Whatever happened to the classic races?

[BigDTBone]

RDM42 wrote:

And its your character elated ego getting in the way of a collaborative game, as you just can't compromise on that cat folk.

My choice of Catfolk is in no way more impactfull on the game world than the adventuring group would be. Therefore my choice is in no way limiting collaborative play.

[RDM42]

BigDTBone wrote:

RDM42 wrote:

BigDTBone wrote:

RDM42 wrote:

BigDTBone wrote:

RDM42 wrote:

BigDTBone wrote:

@RDM - I put the pants on everyday that I want to wear too, does that make me a control freak?

No, I would be a control freak if I told you what pair of pants to wear to my house.

Same story, I'm not a control freak for wanting to and insisting on playing the character of my choosing. The guy that tells me what I can play us a control freak.

So could you not say that the gm isn't a control freak just because he wants to gm the world of his choosing, which doesn't contain cat folk?

I would say there is a way to make it work.

Yes. Pick something else which actually exists on the world and move on. If anthropomorphic animal people aren't part of a specific world there should be no requirement to shoehorn them in.

And I would say that your game world related ego is getting in the way of a collaborative game. As the GM we get to control 99.999999% of the game world, why do you need to control player choices too?

And you still have 99 percent of choices available to you. Why can't you pick something else?

Pretending that you don't have agency or choice just because not every single option is on the table is disingenuous at best.

Not when the choice I choose is forbidden.

Its your choice to only be happy with something which was listed as not an option from the very beginning, so it is totally, entirely, and only in all ways YOUR problem.

[Marthkus]

BigDTBone wrote:

RDM42 wrote:

And its your character elated ego getting in the way of a collaborative game, as you just can't compromise on that cat folk.

My choice of Catfolk is in no way more impact full on the game world than the adventuring group would be. Therefore my choice is in no way limiting collaborative play.

You're telling the GM that catfolk MUST exist in his/her setting.

You didn't make the world. You don't get to dictate what is in it. Now if the GM's setting is all-encompassing like Golarion FINE, but not every story HAS to be in such a setting.

[Ashtathlon]

If the setting was a Game of thrones one, or a middle earth, or Conan's hyboria, or some other well known and established setting where said race and class do not fit without some serious hand-wavium (if even then)..would it still be important that your own pet character concept be forced into that setting, even when other players have accepted its guidelines and made theirs in accordance.

I see the GMs world as no less deserving of the respect that established setting concepts do, if he/she is flexible and can adapt it, great if not run with the limitations,if you still want to play.

After I had a established party playing every week, those players expected me to "safeguard" them from random players that may join and some crazy character ideas that went against the already set parameters of the campaign, hell they were usually more vocal about reinforcing the guidelines then I was...

But anyway, different strokes for different tables.

[BigDTBone]

RDM42 wrote:

BigDTBone wrote:

RDM42 wrote:

BigDTBone wrote:

RDM42 wrote:

BigDTBone wrote:

RDM42 wrote:

BigDTBone wrote:

@RDM - I put the pants on everyday that I want to wear too, does that make me a control freak?

No, I would be a control freak if I told you what pair of pants to wear to my house.

Same story, I'm not a control freak for wanting to and insisting on playing the character of my choosing. The guy that tells me what I can play us a control freak.

So could you not say that the gm isn't a control freak just because he wants to gm the world of his choosing, which doesn't contain cat folk?

I would say there is a way to make it work.

Yes. Pick something else which actually exists on the world and move on. If anthropomorphic animal people aren't part of a specific world there should be no requirement to shoehorn them in.

And I would say that your game world related ego is getting in the way of a collaborative game. As the GM we get to control 99.999999% of the game world, why do you need to control player choices too?

And you still have 99 percent of choices available to you. Why can't you pick something else?

Pretending that you don't have agency or choice just because not every single option is on the table is disingenuous at best.

Not when the choice I choose is forbidden.

Its your choice to only be happy with something which was listed as not an option from the very beginning, so it is totally, entirely, and only in all ways YOUR problem.

It's no problem, I will play in a game with a GM without ego problems.

[RDM42]

Yup. Afraid the only settings that are allowed to exist are the ones containing cat folk. Me cause otherwise he might have to stretch his wings and undergo the horror of trying something else.

[RDM42]

BigDTBone wrote:

RDM42 wrote:

BigDTBone wrote:

RDM42 wrote:

BigDTBone wrote:

RDM42 wrote:

BigDTBone wrote:

RDM42 wrote:

BigDTBone wrote:

@RDM - I put the pants on everyday that I want to wear too, does that make me a control freak?

No, I would be a control freak if I told you what pair of pants to wear to my house.

Same story, I'm not a control freak for wanting to and insisting on playing the character of my choosing. The guy that tells me what I can play us a control freak.

So could you not say that the gm isn't a control freak just because he wants to gm the world of his choosing, which doesn't contain cat folk?

I would say there is a way to make it work.

Yes. Pick something else which actually exists on the world and move on. If anthropomorphic animal people aren't part of a specific world there should be no requirement to shoehorn them in.

And I would say that your game world related ego is getting in the way of a collaborative game. As the GM we get to control 99.999999% of the game world, why do you need to control player choices too?

And you still have 99 percent of choices available to you. Why can't you pick something else?

Pretending that you don't have agency or choice just because not every single option is on the table is disingenuous at best.

Not when the choice I choose is forbidden.

Its your choice to only be happy with something which was listed as not an option from the very beginning, so it is totally, entirely, and only in all ways YOUR problem.

It's no problem, I will play in a game with a GM without ego problems.

Pot, meet kettle. Guess what the color is?

So mr "I have to get what I want, always" is commenting on OTHER people's ego problems?

[BigDTBone]

I very rarely get to play in games, I usually DM. I also usually play humans. If on one of the rare occasions that get to play I want to play a Catfolk, then I will look for a place to play one.

My free time is too valuable to spend 4 hours listening to an egocentric basement dweller read his novel to me.

[RDM42]

BigDTBone wrote:

I very rarely get to play in games, I usually DM. I also usually play humans. If on one of the rare occasions that get to play I want to play a Catfolk, then I will look for a place to play one.

My free time is too valuable to spend 4 hours listening to an egocentric basement dweller read his novel to me.

Fine, if you want to find a game that allows cat folk, that's cool.

But implying that games that don't cater to your obsession are egocentric basement dwellers?

Riiiiight.

Enjoy living in your universe. What color is the sky there?

[thejeff]

In fact, you're doing more than insist catfolk exist in the setting. You're insisting that whatever race you choose must exist in the setting. Given the possibility of character death, retirement or new players, means that every setting and every campaign must include all possible races. At least any that have been published and possibly any that could be statted up.

Which, for those of us that actually like to integrate player races into the world in some meaningful way, means that I have to figure where they're all from, where they've spread to, what their history is, how they interact with other races, how they're treated by all the various cultures. And I have to do this for each race, which kind of rises exponentially as they all interact with each other.

Until I give up in disgust and stop running.

Every once in awhile the "strange creature from a far away culture that's never interacted with the main campaign area" can work, but I get bored with it real fast.

Mind you, I try not to be a jerk. If I know ahead of time you like a particular race, I'll probably work it in to the initial world design. If, OTOH, you just like to play weird stuff, then I'll try to work in a couple of weirder ones for you, but not all possibilities.

[RDM42]

thejeff wrote:

In fact, you're doing more than insist catfolk exist in the setting. You're insisting that whatever race you choose must exist in the setting. Given the possibility of character death, retirement or new players, means that every setting and every campaign must include all possible races. At least any that have been published and possibly any that could be statted up.

Which, for those of us that actually like to integrate player races into the world in some meaningful way, means that I have to figure where they're all from, where they've spread to, what their history is, how they interact with other races, how they're treated by all the various cultures. And I have to do this for each race, which kind of rises exponentially as they all interact with each other.

Until I give up in disgust and stop running.

Every once in awhile the "strange creature from a far away culture that's never interacted with the main campaign area" can work, but I get bored with it real fast.

Mind you, I try not to be a jerk. If I know ahead of time you like a particular race, I'll probably work it in to the initial world design. If, OTOH, you just like to play weird stuff, then I'll try to work in a couple of weirder ones for you, but not all possibilities.

Not good enough. If he wants it it must immediately pop into existence, and there had better be no downside to his choice.

[thejeff]

BigDTBone wrote:

I very rarely get to play in games, I usually DM. I also usually play humans. If on one of the rare occasions that get to play I want to play a Catfolk, then I will look for a place to play one.

My free time is too valuable to spend 4 hours listening to an egocentric basement dweller read his novel to me.

How about I let your role in the novel be a catfolk?

Cause I really see very little connection between the "read a novel to me" and won't let you play whatever bit of weirdness you've come up with today.

I can railroad a game with weird characters just as easily as one with core only. I can want to establish a theme for a setting and then give players free rein when actually playing their characters.

And the "playing" part is so much more important to me than the character design part, that I really find it hard to believe people freak out so much about it. I'm usually trying to dig more info out of the GM about what'll be a good fit for the campaign he's planning.

[Auxmaulous]

thejeff wrote:

In fact, you're doing more than insist catfolk exist in the setting. You're insisting that whatever race you choose must exist in the setting. Given the possibility of character death, retirement or new players, means that every setting and every campaign must include all possible races. At least any that have been published and possibly any that could be statted up.

Which, for those of us that actually like to integrate player races into the world in some meaningful way, means that I have to figure where they're all from, where they've spread to, what their history is, how they interact with other races, how they're treated by all the various cultures. And I have to do this for each race, which kind of rises exponentially as they all interact with each other.

Until I give up in disgust and stop running.

Every once in awhile the "strange creature from a far away culture that's never interacted with the main campaign area" can work, but I get bored with it real fast.

As a side note (as it impacts players or DMs), I never could wrap my head around all the monster/race book releases = canon = it's now added into your game.

If that was the case the various ecology's of the game world would be overrun by a crapton of humanoids from MM II, III, IV, V, Fiend Folio, Tome of Horrors I, II, III....all chasing after the same crumb, cramped in the "Misty Purple Hills 'O Adventure" like a downtown tenement.

But don't let me interrupt, carry on with the personal attacks on play-style preferences and the "one true way-ism" jackbooting.

[Umbriere Moonwhisper]

Catfolk? Planetouched? Kitsune? Samsaran? Tengu? Dhampir? Changeling? Half-Nymph? other exotic or disallowed race?

any of those being an issue?

it's easy to imagine an NPC wizard, alchemist, arcanist, psion, or witch whom loves experimenting with arcane reproduction when he or she is bored. hell, the same wizard, doesn't even have to be included within the campaign as a major focus, he is just a paragraph in the backstory of any exotic characters

hell, wizards are famous for this, they are like the alchemists of fantasy, perpetually creating artificial fertile life because they are looking for projects to do.

how hard is it to include an archmage and his or her circle of apprentices, whom create new lifeforms in a labratory because they are bored out of their gourd.

[RDM42]

BigDTBone wrote:

@RDM - I put the pants on everyday that I want to wear too, does that make me a control freak?

No, I would be a control freak if I told you what pair of pants to wear to my house.

Same story, I'm not a control freak for wanting to and insisting on playing the character of my choosing. The guy that tells me what I can play us a control freak.

And actually, if I use the analogy. - if I invite you to a party at my house, I can very well set a dress code for the party. You can have a formal dinnerware party. Shorts and shirt would be inappropriate. You can have a back yard barbecue to which its not appropriate to show up in a three piece suit.

[Matt Thomason]

Well, this discussion sure went downhill.

[BigDTBone]

thejeff wrote:

BigDTBone wrote:

I very rarely get to play in games, I usually DM. I also usually play humans. If on one of the rare occasions that get to play I want to play a Catfolk, then I will look for a place to play one.

My free time is too valuable to spend 4 hours listening to an egocentric basement dweller read his novel to me.

How about I let your role in the novel be a catfolk?

Cause I really see very little connection between the "read a novel to me" and won't let you play whatever bit of weirdness you've come up with today.

I can railroad a game with weird characters just as easily as one with core only. I can want to establish a theme for a setting and then give players free rein when actually playing their characters.

And the "playing" part is so much more important to me than the character design part, that I really find it hard to believe people freak out so much about it. I'm usually trying to dig more info out of the GM about what'll be a good fit for the campaign he's planning.

That's pretty much exactly what I was getting at. The choices made by one player character (or even *gasp* 6 player characters) are quite irrelevant compared to their actions of the course of a campaign. If a GM is feeling the need to restrict choices at character creation to preserve the purity of his world, then I can only imagine what he is going to do to the party during the game to keep his world intact.

[Ashtathlon]

Matt Thomason wrote:

Well, this discussion sure went downhill.

From what I have been reading the discussion has been more a meandering swampy fen..then any kind of hill.

[RDM42]

Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

Catfolk? Planetouched? Kitsune? Samsaran? Tengu? Dhampir? Changeling? Half-Nymph? other exotic or disallowed race?

any of those being an issue?

it's easy to imagine an NPC wizard, alchemist, arcanist, psion, or witch whom loves experimenting with arcane reproduction when he or she is bored. hell, the same wizard, doesn't even have to be included within the campaign as a major focus, he is just a paragraph in the backstory of any exotic characters

hell, wizards are famous for this, they are like the alchemists of fantasy, perpetually creating artificial fertile life because they are looking for projects to do.

how hard is it to include an archmage and his or her circle of apprentices, whom create new lifeforms in a labratory because they are bored out of their gourd.

And there are some rare occasions where that might work. But ... Not everywhere. And sometimes no actually DOES mean no. Someone isn't obligated to automatically include anything you want, especially if the very campaign blurb way back when the game was selected specifically mentions cat folk as not being there. In that case it's the player that's being an ego freak for insisting you HAVE to make room for them. If the player ASKS, or more likely, tries to come up with a way in which they can exist in harmony with the campaign world then it might happen, but if the attitude your showing of "I'm going to play a cat folk, deal with it!" Is evident, it's about 100% the answer will be no.

(Note, umbrierre, that last bit is NOT directed at you, and I apologize if it seemed to be)

[Matt Thomason]

Ashtathlon wrote:

Matt Thomason wrote:

Well, this discussion sure went downhill.

From what I have been reading the discussion has been more a meandering swampy fen..then any kind of hill.

I see what you mean. I'm not sure if that's a detached limb over there, or just someone that's sinking into the mire.

[Umbriere Moonwhisper]

Ashtathlon wrote:

Matt Thomason wrote:

Well, this discussion sure went downhill.

From what I have been reading the discussion has been more a meandering swampy fen..then any kind of hill.

if by swampy fen.. you meant sewers, sure.

[RDM42]

BigDTBone wrote:

thejeff wrote:

BigDTBone wrote:

I very rarely get to play in games, I usually DM. I also usually play humans. If on one of the rare occasions that get to play I want to play a Catfolk, then I will look for a place to play one.

My free time is too valuable to spend 4 hours listening to an egocentric basement dweller read his novel to me.

How about I let your role in the novel be a catfolk?

Cause I really see very little connection between the "read a novel to me" and won't let you play whatever bit of weirdness you've come up with today.

I can railroad a game with weird characters just as easily as one with core only. I can want to establish a theme for a setting and then give players free rein when actually playing their characters.

And the "playing" part is so much more important to me than the character design part, that I really find it hard to believe people freak out so much about it. I'm usually trying to dig more info out of the GM about what'll be a good fit for the campaign he's planning.

That's pretty much exactly what I was getting at. The choices made by one player character (or even *gasp* 6 player characters) are quite irrelevant compared to their actions of the course of a campaign. If a GM is feeling the need to restrict choices at character creation to preserve the purity of his world, then I can only imagine what he is going to do to the party during the game to keep his world intact.

Combining a straw man and a slippery slope into the same post! Quite talented!

[Auxmaulous]

Matt Thomason wrote:

Well, this discussion sure went downhill.

Maybe it's just par for the course on the "Misty Purple Hill 'O Adventure"?

Chock full 'O Monsters!

[RDM42]

Note, umbrierre; I didn't mean you even though your post was quoted. Sorry.

[thejeff]

Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

Catfolk? Planetouched? Kitsune? Samsaran? Tengu? Dhampir? Changeling? Half-Nymph? other exotic or disallowed race?

any of those being an issue?

it's easy to imagine an NPC wizard, alchemist, arcanist, psion, or witch whom loves experimenting with arcane reproduction when he or she is bored. hell, the same wizard, doesn't even have to be included within the campaign as a major focus, he is just a paragraph in the backstory of any exotic characters

hell, wizards are famous for this, they are like the alchemists of fantasy, perpetually creating artificial fertile life because they are looking for projects to do.

how hard is it to include an archmage and his or her circle of apprentices, whom create new lifeforms in a labratory because they are bored out of their gourd.

I guess. It bores the hell out of me though.

It's essentially the same thing as "I'm from this little village of X race on another continent that's never interacted with the outside world"

You don't actually want a race. What's the attraction? A particular visual image? A set of mechanical abilities?

In your case, from what you've said before, I think it's mostly the visual image, right?

[Ashtathlon]

the Galactic stuggle of EGO vrs ENTITLEMENT, rages eternal. :)

[Matt Thomason]

I guess I just don't grasp quite why so many people don't understand this concept:

Not everyone likes to play the same type of game you do. That includes both sides of GM vs Player. Some people want a more controlled environment. Some people want freedom.

By all means state your preferences, but I don't know why that has to mean people that prefer something different are somehow wrong, or need to have insulting terms thrown at them.

[MMCJawa]

The thread pretty much went down the same way every thread on this subject does. People setting up ridiculous extreme strawmen and ignoring the intent of the other person's comments, to interpret them in the most ridiculous light possible.

I doubt in reality anyone on either side of the debate is so extreme as to have a complete freak out if someone asked to play a catfolk, nor are players so extreme they would table flip if every little whim of character design wasn't allowed.

At least I would hope so.

[Matt Thomason]

MMCJawa wrote:

The thread pretty much went down the same way every thread on this subject does. People setting up ridiculous extreme strawmen and ignoring the intent of the other person's comments, to interpret them in the most ridiculous light possible.

I doubt in reality anyone on either side of the debate is so extreme as to have a complete freak out if someone asked to play a catfolk, nor are players so extreme they would table flip if every little whim of character design wasn't allowed.

At least I would hope so.

Yeah. I think it's just the usual "I caught a glimpse of something I slightly dislike" and then escalation back and forth until the nukes start being thrown. <sigh>

[knightnday]

It seems less about saying that ALL GMs have some ego problem and more that a GM you dealt with in the past may have.

In any case, part and participle of the setting that the GM and/or GM+Players have put together may well include restrictions on race, class, monsters, magical spells, feats and so on. House rules are present in a good many games out there.

That doesn't mean that the GM is some egomaniac frustrated story writer out to get you. It may mean that they have their own preferences and ideas on the game that don't always mesh with yours. Not every idea fits every word. My suggestion to all my players (and myself when I get to play) is to have more than one idea on hand.

A side note: I often find these discussions amusing because in many cases the people that protest the hardest about how the GM is a meaniehead and won't let them play X are the ones that are the least likely to buckle down and GM themselves so they can see some of the headaches that can go around.

[Umbriere Moonwhisper]

RDM42 wrote:

Note, umbrierre; I didn't mean you even though your post was quoted. Sorry.

sorry

but because wizards love to experiment and love to create new things because they can, and because they are bored, whose to say an archmage didn't create a few unique specimens in a labratory and whose to say those specimens weren't released when they were no longer needed.

the catfolk could have been one of an archmages many projects and would likely be one of the only catfolk in the setting, he or she, could have a litter of kittens, but that litter is likely the only source of catfolk unless they mature enough to breed

it wouldn't accommodate repeated catfolk, but it could accomodate a budding species and that particular catfolk PC would be the Adam or Eve of his or her species.

maybe catfolk would be a normal but regionally restricted playable race in a matter of generations within that setting.

[Ashtathlon]

well..nerdnukes, nuclear weapons lose a lot when translated to typed form. :)

[RDM42]

MMCJawa wrote:

The thread pretty much went down the same way every thread on this subject does. People setting up ridiculous extreme strawmen and ignoring the intent of the other person's comments, to interpret them in the most ridiculous light possible.

I doubt in reality anyone on either side of the debate is so extreme as to have a complete freak out if someone asked to play a catfolk, nor are players so extreme they would table flip if every little whim of character design wasn't allowed.

At least I would hope so.

No freak out. If someone asked and they didn't exist, the answer would be no, unless you come to me with a way that really makes them fit in and isn't just some sort of kludjy 'shove them in'. The onus of this extra work is YOURS - especially since the restrictions were right there in the blurb when we were choosing what to play. If you do make it so it actually fits into the setting, then congratulations, it might make it in. But ...

On the other hand, if they came in with the attitude evidenced here, the answer would simply be no with no further elaboration.

[RDM42]

Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

RDM42 wrote:

Note, umbrierre; I didn't mean you even though your post was quoted. Sorry.

sorry

but because wizards love to experiment and love to create new things because they can, and because they are bored, whose to say an archmage didn't create a few unique specimens in a labratory and whose to say those specimens weren't released when they were no longer needed.

the catfolk could have been one of an archmages many projects and would likely be one of the only catfolk in the setting, he or she, could have a litter of kittens, but that litter is likely the only source of catfolk unless they mature enough to breed

it wouldn't accommodate repeated catfolk, but it could accomodate a budding species and that particular catfolk PC would be the Adam or Eve of his or her species.

maybe catfolk would be a normal but regionally restricted playable race in a matter of generations within that setting.

For specific reasons, that one actually wouldn't work within the setting I've mentioned before here. It more has to do with the role of wizards in society and several other factors ... But your general approach I would probably at least try to work with.

[Ashtathlon]

Could the character just be a elf..that dressed up like a cat-person, maybe with a mental disorder convincing themselves they were a cat-person..would that be workable? :)

[BigDTBone]

knightnday wrote:

It seems less about saying that ALL GMs have some ego problem and more that a GM you dealt with in the past may have.

In any case, part and participle of the setting that the GM and/or GM+Players have put together may well include restrictions on race, class, monsters, magical spells, feats and so on. House rules are present in a good many games out there.

That doesn't mean that the GM is some egomaniac frustrated story writer out to get you. It may mean that they have their own preferences and ideas on the game that don't always mesh with yours. Not every idea fits every word. My suggestion to all my players (and myself when I get to play) is to have more than one idea on hand.

A side note: I often find these discussions amusing because in many cases the people that protest the hardest about how the GM is a meaniehead and won't let them play X are the ones that are the least likely to buckle down and GM themselves so they can see some of the headaches that can go around.

To address your side note, I GM almost exclusively. I run the kind of inclusive game that I would want to play in. My players appreciate and enjoy my willingness to let them stretch their creative muscles and like that they have true influence (both as players and characters) over the world we are collaboratively creating.

Also, I can say as a GM that it is slightly more work than running an AP, but it is not that hard. I think the biggest difference is that I am not attached to the game world as my own personal baby, I see it as a world building game that we all work together on.

[LazarX]

Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

it's easy to imagine an NPC wizard, alchemist, arcanist, psion, or witch whom loves experimenting with arcane reproduction when he or she is bored. hell, the same wizard, doesn't even have to be included within the campaign as a major focus, he is just a paragraph in the backstory of any exotic characters

hell, wizards are famous for this, they are like the alchemists of fantasy, perpetually creating artificial fertile life because they are looking for projects to do.

I'm not sure which excuse I'm more tired of by now, that one, or the warpspace/portal/crashed starship angle.

[RDM42]

BigDTBone wrote:

knightnday wrote:

It seems less about saying that ALL GMs have some ego problem and more that a GM you dealt with in the past may have.

In any case, part and participle of the setting that the GM and/or GM+Players have put together may well include restrictions on race, class, monsters, magical spells, feats and so on. House rules are present in a good many games out there.

That doesn't mean that the GM is some egomaniac frustrated story writer out to get you. It may mean that they have their own preferences and ideas on the game that don't always mesh with yours. Not every idea fits every word. My suggestion to all my players (and myself when I get to play) is to have more than one idea on hand.

A side note: I often find these discussions amusing because in many cases the people that protest the hardest about how the GM is a meaniehead and won't let them play X are the ones that are the least likely to buckle down and GM themselves so they can see some of the headaches that can go around.

To address your side note, I GM almost exclusively. I run the kind of inclusive game that I would want to play in. My players appreciate and enjoy my willingness to let them stretch their creative muscles and like that they have true influence (both as players and characters) over the world we are collaboratively creating.

Also, I can say as a GM that it is slightly more work than running an AP, but it is not that hard. I think the biggest difference is that I am not attached to the game world as my own personal baby, I see it as a world building game that we all work together on.

And that isn't true for all play styles. Some gms - and players - want the sort of deep immersive game world with attention to detail that takes quite a bit more work than that. And that sort of deep and immersive game world with a history requires a certain level of internal consistency to work well.

[Matt Thomason]

BigDTBone wrote:

To address your side note, I GM almost exclusively. I run the kind of inclusive game that I would want to play in. My players appreciate and enjoy my willingness to let them stretch their creative muscles and like that they have true influence (both as players and characters) over the world we are collaboratively creating.

Also, I can say as a GM that it is slightly more work than running an AP, but it is not that hard. I think the biggest difference is that I am not attached to the game world as my own personal baby, I see it as a world building game that we all work together on.

That's a valid way to play.

So is "Here's my world, would you like one of the following roles in it?"

So is "We're playing in this campaign setting, which defines the following races"

So is "What world? We're just here to move around a map and kill stuff!"

None of those is any better than the others, just preferable to different types of player.

EDIT: And what matters for your game is that you've found the style your players appreciate, and that's a great accomplishment :)

[Umbriere Moonwhisper]

LazarX wrote:

Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

it's easy to imagine an NPC wizard, alchemist, arcanist, psion, or witch whom loves experimenting with arcane reproduction when he or she is bored. hell, the same wizard, doesn't even have to be included within the campaign as a major focus, he is just a paragraph in the backstory of any exotic characters

hell, wizards are famous for this, they are like the alchemists of fantasy, perpetually creating artificial fertile life because they are looking for projects to do.

I'm not sure which excuse I'm more tired of by now, that one, or the warpspace/portal/crashed starship angle.

both are pretty cliche, but both actually work as the universal handwave for including races that don't normally fit

to complete the trinity

the stasis capsule found within the dungeon, where the character is a species or culture from a previous era that occured multiple millenia ago, but was kept in stasis.

all 3 are cliche, but i like them all.

[knightnday]

BigDTBone wrote:

To address your side note, I GM almost exclusively. I run the kind of inclusive game that I would want to play in. My players appreciate and enjoy my willingness to let them stretch their creative muscles and like that they have true influence (both as players and characters) over the world we are collaboratively creating.

Also, I can say as a GM that it is slightly more work than running an AP, but it is not that hard. I think the biggest difference is that I am not attached to the game world as my own personal baby, I see it as a world building game that we all work together on.

You are rare in these conversations. As for the rest, I am not sure that you have any evidence that players in other games do not have any influence over the games that they are in. In fact, I am almost positive many posters have said otherwise.

Whether you are attached or not to your games or the other GM is not doesn't make one of you better or more superior to the other, any more than allowing or disallowing a race/class/etc gives one any special standing.

No one is any better or worse of a GM than the other and implying otherwise is frankly offensive. It's about choices and nothing more.

Edited to clarify language

[knightnday]

LazarX wrote:

Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

it's easy to imagine an NPC wizard, alchemist, arcanist, psion, or witch whom loves experimenting with arcane reproduction when he or she is bored. hell, the same wizard, doesn't even have to be included within the campaign as a major focus, he is just a paragraph in the backstory of any exotic characters

hell, wizards are famous for this, they are like the alchemists of fantasy, perpetually creating artificial fertile life because they are looking for projects to do.

I'm not sure which excuse I'm more tired of by now, that one, or the warpspace/portal/crashed starship angle.

And there's the rub. Sure, you CAN force any concept into any game if you really really want to, both as a player or a GM. The question is "should you?" If you have to bend reality to shoehorn in multiple characters in one or more games, what is the point of bothering to restrict anything?

Some ideas do not fit in every game, even if you can force them in.

[Matt Thomason]

10 minutes without a post to this thread... it may be time now.

GROUP HUG!

[RDM42]

Can you feel the love, man!!!!???

[Hitdice]

I'd allow an awakened pony wizard into my campaign world before I'd hug you, Thomason!

[Marthkus]

Hitdice wrote:

I'd allow an awakened pony wizard into my campaign world before I'd hug you, Thomason!

Awakened pony wizard is CRB core.

[knightnday]

Hitdice wrote:

I'd allow an awakened pony wizard into my campaign world before I'd hug you, Thomason!

Goodness, that is way too harsh!

[Chengar Qordath]

Hitdice wrote:

I'd allow an awakened pony wizard into my campaign world before I'd hug you, Thomason!

I would totally allow an awakened pony wizard in a campaign. Does that mean I have to hug him now?

[Umbriere Moonwhisper]

i'd totally allow an awakened horse wizard. hell, it could even have a tattoo or a bright colored palette.

[Petty Alchemy]

This thread seems to have transformed into several two-way conversations held in the same public space. Weird.