|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Petty Alchemy wrote: This thread seems to have transformed into several two-way conversations held in the same public space. Weird. more like an interconnected spider web of 2 way conversations in the same space, with some people maintaining different 2 way conversations with different people on the web.
LazarX wrote: Ilja wrote: 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.
What's this "only thing players get to decide" nonsense? Last I heard even in the most restrictive campaigns, players get to decide.
1. Ability scores
2. Class choices
3. Skill choices
4. Feat choices
5. Gear choices.
And I even hear that some extremely liberal and permissive GMs allow you to NAME your characters. In regards to race of course, which is what I thought this discussion was about? Hence why I didn't mention how the GM sets those things for NPC's too.
In regards to _race_ a player gets to choose race for one character. The GM gets to choose it for everyone else in the world. I'm not saying that this is an absolute or that there aren't exceptions or that you're a horrible GM for banning a race, I'm saying the players want to play a certain race for their one character should _in general_ have more weight than the GM who just "doesn't like that race".
I was responding to the attitude that "how is the GM first among equals if they don't have equal right to decide a PC's race?"; I wasn't trying to claim that players get no other choices for their race.
Just like non-gm players don't get to set the race of NPCs, in general (and again, exceptions exist). When it comes to NPCs, the GM's word has more weight; when it comes to player characters, the player's word has more weight.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Ilja wrote:
Just like non-gm players don't get to set the race of NPCs, in general (and again, exceptions exist). When it comes to NPCs, the GM's word has more weight; when it comes to player characters, the player's word has more weight.
I like the "more weight" thing. It doesn't imply a single black and white answer to the question, and respects the fact there's a big grey area in the middle that is going to be dependent on other factors (what kind of people the players are, what kind of campaign it is, how far in advance restrictions were discussed, etc, etc)
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
LazarX wrote: Ilja wrote: 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.
What's this "only thing players get to decide" nonsense? Last I heard even in the most restrictive campaigns, players get to decide.
1. Ability scores
2. Class choices
3. Skill choices
4. Feat choices
5. Gear choices.
And I even hear that some extremely liberal and permissive GMs allow you to NAME your characters. Wait, wait, wait. I get to just decide my ability scores in your game?! I'm choosin' NI+2, scores, baby! Suck on those guns, Pun-pun!
SIGN ME UP!
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
I guess to answer the original question is:
Appaerently nothing happened to the classic races.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Matt Thomason wrote: Well, this discussion sure went downhill. That implies it was ever uphill.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Matt Thomason wrote: 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. I know! It reminds me of my home!
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote: Petty Alchemy wrote: This thread seems to have transformed into several two-way conversations held in the same public space. Weird. more like an interconnected spider web of 2 way conversations in the same space, with some people maintaining different 2 way conversations with different people on the web. I know! It reminds me of my home!
Ashtathlon wrote: well..nerdnukes, nuclear weapons lose a lot when translated to typed form. :) I know! It reminds me of my ho- wait, what?! Er, uh, no they don't, folks! Nerdnukes are just as powerful in typed form! JUST as powerful! In fact, they're even more powerful! Yeah! Super-duper powerful! But the other guys have 'em too, right? Yeah! So, uh, you need to keep using them! Yes! This is just me being "bi-nee-voh-lant" (I think that's the word those suckers, uh, "wise mortals" use, right?) and giving you fair warning.
It's totally not because I feast on your hatred or anything, and love it when people destroy each other for no reason. Nope. Not in the slightest.
Whew! Looks like they bought it! Hah! Demons have the best bluff checks! And mom always thought I'd never amount to anything 'cause my wisdom and charisma was rolled a "natural 3", whatever that means. But my racial bonuses more than covered for it! Hah! Suckers! ... wait, oh, bleepin' bleep-bleep! I forgot to use my inside voice, quick, how do I turn this thing of-
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Matt Thomason wrote: 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.
This is something I try and bring up in all of these discussions, if I ever get involved. It doesn't always work though. But alas, that's often the 'net for you.
And heck, I know I've been there! It's way too easy to get upset about things that don't matter.
Matt Thomason wrote: Ilja wrote:
Just like non-gm players don't get to set the race of NPCs, in general (and again, exceptions exist). When it comes to NPCs, the GM's word has more weight; when it comes to player characters, the player's word has more weight.
I like the "more weight" thing. It doesn't imply a single black and white answer to the question, and respects the fact there's a big grey area in the middle that is going to be dependent on other factors (what kind of people the players are, what kind of campaign it is, how far in advance restrictions were discussed, etc, etc) This is a great point. Agreed. :D
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote: I guess to answer the original question is:
Appaerently nothing happened to the classic races.
I think it's more that they are there, but they are hidden behind a billion and one special snowflakes.
Ilja wrote: LazarX wrote: Ilja wrote: 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.
What's this "only thing players get to decide" nonsense? Last I heard even in the most restrictive campaigns, players get to decide.
1. Ability scores
2. Class choices
3. Skill choices
4. Feat choices
5. Gear choices.
And I even hear that some extremely liberal and permissive GMs allow you to NAME your characters. In regards to race of course, which is what I thought this discussion was about? Hence why I didn't mention how the GM sets those things for NPC's too.
In regards to _race_ a player gets to choose race for one character. The GM gets to choose it for everyone else in the world. I'm not saying that this is an absolute or that there aren't exceptions or that you're a horrible GM for banning a race, I'm saying the players want to play a certain race for their one character should _in general_ have more weight than the GM who just "doesn't like that race".
I was responding to the attitude that "how is the GM first among equals if they don't have equal right to decide a PC's race?"; I wasn't trying to claim that players get no other choices for their race.
Just like non-gm players don't get to set the race of NPCs, in general (and again, exceptions exist). When it comes to NPCs, the GM's word has more weight; when it comes to player characters, the player's word has more weight. That implies, of course, that the NPCS - who are just props for the players to play against and ultimately sacrifice lie - are the equivalent to the players. Moreover ... If I'm saying cat folk don't exist in the world I'm not letting myself have them, or you have them. My character is the milieu, not the npcs populating it - most of which, even as repeating characters, will only get cameo screen time individually.
Then you add that excluding some options is not equivalent to "setting the pcs race" ...
That false equivalency really does bug me. I have to repeat it again, in fact; having some options not on the table is in no way similar to making a players choices for them. If you tell someone "we can have anything we want tonight for dinner, but not sushi" - you aren't "choosing what they are eating for them.
GRRRR FRIKING POST STEAL YOU"VE AKSED FOR THE SAME PAGE TOO MANY TIMES RUBBISH.
Basic premise
Bought online comic, read online comic, guy opens "prop" box that came with the DND module he was playing and got turned into his character (female, elf, ranger and as she found out the next morning when she couldn't stomach a cheeseburger also a vegetarian as all elves in that setting were vegetarian). So as Umbrierie said it only takes 1 wizard and you can start adding races that don't normally exist in a setting into it (In fact in a new world there's one amoral wizard who literally created at least one entire race as an experiment before turning his attention to other things).
Not something a GM necessarily will do but it is possible and if she could stomach the 2 year pregnancy you could also get half elves.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
RDM42 wrote: That false equivalency really does bug me. I have to repeat it again, in fact; having some options not on the table is in no way similar to making a players choices for them. If you tell someone "we can have anything we want tonight for dinner, but not sushi" - you aren't "choosing what they are eating for them. I would raise the counterpoint that giving the person lots of options they don't want isn't very generous. "You can have anything you want, except the stuff you actually want."
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Kthulhu wrote: DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote: I guess to answer the original question is:
Appaerently nothing happened to the classic races.
I think it's more that they are there, but they are hidden behind a billion and one special snowflakes. I keep noticing this trend on these forums, where I keep encountering opinions - like the above - that are supposed to be prevalent through the entire game/hobby but which have never, ever, ever happened in my games. 9 years of DMing (I got off to a late start), 0% banrate on official races during that time (homebrew I review for balance purposes; some homebrew races have been banned for being unsalvageable), aaaand my players barely even use 'em. Across six different states, both sides of the Mississippi, both sides of the Mason-Dixon and the great and savage wilderness that is the Internet, I've never had to deal with Special Snowflake Syndrome.
Which makes it really hard for me to believe it's an actual problem.
Chengar Qordath wrote: RDM42 wrote: That false equivalency really does bug me. I have to repeat it again, in fact; having some options not on the table is in no way similar to making a players choices for them. If you tell someone "we can have anything we want tonight for dinner, but not sushi" - you aren't "choosing what they are eating for them. I would raise the counterpoint that giving the person lots of options they don't want isn't very generous. "You can have anything you want, except the stuff you actually want." And I'll counter that if your range of options you might like is so limited that you can ONLY accept those one or two things that the gm doesn't like and nothing else ...
The art of compromise is finding the thing that you both can accept, not forcing the other person that doesn't want something in there to give in. If the gm loathes sushi and you love it, but you both are ok with Thai food, well then there seems to be an obvious solution apart from "we MUST have sushi, isn't there?
I just find it sort of hard to believe that any specific world will coincidentally ban everything you might like playing and have nothing left in it you would enjoy.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
i'm calling shenanigans on this thread, i don't believe any of you play RPGs.
how does anyone on these boards have enough time to game? 21 pages of "discussion" and not a single thing said! man i love the internets!
seriously tho you people need help if you're still arguing over this race sucks or that race sucks blah blah blah
RDM42 wrote: Chengar Qordath wrote: RDM42 wrote: That false equivalency really does bug me. I have to repeat it again, in fact; having some options not on the table is in no way similar to making a players choices for them. If you tell someone "we can have anything we want tonight for dinner, but not sushi" - you aren't "choosing what they are eating for them. I would raise the counterpoint that giving the person lots of options they don't want isn't very generous. "You can have anything you want, except the stuff you actually want." And I'll counter that if your range of options you might like is so limited that you can ONLY accept those one or two things that the gm doesn't like and nothing else ...
The art of compromise is finding the thing that you both can accept, not forcing the other person that doesn't want something in there to give in. If the gm loathes sushi and you love it, but you both are ok with Thai food, well then there seems to be an obvious solution apart from "we MUST have sushi, isn't there?
I just find it sort of hard to believe that any specific world will coincidentally ban everything you might like playing and have nothing left in it you would enjoy.
I've certainly been on this merry-go-round before, but I still don't see why, outside cases of mechanical imbalance, having to imagine someone else's character as any specific race is so horrible that it requires banning that race.
RDM, I'm really asking this, not trying to score snark points: Given your response to Chengor, would you be happy with a DM who bans more than one or two things?
Absolutely depends on the reason ... I don't accept the premise that kitchen sink worlds are the only allowable settings, and I have severe doubts that, unless they just plain don't like the theme or atmosphere of the setting that they can't find something enjoyable to play within it without achieving whatever their particular seemingly required fetish** is. Certain worlds, by nature, are not going to be appropriate for certain concepts. This inappropriateness can extend to race as well. In the case that you DO agree to play in one of those campaigns, its sorta the good thing to do to just move to option b on your list rather than trying to force accommodation of something that doesn't work, for whatever reason. If for some reason you force that race or concept on an unwilling dm, I submit that in the long run neither of you will be happy. Its a lot easier to move to character concept b which fits in, then to rearrange the world to fit in character concept a, and I also submit that by the time you have been playing a while, acquired story will render that secondary concept interesting anyway.
**2. any object, idea, etc., eliciting unquestioning reverence, respect, or devotion: to make a fetish of high grades.
Hitdice wrote: RDM42 wrote: Chengar Qordath wrote: RDM42 wrote: That false equivalency really does bug me. I have to repeat it again, in fact; having some options not on the table is in no way similar to making a players choices for them. If you tell someone "we can have anything we want tonight for dinner, but not sushi" - you aren't "choosing what they are eating for them. I would raise the counterpoint that giving the person lots of options they don't want isn't very generous. "You can have anything you want, except the stuff you actually want." And I'll counter that if your range of options you might like is so limited that you can ONLY accept those one or two things that the gm doesn't like and nothing else ...
The art of compromise is finding the thing that you both can accept, not forcing the other person that doesn't want something in there to give in. If the gm loathes sushi and you love it, but you both are ok with Thai food, well then there seems to be an obvious solution apart from "we MUST have sushi, isn't there?
I just find it sort of hard to believe that any specific world will coincidentally ban everything you might like playing and have nothing left in it you would enjoy.
I've certainly been on this merry-go-round before, but I still don't see why, outside cases of mechanical imbalance, having to imagine someone else's character as any specific race is so horrible that it requires banning that race.
RDM, I'm really asking this, not trying to score snark points: Given your response to Chengor, would you be happy with a DM who bans more than one or two things? And it's also ... That race is Sir Not Appearing in this Film. For whatever reason it was decided, long before you came into the picture, that it wasn't a good fit for the setting or the gms style or preferences - so why is it that the gm shouldn't question or go against the players preferences, but heaven forbid if the player isn't accommodated in everything they might desire?
In many cases the "sir not appearing in this film" of one campaign may have a lead billing in another; it isn't inherent antipathy towards a race or class - it's just that not every ingrediant is appropriate for every recipe.
Cinnamon might go very well with chocolate chip cookies. Garlic, not so much.
Yeah, I can't argue with the idea that unique campaigns are, by definition, unique. On the other hand, when you use the term kitchen sink world, that suggests permitting absolutely every option under the sun, when the most you ever need to account for is the amount your players require to build their characters. I mean, banning a class/race/feat that no one wants to play isn't a ban, it's just irrelevant information.
Of course, the ban/allow threshold does rise or fall depending on whether you're playing with a regular group or bringing new players for each play session, imo.
Edit: Nothing personal, but I always have to laugh when food metaphors make their way into these conversations; these message boards are the one place where it's safe to assume that everyone understands RPGs well enough to discuss them as RPGs, and we can't ever do it without saying, "But that's like eating a hotdog with grape jelly on it instead of mustard!"
captain yesterday wrote: i'm calling shenanigans on this thread, i don't believe any of you play RPGs.
how does anyone on these boards have enough time to game? 21 pages of "discussion" and not a single thing said! man i love the internets!
seriously tho you people need help if you're still arguing over this race sucks or that race sucks blah blah blah
Sadly I'm studying for major exams (4 years worth of content) so I can swing by and post but I can't playr ight now.
Hitdice wrote: Yeah, I can't argue with the idea that unique campaigns are, by definition, unique. On the other hand, when you use the term kitchen sink world, that suggests permitting absolutely every option under the sun, when the most you ever need to account for is the amount your players require to build their characters. I mean, banning a class/race/feat that no one wants to play isn't a ban, it's just irrelevant information.
Of course, the ban/allow threshold does rise or fall depending on whether you're playing with a regular group or bringing new players for each play session, imo.
And especially in my case, they are "living worlds" - things that happen there stay there. And over time, my worlds and settings tend to stay a long time. One is more that twenty years, ongoing, two more in the fifteen range. When things that happen are permanently imbedded, adding new ingredients - say cat folk where they didn't exist - has a permanent effect, unless you resort to cheap fiat like a genocide to remove them ... And then you have added the cheap genocide into the world lore. So, yes, initial choices are tailored, somewhat. On the other hand ... Once you do something big as a pc, it sticks. If you took out the high priest oh Dhuvonik and installed his heretic younger brother in the office, your action is going to have long lasting effects that reverberate through subsequent campaigns. So, yes, players have massive agency in the world. They can make changes and those changes stick. I find the argument that just because the players aren't exercising editorial control over the initial settings of the campaign that that means they have no agency and are just spectators in the gms story MASSIVELY unconvincing.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Once again, real question, not trying to score snark points, but do you feel the same level of concern when adding new monsters? Like, ones that can't have existed in your campaigns because they didn't exist on paper before Bestiary 4 was published, for instance.
Edit: Y'know, Arssanguinus, given that you're one of the people I have already discussed this subject to death with, it might behoove you not to use an alias to have the same conversation yet again. You see a page or two back where I posted that I'd spoken about the subject to my satisfaction over the last six months. I was talking about an exchange I had with you. I thought you were a different person, and was happy to get another point of view on the subject;Thatcher's bloody Britain!
Hitdice wrote: Once again, real question, not trying to score snark points, but do you feel the same level of concern when adding new monsters? Like, ones that can't have existed in your campaigns because they didn't exist on paper before Bestiary 4 was published, for instance. Oh, most definitely.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Hitdice wrote: Yeah, I can't argue with the idea that unique campaigns are, by definition, unique. On the other hand, when you use the term kitchen sink world, that suggests permitting absolutely every option under the sun, when the most you ever need to account for is the amount your players require to build their characters. I mean, banning a class/race/feat that no one wants to play isn't a ban, it's just irrelevant information.
Of course, the ban/allow threshold does rise or fall depending on whether you're playing with a regular group or bringing new players for each play session, imo.
Not completely true. The world must at least potentially accommodate every option in kind of a Schrodinger's state. At least until characters are built, by which time I really want to have the basic worldbuilding and a good idea of campaign direction down.
And then if new players might be added or if characters die or retire, new characters will come in who must also be free to pick from the whole gamut.
Personally I'd rather deal with a kitchen sink world than one in which entire races only appear if someone chooses to play one.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Sure Jeff, but the effort required for Schrodinger's state world building amounts to "that section of the map is blank and reads Here be dragons."
I started a campaign recently thinking everyone would play off the wall races. I was giving away a free racial talent at odd levels and a free racial feat at even levels... kind of like a bloodline. I told players it was to acquire features normally ignored in favor of mechanically superior choices. Everybody picked human. ... mumble Filty power gamers mumble...
If I ever played a drow in pathfinder, I'd probably just use elf + noctural. In 3.5, I would use star elf + dark template (only with the option to buy off). But if I'm in the mood to be a douche, I'd just play a human with glibness.
Hitdice wrote: Once again, real question, not trying to score snark points, but do you feel the same level of concern when adding new monsters? Like, ones that can't have existed in your campaigns because they didn't exist on paper before Bestiary 4 was published, for instance. Less so. Many monsters are easy to shoehorn in as weird things that no one's ever seen before. Or they are outsiders or something like that.
Plus, no one is demanding that I put particular monsters into the game if I don't feel they belong.
Something like a new humanoid monster race, I probably wouldn't use in an existing world, at least not in the "You all now retroactively know about this new monster race that your country has been at war with off and on for hundreds of years" sense.
thejeff wrote: Hitdice wrote: Yeah, I can't argue with the idea that unique campaigns are, by definition, unique. On the other hand, when you use the term kitchen sink world, that suggests permitting absolutely every option under the sun, when the most you ever need to account for is the amount your players require to build their characters. I mean, banning a class/race/feat that no one wants to play isn't a ban, it's just irrelevant information.
Of course, the ban/allow threshold does rise or fall depending on whether you're playing with a regular group or bringing new players for each play session, imo.
Not completely true. The world must at least potentially accommodate every option in kind of a Schrodinger's state. At least until characters are built, by which time I really want to have the basic worldbuilding and a good idea of campaign direction down.
And then if new players might be added or if characters die or retire, new characters will come in who must also be free to pick from the whole gamut.
Personally I'd rather deal with a kitchen sink world than one in which entire races only appear if someone chooses to play one. Especially if its combined with a long term world and a policy of 'if it happened, it happened'. In those cases, over time, every single world would inevitably start to trend to kitchen sink.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
captain yesterday wrote: i'm calling shenanigans on this thread, i don't believe any of you play RPGs.
how does anyone on these boards have enough time to game? 21 pages of "discussion" and not a single thing said! man i love the internets
I know! After 20 pages of lurking I still haven't found out whatever happened to the classic races.
Was it Professor Plum in the kitchen with the wrench?
A lot of classic races characters of mine want to know!
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Hitdice wrote: Sure Jeff, but the effort required for Schrodinger's state world building amounts to "that section of the map is blank and reads Here be dragons." As I've said before, not for me.
For PC races, I want them tied into the world. "These people over here that no one's ever heard of and that have had no effect on anything" doesn't interest me. As a GM or as a player. Once in a long while I can live with it, though I'd probably then want the game to go explore that race, where they come from and what's kept them so isolated.
Might as well just go with "Wizard's experiment" or "Stepped through a portal".
thejeff wrote: Hitdice wrote: Once again, real question, not trying to score snark points, but do you feel the same level of concern when adding new monsters? Like, ones that can't have existed in your campaigns because they didn't exist on paper before Bestiary 4 was published, for instance. Less so. Many monsters are easy to shoehorn in as weird things that no one's ever seen before. Or they are outsiders or something like that.
Plus, no one is demanding that I put particular monsters into the game if I don't feel they belong.
Something like a new humanoid monster race, I probably wouldn't use in an existing world, at least not in the "You all now retroactively know about this new monster race that your country has been at war with off and on for hundreds of years" sense. Or alternatively . . .
A wizard made this race then started slaughtering them all. A small group manged to escape and scattered hoping he wouldn't find them but agreed to meet up a year/10 years later. When the PC went there no one else showed up now they seek power to avenge their people on the one who created and destroyed them.
For the more spiritual races e.g. Tengu/Kitsune they've existed in the shadows, watching, guiding, pranking now they're starting to reach out cautiously. I mean there was a wild cat discoverd less then 20 years ago that had been living near a major civilized area and no one even supsected the species existed (in real life).
Then for the special, special snowflake I broke into a wizards house and he turned me into this as a joke, now I need to raise X amount of gold to pay him to turn me back. Also works for a nutty sorcerer did this to me as an experiment I only got away because he got bored. I'm hoping to find a mage powerful enough to reverse it (little realizing said sorcerer is keeping half an eye on them and others to see and if they breed true).
Of course these are just suggestions and as I've said if I were playing in a campaign set in a world with a massive established backstory etc I'd be more willing to play another race so as not to upset it because that is what people agreed to going in.
RDM42 wrote: thejeff wrote: Hitdice wrote: Yeah, I can't argue with the idea that unique campaigns are, by definition, unique. On the other hand, when you use the term kitchen sink world, that suggests permitting absolutely every option under the sun, when the most you ever need to account for is the amount your players require to build their characters. I mean, banning a class/race/feat that no one wants to play isn't a ban, it's just irrelevant information.
Of course, the ban/allow threshold does rise or fall depending on whether you're playing with a regular group or bringing new players for each play session, imo.
Not completely true. The world must at least potentially accommodate every option in kind of a Schrodinger's state. At least until characters are built, by which time I really want to have the basic worldbuilding and a good idea of campaign direction down.
And then if new players might be added or if characters die or retire, new characters will come in who must also be free to pick from the whole gamut.
Personally I'd rather deal with a kitchen sink world than one in which entire races only appear if someone chooses to play one. Especially if its combined with a long term world and a policy of 'if it happened, it happened'. In those cases, over time, every single world would inevitably start to trend to kitchen sink.
In a living world case, I'd more likely to try to accommodate as many possibilities as possible up front.
Worlds for individual campaigns are more likely to be designed for a more limited theme or campaign arc and can be more fragile.
And it's not just the setting of course. A race can exist in the world, but not be suitable for a particular campaign.
Generally that'll be made clear in the pitch for the campaign. Someone showing up with a character outside the limits is really showing he's not interested in the campaign he's agreed to play in. Unless he's got a really good twist for why the character works for the campaign. Far beyond "It's theoretically possible he could exist".
So if he's not interested in the game, maybe it's better for all that he doesn't play.
Or that we play something else, possibly with someone else running, if the rest of the group isn't that interested in the original campaign.
thejeff wrote: RDM42 wrote: thejeff wrote: Hitdice wrote: Yeah, I can't argue with the idea that unique campaigns are, by definition, unique. On the other hand, when you use the term kitchen sink world, that suggests permitting absolutely every option under the sun, when the most you ever need to account for is the amount your players require to build their characters. I mean, banning a class/race/feat that no one wants to play isn't a ban, it's just irrelevant information.
Of course, the ban/allow threshold does rise or fall depending on whether you're playing with a regular group or bringing new players for each play session, imo.
Not completely true. The world must at least potentially accommodate every option in kind of a Schrodinger's state. At least until characters are built, by which time I really want to have the basic worldbuilding and a good idea of campaign direction down.
And then if new players might be added or if characters die or retire, new characters will come in who must also be free to pick from the whole gamut.
Personally I'd rather deal with a kitchen sink world than one in which entire races only appear if someone chooses to play one. Especially if its combined with a long term world and a policy of 'if it happened, it happened'. In those cases, over time, every single world would inevitably start to trend to kitchen sink.
In a living world case, I'd more likely to try to accommodate as many possibilities as possible up front.
Worlds for individual campaigns are more likely to be designed for a more limited theme or campaign arc and can be more fragile.
And it's not just the setting of course. A race can exist in the world, but not be suitable for a particular campaign.
Generally that'll be made clear in the pitch for the campaign. Someone showing up with a character outside the limits is really showing he's not interested in the campaign he's agreed to play in. Unless he's got a really good twist for why the character works for the campaign.... Save sometimes you don't want a babylon five feel where an entire galaxy of different sentients exist side by side. For example, in that burning lands campaign you really have, basically, five races if you want to go meta ... But things like templates effectively triple that to fifteen, then halves add a few more, and ... Etcetera. By the time you are done, you really have something like twenty something racial choices. Many of which are distinctly different from each other - and most of which are different from the traditional version of the race. TBL dwarves are not like RPG standard dwarves, etcetera.
So there are a good number of choices. Just not all choices
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Basically, the premise of this thread, and so many more that eventually devolve into Player Entitlement vs GM Egocenticity flamefests, can be summed up in 2 sentences:
"Stop liking what I don't like! /rageface"
and
"Stop disliking things that I like! /rageface"
There is nothing wrong with a GM that sets restrictions on what is allowed. Players can accept these restrictions or they can reject them and move along. Not every setting has to be as open as Golarion, and that doesn't make that setting a pile of poo. If you don't like the restrictions a DM has placed, you have 3 options: Suck it up and try to "color within the preset lines"; say "I am not going to abide by these restrictions" and either not play or find another group; take up the mantle of DM and run a world that includes the things you like and has no restrictions.
Some DMs have been using homemade settings that are older than some of you, and have a history. Just because it isn't published does not mean someone new can come in dictate how the setting should be. It is like that painting that some random schmoe decided to touch up, and it turned to crap (I think it was the Mona Lisa? Can't remember).
Sometimes, a DM using a homebrew setting that is decades old, might like a certain concept that a player has come up with, and work with that player to find a place where that race could be from (like a remote island nation that has finally made long-range large ships instead of just normal fishing boats).
Restriction breeds creativity, and you never know; you may come up with something you turn out to really enjoy. Give it a try some time. You might like it.
Adjule wrote: Basically, the premise of this thread, and so many more that eventually devolve into Player Entitlement vs GM Egocenticity flamefests, can be summed up in 2 sentences:
"Stop liking what I don't like! /rageface"
and
"Stop disliking things that I like! /rageface"
There is nothing wrong with a GM that sets restrictions on what is allowed. Players can accept these restrictions or they can reject them and move along. Not every setting has to be as open as Golarion, and that doesn't make that setting a pile of poo. If you don't like the restrictions a DM has placed, you have 3 options: Suck it up and try to "color within the preset lines"; say "I am not going to abide by these restrictions" and either not play or find another group; take up the mantle of DM and run a world that includes the things you like and has no restrictions.
Some DMs have been using homemade settings that are older than some of you, and have a history. Just because it isn't published does not mean someone new can come in dictate how the setting should be. It is like that painting that some random schmoe decided to touch up, and it turned to crap (I think it was the Mona Lisa? Can't remember).
Sometimes, a DM using a homebrew setting that is decades old, might like a certain concept that a player has come up with, and work with that player to find a place where that race could be from (like a remote island nation that has finally made long-range large ships instead of just normal fishing boats).
Restriction breeds creativity, and you never know; you may come up with something you turn out to really enjoy. Give it a try some time. You might like it.
I have, I still don't like playing humans much less any of the other core races.
Liam Warner wrote: Adjule wrote: Basically, the premise of this thread, and so many more that eventually devolve into Player Entitlement vs GM Egocenticity flamefests, can be summed up in 2 sentences:
"Stop liking what I don't like! /rageface"
and
"Stop disliking things that I like! /rageface"
There is nothing wrong with a GM that sets restrictions on what is allowed. Players can accept these restrictions or they can reject them and move along. Not every setting has to be as open as Golarion, and that doesn't make that setting a pile of poo. If you don't like the restrictions a DM has placed, you have 3 options: Suck it up and try to "color within the preset lines"; say "I am not going to abide by these restrictions" and either not play or find another group; take up the mantle of DM and run a world that includes the things you like and has no restrictions.
Some DMs have been using homemade settings that are older than some of you, and have a history. Just because it isn't published does not mean someone new can come in dictate how the setting should be. It is like that painting that some random schmoe decided to touch up, and it turned to crap (I think it was the Mona Lisa? Can't remember).
Sometimes, a DM using a homebrew setting that is decades old, might like a certain concept that a player has come up with, and work with that player to find a place where that race could be from (like a remote island nation that has finally made long-range large ships instead of just normal fishing boats).
Restriction breeds creativity, and you never know; you may come up with something you turn out to really enjoy. Give it a try some time. You might like it.
I have, I still don't like playing humans much less any of the other core races. Just from curiosity ... why?
RDM42 wrote: Liam Warner wrote: Adjule wrote: Basically, the premise of this thread, and so many more that eventually devolve into Player Entitlement vs GM Egocenticity flamefests, can be summed up in 2 sentences:
"Stop liking what I don't like! /rageface"
and
"Stop disliking things that I like! /rageface"
There is nothing wrong with a GM that sets restrictions on what is allowed. Players can accept these restrictions or they can reject them and move along. Not every setting has to be as open as Golarion, and that doesn't make that setting a pile of poo. If you don't like the restrictions a DM has placed, you have 3 options: Suck it up and try to "color within the preset lines"; say "I am not going to abide by these restrictions" and either not play or find another group; take up the mantle of DM and run a world that includes the things you like and has no restrictions.
Some DMs have been using homemade settings that are older than some of you, and have a history. Just because it isn't published does not mean someone new can come in dictate how the setting should be. It is like that painting that some random schmoe decided to touch up, and it turned to crap (I think it was the Mona Lisa? Can't remember).
Sometimes, a DM using a homebrew setting that is decades old, might like a certain concept that a player has come up with, and work with that player to find a place where that race could be from (like a remote island nation that has finally made long-range large ships instead of just normal fishing boats).
Restriction breeds creativity, and you never know; you may come up with something you turn out to really enjoy. Give it a try some time. You might like it.
I have, I still don't like playing humans much less any of the other core races. Just from curiosity ... why? Humans: I have to live as one every day and I'd rather be something else.
Elves: I'm not a fan of the alien nature pathfinder gave them although I did enjoy the more fae ones based on Tolkien (part of what appeals to me about Kitsune is that link to the spirit world). Was my standard race before pathfinder, well this or half-elf if I couldn't get to be a Kitsune (most of the time).
Half-Elves: Are half elf and tarred with the same brush.
Dwarves/Half-Orcs: Just don't mesh well with my playstyle and personal tastes.
Halflings: Can't say what puts me off this lot but something just makes me not want to play them.
Gnomes: Frankly I had to look them up as I couldn't remember the 7th race which tells you how much of an impact they made on me.
I'm willing to play in a group that includes them without any major issues I just don't want to be any of them, human is about the most I can tolerate unless its for a themeed game where the group decides to all play 1 race.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Liam Warner wrote: I have, I still don't like playing humans much less any of the other core races. Great. Then you're not a good fit for a GM who likes running a game with only core races. You'll want to find another GM. He'll want to find another player.
That's okay. Not everyone has to like the same things. There's no one true way to play.
It doesn't mean you're a special snowflake. It doesn't mean he's an ego driven control freak. It means you're looking for different things from the game.
Liam Warner wrote: RDM42 wrote: Liam Warner wrote: Adjule wrote: Basically, the premise of this thread, and so many more that eventually devolve into Player Entitlement vs GM Egocenticity flamefests, can be summed up in 2 sentences:
"Stop liking what I don't like! /rageface"
and
"Stop disliking things that I like! /rageface"
There is nothing wrong with a GM that sets restrictions on what is allowed. Players can accept these restrictions or they can reject them and move along. Not every setting has to be as open as Golarion, and that doesn't make that setting a pile of poo. If you don't like the restrictions a DM has placed, you have 3 options: Suck it up and try to "color within the preset lines"; say "I am not going to abide by these restrictions" and either not play or find another group; take up the mantle of DM and run a world that includes the things you like and has no restrictions.
Some DMs have been using homemade settings that are older than some of you, and have a history. Just because it isn't published does not mean someone new can come in dictate how the setting should be. It is like that painting that some random schmoe decided to touch up, and it turned to crap (I think it was the Mona Lisa? Can't remember).
Sometimes, a DM using a homebrew setting that is decades old, might like a certain concept that a player has come up with, and work with that player to find a place where that race could be from (like a remote island nation that has finally made long-range large ships instead of just normal fishing boats).
Restriction breeds creativity, and you never know; you may come up with something you turn out to really enjoy. Give it a try some time. You might like it.
I have, I still don't like playing humans much less any of the other core races. Just from curiosity ... why? Humans: I have to live as one every day and I'd rather be something else.
Elves: I'm not a fan of the alien nature pathfinder gave them although I did enjoy the more fae ones based... And if those races are not presumed to be "pathfinder standard" in execution?
Adjule wrote: There is nothing wrong with a GM that sets restrictions on what is allowed. Players can accept these restrictions or they can reject them and move along. Not every setting has to be as open as Golarion, and that doesn't make that setting a pile of poo. If you don't like the restrictions a DM has placed, you have 3 options: Suck it up and try to "color within the preset lines"; say "I am not going to abide by these restrictions" and either not play or find another group; take up the mantle of DM and run a world that includes the things you like and has no restrictions.
Some DMs have been using homemade settings that are older than some of you, and have a history. Just because it isn't published does not mean someone new can come in dictate how the setting should be. It is like that painting that some random schmoe decided to touch up, and it turned to crap (I think it was the Mona Lisa? Can't remember).
Sometimes, a DM using a homebrew setting that is decades old, might like a certain concept that a player has come up with, and work with that player to find a place where that race could be from (like a remote island nation that has finally made long-range large ships instead of just normal fishing boats).
Restriction breeds creativity, and you never know; you may come up with something you turn out to really enjoy. Give it a try some time. You might like it.
It's also not just setting and whether a particular race can exist in a setting, it's whether they'll work for that particular campaign.
If I'm planning a Darklands focused game, for example, I might want to avoid Darklands races if it's going to be an "explore the mysterious Darklands" kind of game. Kind of spoils the mystery if you've got natives along pointing out hte best pizza joints. Or I might want to avoid surface races in a different kind of Darklands game.
In either case, I might consider exceptions, but you're going to have to sell me on why your already ruled out character concept really does fit with the campaign. And that's not going to be a matter of "But Drow exist!"
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
thejeff wrote: Liam Warner wrote: I have, I still don't like playing humans much less any of the other core races. Great. Then you're not a good fit for a GM who likes running a game with only core races. You'll want to find another GM. He'll want to find another player.
That's okay. Not everyone has to like the same things. There's no one true way to play.
It doesn't mean you're a special snowflake. It doesn't mean he's an ego driven control freak. It means you're looking for different things from the game.
So very much this. People's playstyle preferences matter. Meeting in the middle and compromising might work in some cases, but in others it can result in a game nobody is going to enjoy. Knowing when to compromise and when to admit it just isn't going to work out is important.
It's okay to be picky about the type of people you want to play with (I know I am), it's your time to choose what to do with. It's also okay to put spending time with those people above such things as what you do during that time, especially if your group are also your friends.
The only real problems in this thread occur when people assume everyone plays the same way they do, with the same kind of group, and see that the other person's approach wouldn't work for their group. Just remember that it doesn't need to, it only has to work for the other person's group :)
Nobody owes it to anyone else to play in a manner they like (with the possible exception of organized play such as PFS), nobody (players or GMs) is owed a group that will let them do things the way they want.
You may have been wanting to run a human-only sci-fi campaign for ten years, but that doesn't mean your group have to play in it. You may have been told you can't play your favorite race for ages - nobody owes you a game where you can do that.
"But there are no more groups in my area to run my favorite setting/race/class/rules with!" - quite frankly, and I'm sorry for sounding so harsh here - that's not anyone else's problem. Perhaps you can find a group that is willing to rotate around giving everyone their day in the sun and everyone else will fit in to accommodate them, and perhaps not. Try playing using a virtual tabletop - then you have the entire world pool of players to work with, someone else is bound to want the same type of game you do.
Some people are lucky enough to be in a group that has a format they enjoy, or has a flexible format that accommodates all different types of play. Some are not. If you're in the latter, you can't force your group to accept your way of doing things. This applies to everyone, players and GMs alike.
Pathfinder is not one game. It's hundreds, if not thousands, of individual games. Find one that you can fit into, or go start your own. Add the world of other rulesets and then you're looking at an exponential number of variant games.
When you sit down at a Pathfinder game table, on either side of the screen, you are not agreeing to play Pathfinder. You are agreeing to play the game agreed to by the group around that table, which is based upon the Pathfinder rules in some way. It may be RAW, it may be Kirthfinder, it may be some weird set of d% house rules. It may be Golarion. It may be Forgotten Realms. It may be in the Star Trek universe, or something built by the GM, or something built by the group as a whole. It might be based on an existing setting "but with the following changes." There are, however, zero guarantees that it'll be a game that works the way you personally want it to.
And in many cases, if it's actually your favorite race and the GM knows that up front, he'll try to accommodate you. If not in this campaign, in the next one. If it's a matter of wanting this race now and something else different in the next game, that's harder.
If Liam was one of my players and I knew he only really liked playing Kitsune, I'd try to make Kitsune one of the playable races in most campaigns. If I'd already done the world building and pitched the game and only later hear about racial needs, then it'll be harder.
thejeff wrote: And in many cases, if it's actually your favorite race and the GM knows that up front, he'll try to accommodate you. If not in this campaign, in the next one. If it's a matter of wanting this race now and something else different in the next game, that's harder.
If Liam was one of my players and I knew he only really liked playing Kitsune, I'd try to make Kitsune one of the playable races in most campaigns. If I'd already done the world building and pitched the game and only later hear about racial needs, then it'll be harder.
Same here, although admittedly because I'd probably not be playing with someone in the first place unless we had similar tastes in gaming. Even then, I don't think there's any game ideas I'd refuse to at least try out as a short one-off game. Sometimes anything out of the ordinary can be a breath of fresh air.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Locking. I think we're done here. Guys, personal insults, jabs and passive aggressive posting doesn't help any conversation. Please revisit the messageboard rules.
Recent threads in General Discussion
|
