk character happens to get killed, will his player accept it as the fate of the dice, or will he begin to accuse the GM of killing his character because it was a catfolk?
Again, if the GM is the first among EQUALS, than why is a greater priority placed on the player having fun than the GM having fun?Kthulu: probably because the gm gets to decide on the inclusion/exclusion of dozens of races,and what race dozens of npcs are; then it seems quite small-minded to ban the single race that a player wants just because the gm doesnt like them. When its the only thing players get to decide, i think its a sign of good dming to cut them some slack. Exceptions occur of course, but they should ve kept rare exceptions, not anything close to default.
With the caveat that kirth mentioned of course; if other players too want to exclude catfolk that is a different thing.
Because I have yet to see a net positive effect come out of banning a race solely because the DM has an axe to grind with that race. Sure, disallowing a race in a theme game (like if the group wants to play the game in Middle Earth, or if you've got a campaign predicated on assumptions which are antithetical to the inclusion of a race and the majority of players are on board for it, but those I have already made specific exclusions for).
Moreover, the thing I've found both from my own experiences and those of DMs I've encountered is that as a general rule, DM fun and Player fun are not independant of one another. Essentially, the more fun the players have, I've found, the more fun it is to DM for those players. As such, it usually ends up being that I'd rather DM for players enjoying themselves with races I'm not too keen on, than begrudgingly accepting races that I'm more keen towards. Am I personally a big fan of Kitsune? Not particularly. But I'd rather DM for the player who's really having fun with his Kitsune bard than the player who had to settle for a character concept they're not as fond of.
|
Yes. It is a key word. If, for whatever reason, or possibly no rational reason whatsoever, catfolk set the GM's teeth on edge, they I see no reason for any player to demand to play a catfolk. Even if the GM's full explanation is: "I hate them. I don't even know why, but I hate them."
If the GM is the first among EQUALS, then why are some of you valuing his ability to have fun in the game so much less than that of the player who wants to play the catfolk?
We're not. See below.
As too does the player who demands they be allowed to play a catfolk, even when the GM has told them that he cannot, for whatever reason, stand catfolk.
Absolutely. Hell, the guy in Damian's story who wanted to play a Tiefling came off as a dick, too. Just less of one than the author.
The GM hates catfolk. Why can some of you simply not accept this? Is it SO important that he gives you a detailed explanation of WHY he hates catfolk? Will you bankroll the therapy sessions where he and his therapist delve deep into his psyche to determine the roots of his catfolk hatred?
Wouldn't it be simpler just to accept that the guy doesn't like g~#!#%n catfolk, and play an elf or something instead?
There's a difference between the situation you're arguing and the one we're responding to: "I hate catfolk, and won't have fun if you play one." is a reason, and actually not a bad one "I said so." is not. The second is the scenario being objected to.
So the "reason" was already given. My asking if he read the Guide was me checking to see if he actually bothered to read it...
That is somewhat more fair. You might still have reiterated it.
I do not argue with players.
I'm not necessarily suggesting you do, just say why it works like that.
When Rules issues come up I make a judgement.If a player objects I invoke rule 4. They get 5 minutes to calmly present their case.
That's perfectly reasonable...and not gone into in the above post, asw mentioned.
Then I make a judgement and it stands. If the player continues to disrupt the game after that... an Alternate is informed that a slot in the game has opened up.
That also seems reasonable...and again, is not clear in the above post. One serious piece of advice I was gonna give to come off as less of a dick was to say "Listen, I said you can't play a tiefling. I'm the GM and that's final. If you have a core race character, pull 'em out. If not, I'm afraid you'll have to leave." rather than just summarily kicking them. It sounds like you already do that to some extent which makes the whole thing a lot less bad than depicted.
I run 10 player games with up to 20 alternates on any given campaign.
I do not tolerate disruptive behavior.
Some of this is probably culture shock. I, and I suspect most others, play in smaller groups than this, usually with people we know pretty well personally, which makes for a very different interpersonal dynamic. I still don't think rudeness is appropriate, but it makes the player's behavior much ruder, and you not having seen his sheet previously more understandable.
This system has been in effect for the last 20 years and outside of a rare few habitual problem players, (My table is usually their chance at reputation redemption... If they can last through one of Damians games they can't be that bad after all), no one has complained about my style.
The system sounds perfectly reasonable...but also, with a game that big and with that many alternates, I'd expect polite people who did object to simply leave and join another rather than cause drama.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are usually more players than GMs.Again, if the GM is the first among EQUALS, than why is a greater priority placed on the player having fun than the GM having fun?Kthulu: probably because the gm gets to decide on the inclusion/exclusion of dozens of races,and what race dozens of npcs are; then it seems quite small-minded to ban the single race that a player wants just because the gm doesnt like them. When its the only thing players get to decide, i think its a sign of good dming to cut them some slack. Exceptions occur of course, but they should ve kept rare exceptions, not anything close to default.
With the caveat that kirth mentioned of course; if other players too want to exclude catfolk that is a different thing.
That is because no one else wants the ruddy headaches that come with the job...
Sorry old grognard saying...
But it is something Players should remember.
There are more players than GMs.
The GM is not in any way obligated to acquiesce to your demands.
As my games demonstrate, there is always someone willing to take your spot.
If I restrict any thing (race, class, spell, feat, skill, etc) I have a reason. That reason may just be as simple as "I do not like it and therefore do not want it in my games" or as complex as I find it broken (Fabricate I am looking at you) or it could be for story reasons, or as my most common one is "your first campaign with me you are restricted to core races and classes only. This is non-negotiable." is because I want to see what kind of player you are before I will allow you to branch out into more "unique characters." (Personally I think all characters are unique but some players just are not happy with that).
So really, what this all boils down to is that you treat DMing as a power trip, as opposed to being another player? Am I reading this right? Some players may DM more than others, but a DM is just that, a player. Nothing more, and nothing less.
I guess you have a right to rule your games with an iron fist, just like I have a right to work to make my games fun for everyone. However, from what you've said in this thread, it sounds like the 30 years of gaming in this setting you've accumulated as a DM are not from your DMing or people skills, but likely from being good at storytelling, keeping control of players, and the momentum of your reputation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My only question to this whole debate of Catfolk vs. No Catfolk and the growing distrust/hatred between GM and player is "Why in the Nine Hells are you even playing this game together?"
I have 4 friends/family who can and will GM and another 10 or so that are players only. So about 15 people total between us and I've never had an issue come up in 30+ years where one of us felt wronged by another one's desire to play something.
Sure, I get the "lol, catfolk are >insert homophobic slur< play a dwarf" but its all in jest and everyone plays what they want within the system of whatever we're playing at the time.
No hard feelings.
My sister gets to play her moody tiefling
My brother in law gets to play his weird elemental-race of the week spellslinger.
My son gets to play his kitsune magus.
Do people NOT play this game with family and friends anymore?
Or do some people legitimately have such horrible friends that they can't even decide on how to have fun together without a fight?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, if the GM is the first among EQUALS, than why is a greater priority placed on the player having fun than the GM having fun?Kthulu: probably because the gm gets to decide on the inclusion/exclusion of dozens of races,and what race dozens of npcs are; then it seems quite small-minded to ban the single race that a player wants just because the gm doesnt like them. When its the only thing players get to decide, i think its a sign of good dming to cut them some slack. Exceptions occur of course, but they should ve kept rare exceptions, not anything close to default.
With the caveat that kirth mentioned of course; if other players too want to exclude catfolk that is a different thing.
its not. A player shouöd be careful with vetoing against races, regardless of if its the gm or the players. You just seem to want to make an exception for the GM. I dont think one of my players should have the right to tell me "hey, you cant have any orcs in this game because i dont like them".
The PC gets to decide one race (as long as theres not a strong opposition from several players).
The GM gets to decide three dozen races (again as log as there isnt a strong opposition from several players)
How is that not "the first among equals"? If a player went up to me and said"hey i want to decide all the races because thats the only way i can have fun" Id sayid rather not play with such an extreme control freak. The same goes for me as gm. I get a lot of say in the worldbuilding, more than anyone else. Why should i also arbitrarily control the PCs?
My only question to this whole debate of Catfolk vs. No Catfolk and the growing distrust/hatred between GM and player is "Why in the Nine Hells are you even playing this game together?"
I have 4 friends/family who can and will GM and another 10 or so that are players only. So about 15 people total between us and I've never had an issue come up in 30+ years where one of us felt wronged by another one's desire to play something.
Sure, I get the "lol, catfolk are >insert homophobic slur< play a dwarf" but its all in jest and everyone plays what they want within the system of whatever we're playing at the time.
No hard feelings.
My sister gets to play her moody tiefling
My brother in law gets to play his weird elemental-race of the week spellslinger.
My son gets to play his kitsune magus.Do people NOT play this game with family and friends anymore?
Or do some people legitimately have such horrible friends that they can't even decide on how to have fun together without a fight?
believe it or not... some people still look on RPGs as, if not "evil", as a waste of time.
I have friends who sit in my games (when work does not interfere) and just about everyone at the shop is an acquaintance of some sort.But with a Pool of 200 players and only 20 to 30 GMs (10 are restricted by shift work) we have to spread ourselves around so everyone can have fun.
The only reason my games are in such high demand is the after campaign tales that players invariably spread.
So really, what this all boils down to is that you treat DMing as a power trip, as opposed to being another player? Am I reading this right? Some players may DM more than others, but a DM is just that, a player....There are usually more players than GMs.Again, if the GM is the first among EQUALS, than why is a greater priority placed on the player having fun than the GM having fun?Kthulu: probably because the gm gets to decide on the inclusion/exclusion of dozens of races,and what race dozens of npcs are; then it seems quite small-minded to ban the single race that a player wants just because the gm doesnt like them. When its the only thing players get to decide, i think its a sign of good dming to cut them some slack. Exceptions occur of course, but they should ve kept rare exceptions, not anything close to default.
With the caveat that kirth mentioned of course; if other players too want to exclude catfolk that is a different thing.
That is because no one else wants the ruddy headaches that come with the job...
Sorry old grognard saying...
But it is something Players should remember.
There are more players than GMs.
The GM is not in any way obligated to acquiesce to your demands.
As my games demonstrate, there is always someone willing to take your spot.
If I restrict any thing (race, class, spell, feat, skill, etc) I have a reason. That reason may just be as simple as "I do not like it and therefore do not want it in my games" or as complex as I find it broken (Fabricate I am looking at you) or it could be for story reasons, or as my most common one is "your first campaign with me you are restricted to core races and classes only. This is non-negotiable." is because I want to see what kind of player you are before I will allow you to branch out into more "unique characters." (Personally I think all characters are unique but some players just are not happy with that).
I run some of the most gonzo high powered campaigns imaginable. I am fairly permissible as GMs go. Worst thing you ever want me say is "you want what?... ok." Cause that means I just figured out how to counter it, incorporate it into the plot, give one to the BBEG, make it a nice complication, or all of the above.
I do not treat GMing as a power trip.I treat it for exactly what it is.
Me having fun with a group of people exploring a world within agreed upon set boundaries.
Now you are going to latch right onto the "agreed upon" part...
But catch this...
When you agreed to me as the GM you also agreed to abide by my rulings and restrictions.
Lets use a restriction that is hard and fast in all my settings.
NO Dhampir EVER!
I find their origins idiotic and trite.
There is no such thing as the Half-dead in my games.
So do not even bother to ask.
Now you know the restriction and my reason (I hate the very concept of them). If you ask me to let you play one anyway what answer do you think you will get?
Am I the Bad guy for saying "Not going to happen"?
Or are you for even pushing the issue?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, if the GM is the first among EQUALS, than why is a greater priority placed on the player having fun than the GM having fun?Kthulu: probably because the gm gets to decide on the inclusion/exclusion of dozens of races,and what race dozens of npcs are; then it seems quite small-minded to ban the single race that a player wants just because the gm doesnt like them. When its the only thing players get to decide, i think its a sign of good dming to cut them some slack. Exceptions occur of course, but they should ve kept rare exceptions, not anything close to default.
With the caveat that kirth mentioned of course; if other players too want to exclude catfolk that is a different thing.
Because it comes down to the agreement between the MAJORITY. If everyone wants to play Damians game and I want to play my Kitsune then its up to me as the minority person here to either say "sorry I just don't want to play another human, I'm going to play this game instead" or "Okay Damians guide says New players are limited to core races only guess I'm stuck playing another human" then make a human character and play it. I've done both in my time played a game I wasn't interested because its what the majority wanted and stepped out to play something else.
However when they group decides on something e.g. non-core races allowed then I expect to be allowed to play my Kitsune even if one other doesn't like them because I've played with/and as concepts I wasnt particularly attracted to because they were what the group had decided on. If everyone says let's play a game where anything goes and see how it works then I show up and get told "No you can't play a Kitsune because I don't like them" while the same objections aren't being raised for the tiefling, the plant man or the tentacles horror from the void between stars then its up to the person objecting to either put up with it or leave because I really want to play it (just like they really don't want it played) and...
To be fair I would never leave the races that open...
But I would in the appropriate setting have no issue with a Kitsune.That said however...
I also have a setting where Kitsune do not exist.
But there are Fox, Wolf, and Coyote anthros available (none shapeshift however).
And if you came to me said I want a Kitsune and I offered up the anthros would that be a acceptable?
Do people NOT play this game with family and friends anymore?
Or do some people legitimately have such horrible friends that they can't even decide on how to have fun together without a fight?
Actually, there are some friends I would never play an RPG with, simply because our tastes are too far apart and any compromise would result in a game neither of us would enjoy. Seems silly to do that, when we can find something we both enjoy outside of the RPG world (like watching a movie) and do that together instead. Sometimes being friends means knowing what activities to avoid, when to bow out of a group activity and spend time with other friends instead, and when not to take offense when they do the same.
The way my mind works, I find it hard to understand "we do everything together" groups of friends, because with my friends we'd end up killing one another if we did that. Breaking into smaller groups to go do different things is one of the ways we manage to stay friends, because constantly finding an activity we could compromise on would mean none of us would ever get to do the things we truly enjoy.
So really, I don't see anything wrong with making a decision to do something someone else isn't going to enjoy, as long as there's other things you *can* do together at other times.
On a more focused level, the same thing applies to RPG groups. As long as the group is agreeable to the idea, there's really nothing wrong with sometimes playing a game one or two members of the group drop out for, to ensure those that do want to play that game get to do so, and as long as everyone gets their chance to play the game *they* want to play.
|
Indeed, I'll usually say "No" if people present me with a Drow character concept in Golarion, because Drow are not just a badguy race, but a secret race (unless you run Second Darkness). I usually tell those players:
"If you're looking to be a misunderstood anti-hero may I suggest Half-Orc, Dhampyr or Tiefling?
If you want to be an evil character from a machiavellian civilization, may I suggest playing a Chelish human or half-elf?
If you just want the visual of pointy ears and dark skin, then perhaps you might consider an Ekujae elf?
If you want to worship Lloth, this is the wrong campaign setting, may I suggest Calistra, the wasp goddess of sex and revengeance? BONUS: She's Chaotic Neutral so you don't need to worship an evil god."
And if you're REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY set on being drowish....
There is the Half-Drow half-elf type.
^_^
All the tragic, misunderstood and lovelyness for those agnsty players.
As for me. I'll stick to my Assimar and Tieflings. ^_^
Playing non-humanoids is fun. And works for me, esp with the races born of humans who aren't humans. Because that's how I feel most of the time. So it comes naturally to me.
------
I might add, as a GM and a player. If the game is PFS, then PFS rules apply. However if the game is non-PFS, I'll allow almost anything (in my old group I didn't allow evil, because last time that was allowed someone used as a reason to be a murder-hobo. The rest of the party quickly bound and gagged him, then stuffed him in a cage for the rest of the game). As long as there's a good backstory, and the character isn't hogging the spotlight all the time, and it fits with everyone else. But that's me, I try to make sure that everyone is happy, and not be mean to anyone. I try to find a way to make things work for everyone.
My issue is as follows...
I provide a campaign guide 3 weeks prior to game day.
Said guide contains a list of all house rules that will be in effect, Which classes will be acceptable, which races will be acceptable, etc...Come game day I invariably get that ONE player who seems to think the restrictions were not meant for him.
That Guy: "Hey GM I know you said only the 7 core races; But I really want to play a Drow, Tiefling, Half-Dragon, whatever..."
Me: "Did you read my Guide?"
TG: "Yeah..."
Me: "Then you already know my answer. Can you roll up one of the 7 core races?"
TG: "Yeah, I can, but I want to play this! Why cant I?"
me: "Did you read my guide?"
TG: "Yeah, what does that have to do with why you wont let me play XYZ?"
Me: "Are you going to play one of the 7 cores?"
TG: "I want XYZ"
Me: "Fine... Hey Alternate #1 a slot just opened in my Game you got a character made?"
TG: "WHAT?!"
Me: "you have demonstrated an inability to follow instructions... you are not welcome at my table."
Alt1: "Well I wanted to run a Tiefling but you said core races only so I opted for a Human Sorcerer with the Aberrant bloodline... Is that cool?"
Me: "both are on the approved list so I see no issue with it."And yet somehow that type of exchange makes me the bad guy...
Why?
Because I did not justify restriction?
it makes you the bad guy because you come across as one, try listening to said idea sometime, they might surprise you:)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suggest you let the Wookiee win...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I have altered the setting..pray I don't alter it further...."
So I have not read the entire thread. My 2 cents is that players play what they want. I have a homebrew and the theme is that of a dark fairy tale. Gnomes are sunned (non-playable but around) because of association with the fey. Elves and many other "anthropomorphic" races are the result of faerie magic and meddling: grippili for example resulted when halflings were cursed and forced to live in forested swamps.
Now so far none of my players have taken advantage of these non-core choices despite the fact that the only race not allowed is gnomes. In a dark fairy tale themed game though I could very well imagine a team of a catfolk, a grippili, and ratfolk as I could a human, elf and a dwarf.
|
|
My issue is as follows...
I provide a campaign guide 3 weeks prior to game day.
Said guide contains a list of all house rules that will be in effect, Which classes will be acceptable, which races will be acceptable, etc...Come game day I invariably get that ONE player who seems to think the restrictions were not meant for him.
That Guy: "Hey GM I know you said only the 7 core races; But I really want to play a Drow, Tiefling, Half-Dragon, whatever..."
Me: "Did you read my Guide?"
TG: "Yeah..."
Me: "Then you already know my answer. Can you roll up one of the 7 core races?"
TG: "Yeah, I can, but I want to play this! Why cant I?"
me: "Did you read my guide?"
TG: "Yeah, what does that have to do with why you wont let me play XYZ?"
Me: "Are you going to play one of the 7 cores?"
TG: "I want XYZ"
Me: "Fine... Hey Alternate #1 a slot just opened in my Game you got a character made?"
TG: "WHAT?!"
Me: "you have demonstrated an inability to follow instructions... you are not welcome at my table."
Alt1: "Well I wanted to run a Tiefling but you said core races only so I opted for a Human Sorcerer with the Aberrant bloodline... Is that cool?"
Me: "both are on the approved list so I see no issue with it."And yet somehow that type of exchange makes me the bad guy...
Why?
Because I did not justify restriction?
I deleted my previous response based on more thorough reading of your responses (with in this thread)
It is stuff like this that makes me think you are an unyielding douche but based on what you say in several other responses when people have basically attacked you I can come to only a handful of possible conclusions.
1) You are not quiet the jerk your posts in general (as in on other threads) make you appear to be and are actually a really understanding guy who normally talks about restrictions and potential compromise with players but were just having a bad day and so are suffering from c cognitive dissonance and so you are trying to justify the cognitive conflict.
2) You ARE the jerk you appear to be but are a good GM that can tell a good story and knows the rules (you allow in your game) so most people simply deal with it
3) You are the jerk you appear to be and are probably not as good as you think you are at being a GM but GMs are in such high demand in your area that people deal with it
4) The players in your area have no self-respect and while there are other options they for some reason keep letting you dictate what they do and how they do it.
5) Your definition of power trip is much more grandiose then other people's definition of power trip with me agreeing with other people
So one or more of these is true but I'm not sure as I don't actually know you and don’t live in your area.
I think my major issue with this is that you spent all that time typing up a list of things that they can and can't do/be/whatever and then couldn't take five minutes to be human with someone else and explain the restrictions. It sounds like you wasted a bit of time arguing with the guy, I'm not sure why you felt more comfortable being an unyielding douche instead of explaining it.
A point in our defense though, if you gave out the restrictions three weeks prior to the game the player should have brought up his issues prior to game day.
You do owe the player a better explanation than: "I just don't like it."Because it's the player's game too.
Under most circumstances, I would agree. But I think there does have to be room for such intense dislike that "I really don't like that" is sufficient justification for the DM to disallow something. You can't force anyone to run a game with things that really irks them regardless of how much the player likes the idea in question.
In truth, we see that a lot from player perspectives in these threads as well concerning elements of the setting whether slavery, sexism, sex crimes, or racism that otherwise might be something PCs might have to deal with in game. In other words, you can't force someone to play in a game that really irks them regardless of how the GM likes to use the idea in question.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do people NOT play this game with family and friends anymore?
Or do some people legitimately have such horrible friends that they can't even decide on how to have fun together without a fight?
i play with my wife and kids exclusively (my few friends don't play RPGs) we don't fight, everyone has fun:)
The closest ive had to any sort of situation like this was when i a new group at a near by club got started we were all told to make our characters and gm had not told us about the setting or any restrictions at all nor could we contact him, so we all made our PCs (all core races with 1 drow) and the the GM got pissed off at us because he wanted us all to be human for an ancient roman/greek game.
However in other situations when ever a GM has put restrictions ahead of time ive never seen problems. In one group thats starting in a couple of weeks we've all been told we could only be human, sure some of us would like other choices but no one has a problem with it. In my 4th Edition game i ban all PHB 3 Races and no one has a problem with it.
Apart from the first example (btw that guy got ousted as GM long before the first session was over) I have never seen or had a problem with limiting racial options which makes me question what kind of people some of you are playing with.
i'm unfamiliar with 4th edition, what races are in the PHB 3? why not allow them? (weird? unbalanced? lame?) I'm just curious, i've not seen 4th edition since i saw the Forgotten Realms massacre (what i call what they did to FR in 4th edition:)
i play with my wife and kids exclusively (my few friends don't play RPGs) we don't fight, everyone has fun:)
Do people NOT play this game with family and friends anymore?
Or do some people legitimately have such horrible friends that they can't even decide on how to have fun together without a fight?
Kinda spoils us, doesn't it?
My issue is as follows...
I provide a campaign guide 3 weeks prior to game day.
Said guide contains a list of all house rules that will be in effect, Which classes will be acceptable, which races will be acceptable, etc...Come game day I invariably get that ONE player who seems to think the restrictions were not meant for him.
That Guy: "Hey GM I know you said only the 7 core races; But I really want to play a Drow, Tiefling, Half-Dragon, whatever..."
Me: "Did you read my Guide?"
TG: "Yeah..."
Me: "Then you already know my answer. Can you roll up one of the 7 core races?"
TG: "Yeah, I can, but I want to play this! Why cant I?"
me: "Did you read my guide?"
TG: "Yeah, what does that have to do with why you wont let me play XYZ?"
Me: "Are you going to play one of the 7 cores?"
TG: "I want XYZ"
Me: "Fine... Hey Alternate #1 a slot just opened in my Game you got a character made?"
TG: "WHAT?!"
Me: "you have demonstrated an inability to follow instructions... you are not welcome at my table."
Alt1: "Well I wanted to run a Tiefling but you said core races only so I opted for a Human Sorcerer with the Aberrant bloodline... Is that cool?"
Me: "both are on the approved list so I see no issue with it."And yet somehow that type of exchange makes me the bad guy...
Why?
Because I did not justify restriction?I deleted my previous response based on more thorough reading of your responses (with in this thread)
It is stuff like this that makes me think you are an unyielding douche but based on what you say in several other responses when people have basically attacked you I can come to only a handful of possible conclusions.
1) You are not quiet the jerk your posts in general (as in on other threads) make you appear to be and are actually a really understanding guy who normally talks about restrictions and potential compromise with players but were just having a bad day and so are suffering from c cognitive dissonance and so you are trying to justify...
You missed one.
I am an old man whose past experiences with disruptive players has left him less tolerant of those who think they are the only persons fun that counts.
I'm talking humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, and half-elves. These days everyone is playing some anthropomorphic animal or some elemental being or just something that is essentially a dark and edgy human. The obvious solution to this issue is just to limit the races... But alas, this only leads to complaints upon complaints. -Sigh-. Does anyone else feel similarly?
In our games we allow one non-traditional race at a time to keep the group from turning into this bizarre menagerie of characters who have absolutely no business being together. I'm sure many disagree, but I'm with you - these parties of Tieflings, Drow, Half-Dragons, Dhamphir and Changelings just start getting silly after a while.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Y'know, I've said everything I consider relevant to this conversation over several other threads in the past 6 months, but I've got to point out that an old man such as the one speaking in the post above will most likely have come to realize that limiting player's choice of character race does absolutely bupkis to solve his problems with disruptive players at his table.
I am an old man whose past experiences with disruptive players has left him less tolerant of those who think they are the only persons fun that counts.
Exactly. The game needs to be fun for the GM and fun for the group. There are an infinite number of options available, and when a person makes it clear that 1) he doesn't think the rules should apply to him or 2) what he wants is more important than what the group wants, then he has just told you that he's going to detract from the group's fun in the future.
Groups should want to play together. Pulling in different directions rarely results in fun for anyone - better to get everyone on the same page from the start. If I'm going to run a Skull n Shackles campaign where the characters are pirates and one guy insists on running a Paladin who hates pirates, the game is probably better off without him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Y'know, I've said everything I consider relevant to this conversation over several other threads in the past 6 months, but I've got to point out that an old man such as the one speaking in the post above will most likely have come to realize that limiting player's choice of character race does absolutely bupkis to solve his problems with disruptive players at his table.
Actually, I've found that people who are disruptive before games ever begin are very likely to be the people whom are disruptive after they begin as well... better to weed them out ahead of time for the good of the group.
i'm unfamiliar with 4th edition, what races are in the PHB 3? why not allow them? (weird? unbalanced? lame?) I'm just curious, i've not seen 4th edition since i saw the Forgotten Realms massacre (what i call what they did to FR in 4th edition:)
Minotaurs and Githzerai.
Shardminds. (A humanoid made of crystals)Wilden. (A humanoid made of plants)
Nobody has asked to play any of these races yet in my (anything goes) Pathfinder world, however, I have shoehorned in both the Dragonborn race from the 4e PHB and the Goliath race from the 4e PHB2 to fit both my own and my players creativity.
Surprisingly, nobody has ever asked to play a 4e PHB2 Shifter... I guess Catfolk, Kitsune, Vanara and the slew of other PF furry-type races fit the bill better.
I'd be interested in seeing a Wilden player though. Seems like an interesting concept.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Y'know, I've said everything I consider relevant to this conversation over several other threads in the past 6 months, but I've got to point out that an old man such as the one speaking in the post above will most likely have come to realize that limiting player's choice of character race does absolutely bupkis to solve his problems with disruptive players at his table.Actually, I've found that people who are disruptive before games ever begin are very likely to be the people whom are disruptive after they begin as well... better to weed them out ahead of time for the good of the group.
Yeah, but if you're going to accomplish that by limiting PC's choice of anything that could possibly be used disruptively, rather than by choosing to play with people you trust not to be disruptive, then all your efforts are going to be for naught, because the guy you won't let choose catfolk or gunslinger or chaotic neutral will just use his neutral good human bard to ruin the game for everyone else.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't be selective about who you play with, I'm saying that using player options rather that player behavior as your criteria is misguided.
i liked 3.5 goliaths (i assume 4th is basically the same) i feel that Oreads cover that Niche.
i have a concept for a Ghoran* cleric/paladin of Sarenrae for Wrath of the Righteous but haven't made it out yet (WotR is sadly behind a couple other APs right now, so might be awhile, tho my wife has expressed an interest in running it….)
*Ghoran are Pathfinder's plant race, from Inner Sea Bestiary:)
I am a player friendly restrictive GM. I generally am pretty laid back with my player's, let'em play what they want. However, if their is something odd/snowflakey - like a non-core race in a campaign centered to core races, I warn my players to be prepared...if I allow your non-core race character, you are going to be dealing with a lot of crap the others don't have to deal with. It could be anything from curiosity and won't be left alone to bigotry for being something different to fascination for being something different or whatever I deem appropriate depending upon the type of campaign being run.
I ran a game in which I informed everyone that they had to play a human character from Oerth who were going to get pulled to another world ruled by Dragons whose powers were based upon the energy granted by human souls. Inevitably, one of my players who despised playing human characters, because "I am human every second of my life", pitched a fit. I laid out my campaign idea, and he wouldn't budge. He dropped out of the group for a couple of months and then asked to come back once he heard everyone talking up the campaign. The guy lost out on a great campaign.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not saying that you shouldn't be selective about who you play with, I'm saying that using player options rather that player behavior as your criteria is misguided.
Exactly. I always screen my players, but over lunch or a beer and some small-talk, just to see who's a dick -- not by means of a large list of bans and then seeing who dares to risk the Wrath of the Almighty DM by asking if any of them are negotiable. I've ended up with a total of zero disruptive players, using this social (vs. rule-based) screening method.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The guy lost out on a great campaign.
If you do say so yourself?
Presumably most ban-happy DMs are not this charmingly modest when actually talking with the players...
Y'know, I've said everything I consider relevant to this conversation over several other threads in the past 6 months, but I've got to point out that an old man such as the one speaking in the post above will most likely have come to realize that limiting player's choice of character race does absolutely bupkis to solve his problems with disruptive players at his table.Actually, I've found that people who are disruptive before games ever begin are very likely to be the people whom are disruptive after they begin as well... better to weed them out ahead of time for the good of the group.Yeah, but if you're going to accomplish that by limiting PC's choice of anything that could possibly be used disruptively, rather than by choosing to play with people you trust not to be disruptive, then all your efforts are going to be for naught, because the guy you won't let choose catfolk or gunslinger or chaotic neutral will just use his neutral good human bard to ruin the game for everyone else.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't be selective about who you play with, I'm saying that using player options rather that player behavior as your criteria is misguided.
I'm not disagreeing with you - I'm saying that player behavior over their options is a pretty good indicator. If he had behaved that way over snacks or the meeting time or location or having a woman in the group it would have served as a fair indicator as well.
Apparently, Kirth, said the other players and the guy himself when he tried to get back in?
Hopefully so, but all I know for sure is that the DM himself said so, right here; I'm assuming most others do not.