Could you enjoy a simplified game?

[wraithstrike]

Faelyn wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

No. As far as Pathfinder goes, "You can play only X, Y and Z" smells of either the GMs inability and/or unwillingness to go forth and give players the freedom, his/her inability or unwillingness to tackle the ruleset or of him/her imposing personal tastes on player choices (note, this is different from imposing personal tastes on campaign world/story, which is perfectly fine).

So whenever I hear "You can't play a transgendered Kitsune Paladin/Monk" and there's no good reason behind that which is nested in campaign style and actually contributes to it being fun, I walk away. Kind of a litmus test of what GM am I facing.

I completely disagree with that opinion. Just because a GM wants to start a more traditional style group of PCs does not make them a bad or impersonal GM.

He did not say that. He was saying it seems(is likely) that if a GM tries to cut rules out.....

Restricting rules does not weed out bad players. Kicking them out of the group does. If he is an entitled player with a lot of options then he will still feel entitled with less options. The same goes for most other nonacceptable behavior.

[Chengar Qordath]

wraithstrike wrote:

Faelyn wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

No. As far as Pathfinder goes, "You can play only X, Y and Z" smells of either the GMs inability and/or unwillingness to go forth and give players the freedom, his/her inability or unwillingness to tackle the ruleset or of him/her imposing personal tastes on player choices (note, this is different from imposing personal tastes on campaign world/story, which is perfectly fine).

So whenever I hear "You can't play a transgendered Kitsune Paladin/Monk" and there's no good reason behind that which is nested in campaign style and actually contributes to it being fun, I walk away. Kind of a litmus test of what GM am I facing.

I completely disagree with that opinion. Just because a GM wants to start a more traditional style group of PCs does not make them a bad or impersonal GM.

He did not say that. He was saying it seems(is likely) that if a GM tries to cut rules out.....

Restricting rules does not weed out bad players. Kicking them out of the group does. If he is an entitled player with a lot of options then he will still feel entitled with less options. The same goes for most other nonacceptable behavior.

Have to agree on that point. A problem player who isn't allowed to play the tiefling magus they want to run is just going to become a problem player with an elf wizard instead, except now with the added bonus that he might resent the GM for not letting him play the character he wanted.

A player who wants to optimize to the point of breaking the game can do that just fine using a Core-only wizard. Likewise, a player who wants to be a special snowflake who is always the center of everyone's attention will still have those tendencies even if he only has the option of playing a human commoner.

[Gorbacz]

Yeah. There are two kind of people who play transgender Kitsune Paladin/Monks: the ones who want to play that character and the ones who want to wreck your day. If you tell the former that he/she can't play that character because arbitrary reasons, you've just killed a puppy. If you tell this to the second type, you've just set up yourself for a world of pain. In either way, YOU LOSE GOOD SIR.

The only way to play a traditionalist game is when everybody at the table is down with that. I'm sure you can find dozens of groups who are so, I'm just pretty sure most of them don't even bother coming here, because PF lies some 10 miles from their tastes.

[lucky7]

I can see the appeal of this type of game, but it's not for me. I personally enjoy option diversity and crunching numbers a fair amount.

[Kthulhu]

Gorbacz wrote:

No. As far as Pathfinder goes, "You can play only X, Y and Z" smells of either the GMs inability and/or unwillingness

And that statement smells of immaturity, since you feel the need to insult someone for preferring to play the game with different parameters than you do.

[Rynjin]

Kthulhu wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

No. As far as Pathfinder goes, "You can play only X, Y and Z" smells of either the GMs inability and/or unwillingness

And that statement smells of immaturity, since you feel the need to insult someone for preferring to play the game with different parameters than you do.

This statements smells of a lack of ability to read an entire post.

[Avatar-1]

I could enjoy it.

The only thing that would stop me enjoying the game when you restrict options is if there's no available options that I like.

I like at least one of those races and classes, so it's a reasonable fit for me.

[bugleyman]

Yes I would. In fact, I usually see additional rules as restraining, not liberating. YMMV.

[Werebat]

Fewer options are always bad. ALWAYS.

Pathfinder, in its purest form, is a game reserved for "buildmasters" who have huge heads shaped like summer squashes, with energy bolts shooting out of them. These buildmasters are capable of sorting through all of the rules and options in order to create the most perfectly optimized, min/maxed characters.

The real fun in Pathfinder is in poring through rules minutia in order to create slightly more perfect character builds than the other buildmasters have already created.

It is also acceptable for a player to look up these optimized builds online and emulate them at the table.

Fewer options available will never stop the optimization buildmasters, but it will make the true essence of the game less fun for them, and therefore is anathema.

[Kthulhu]

Rynjin wrote:

Kthulhu wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

No. As far as Pathfinder goes, "You can play only X, Y and Z" smells of either the GMs inability and/or unwillingness

And that statement smells of immaturity, since you feel the need to insult someone for preferring to play the game with different parameters than you do.

This statements smells of a lack of ability to read an entire post.

I read the entire post. Nothing else in it goes against the portion that I quoted, which in essence says that the only reason that anyone would play the game in that manner is because they can't handle playing it it another way. Which is not only patently untrue, it's remarkable stupid, AND makes the person stating it come across as a giant jerkass.

[Kthulhu]

Werebat wrote:

Fewer options are always bad. ALWAYS.

Blanket statements about absolutes are generally wrong.

[Marcus Robert Hosler]

I don't blanket allow things outside of the PRD and Ultimate Psionics because of things like Blood Money and Sacred Geometry.

I do that because Paizo has shown that such material goes through little balance scrutiny and accounting for such material makes my job as a GM very difficult.

Now that is not to say all of it is banned from my games, but it is treated like homebrew. I'll only allow it if it is necessary.

Does that mean my players have fewer options? Yes. Would their game be improved with the option to take Sacred Geometry? Probably not.

The options listed by the OP seems more to focus at balance concerns not special snowflake-syndrome. It strikes me that the OP dislikes classes being obsolete next to others and wonders if such a simplified game would still be fun. I can tell you though fighter and rogue have issues in a vacuum not just compared to other classes. The GM really has to work to make these classes feel fun as levels increase, assuming optimization of course.

[Rynjin]

Kthulhu wrote:

Rynjin wrote:

Kthulhu wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

No. As far as Pathfinder goes, "You can play only X, Y and Z" smells of either the GMs inability and/or unwillingness

And that statement smells of immaturity, since you feel the need to insult someone for preferring to play the game with different parameters than you do.

This statements smells of a lack of ability to read an entire post.

I read the entire post. Nothing else in it goes against the portion that I quoted, which in essence says that the only reason that anyone would play the game in that manner is because they can't handle playing it another way. Which is not only patently untrue, it's remarkably stupid, AND makes the person stating it come across as a giant jerkass.

It's not blatantly untrue because it gives 4 of the only reasons you would limit things (of which you only seem to have read and focused on one).

1.) You can't handle players having freedom (somewhat insulting, but sometimes is the case).

2.) You don't understand the ruleset and so want to simplify everything (happens a LOT).

3.) Imposing your personal tastes on the players (by far the most common. "I don't like special snowflakes, I'm limiting everybody to Core" of "I don't like these options for various reasons like balance or flavor, so I'm cutting them out").

4.) "The other things don't fit the setting" (which he explicitly says is not a bad thing).

I'm hard pressed to think of any scenario that doesn't fall into one of those 4 categories, besides the occasional "I don't have the books and don't run content I don't have".

[Werebat]

I don't mind players choosing to play something odd, but I do mind them insisting on playing something that in no way fits in with the campaign setting or game the GM wants to run.

So there's nothing inherently wrong with a player wanting to try out a ratfolk alchemist or something, so long as it fits (even if it requires a little bit of stretching) the campaign setting the GM has worked on creating.

But it's kind of irritating to have "That Guy" belly up to the table and insist on playing some improbable race/class combo that was most likely cribbed from an optimization board because it gave the most "plusses", and happens to have absolutely nothing to do with the campaign (or is in fact antithetical to the campaign -- a lizardman swashbuckler in a tribal arctic campaign, for example).

QQs about "stifled creativity" are sort of irritating when the player is exhibiting a complete disregard for the theme the GM is aiming for, especially when a bit of digging reveals the build in question to have come from an optimization thread.

[Werebat]

Kthulhu wrote:

Werebat wrote:

Fewer options are always bad. ALWAYS.

Blanket statements about absolutes are generally wrong.

But not always, right?

[Marcus Robert Hosler]

Werebat wrote:

QQs about "stifled creativity" are sort of irritating when the player is exhibiting a complete disregard for the theme the GM is aiming for, especially when a bit of digging reveals the build in question to have come from an optimization thread.

Players who don't enjoy the game side of PnP RPGs don't play for long.

[JoeJ]

I would definitely be able to enjoy a simplified game, although sometimes it's fun to have choices too.

I've never liked the continued slow addition of more and more PC races that seems to happen with each version. As a GM I like to say yes to my players, but there comes a point where there just can't find a way to shoehorn yet another intelligent race into my world.

New classes are less of a problem, as they are already somewhat of an abstraction. We can assume that each person's specific set of skills and abilities is slightly different from any other person's, and that they are only grouped into "classes" for rules convenience. That doesn't really work with race, though.

Unlike some posters, I do think there can be too many choices for a class-based game system. Eventually the number of combinations becomes so cumbersome that it would actually be simpler to eliminate classes entirely and go to a strictly point-based system, where players can buy whatever abilities they want (subject to GM approval, of course).

[Rynjin]

Werebat wrote:

(or is in fact antithetical to the campaign -- a lizardman swashbuckler in a tribal arctic campaign, for example).

I played the Were-crocodile variant of the Skinwalker in Reign of Winter.

It was fun. He was always cold. So many cold blooded puns.

[swoosh]

To be fair, fitting the theme can be important. I wouldn't know what to do with, for instance, a dromite telekinetic weaponmaster or a merfolk ranger in a ravenloft game.

[Marcus Robert Hosler]

JoeJ wrote:

As a GM I like to say yes to my players, but there comes a point where there just can't find a way to shoehorn yet another intelligent race into my world.

I just make them the probable last of their kind. If the player doesn't like that, they can play a different race.

[Werebat]

Rynjin wrote:

3.) Imposing your personal tastes on the players (by far the most common. "I don't like special snowflakes, I'm limiting everybody to Core" of "I don't like these options for various reasons like balance or flavor, so I'm cutting them out").

I'm of the opinion that very often, what a campaign setting is NOT is every bit as important as what it IS.

If you remember Dark Sun, you might understand a GM who would disallow a PC gnome pirate who rode around on a dog, even if the player offered a "cool backstory" about how his character got zapped to Athas from another world via Prismatic Spray spell or some such.

So if the GM wants to run a tribal-style campaign set in a cold world with barbarians, druids, and sorcerers, a player who digs in their heels and INSISTS on playing a wizard, gunslinger, or similarly incongruous character is being kind of a tool.

[swoosh]

Werebat wrote:

I'm of the opinion that very often, what a campaign setting is NOT is every bit as important as what it IS.

If you remember Dark Sun, you might understand a GM who would disallow a PC gnome pirate who rode around on a dog, even if the player offered a "cool backstory" about how his character got zapped to Athas from another world via Prismatic Spray spell or some such.

So if the GM wants to run a tribal-style campaign set in a cold world with barbarians, druids, and sorcerers, a player who digs in their heels and INSISTS on playing a wizard, gunslinger, or similarly incongruous character is being kind of a tool.

Part of the disagreement here I think is one of DM stance.

A game where everyone says "let's play a down to earth Dark Sun" game is fine and that's what you're referring to.

But Rynjin is referring to the "No you can't play that you special snowflake mary sue !@#%, play the race/class I want you to play" sort of DM, which is different.

[JoeJ]

With races or classes that don't fit the theme, sometimes you can allow it on the condition that the player comes up with an acceptable justification.

My own World of Battersea is based on the ancient Mediterranean civilizations, so it's simply impossible that somebody could play a gunslinger. That technology does not exist. I would, however, allow a Monk, Ninja, or Samurai if the player can come up with a plausible reason why their character is several thousand miles away from home.

[Marcus Robert Hosler]

Werebat wrote:

So if the GM wants to run a tribal-style campaign set in a cold world with barbarians, druids, and sorcerers, a player who digs in their heels and INSISTS on playing a wizard, gunslinger, or similarly incongruous character is being kind of a tool.

Not really. They just really want to play a class that can't buy spell scrolls, new guns, or ammo. If the player is really all for that that is on them.

No one's setting is too precious not to let the players interfere with it, but that doesn't means there is not logical consequences for going against the grain. Some players love that, so I see no reason not to allow them to go for it (cause if I did, I would have banned the rogue).

[Fake Healer]

See this is odd to me...I would enjoy the simplified game as long as the Players were fairly decent roleplayers....
one of my most fun to play characters was a dwarf rogue/fighter that insisted on shaving his face bald, was slightly psychopathic, angered easily, and was based on Joe Pesci's character from Casino....
He was so much fun that I never missed the oddball class/race combos.
Now I have been testing out the new D&D 5th edition with my kids and I am loving how simple and easy the game is without 10 splatbooks. I am sure it will get there eventually but I am enjoying the simplicity as a breath of fresh air after scouring everything Pathfinder to make character.
I may grow tired of only 4 races and classes but really how many campaigns do people play in that they need to have 25 races and 50 classes to make their concept fit? I keep hearing how people get bored of the same old stuff but playing in a group, 1 adventure path lasts around 1.5- 2 years....Pathfinder has been around for roughly 8 years?...
So even if you died 2-3 times and made new characters in each path/campaign you still have only made and played for any time around 12-15 PCs. That doesn't even cover all the Core combos but people scream about being bored...I think it boils down to mechanics being the reason people pick classes and races over concept more often when more options are offered.

[Scythia]

Fake Healer wrote:

1 adventure path lasts around 1.5- 2 years.

What?

What are you doing that they take that long? You could film and edit a movie adaptation in less time than that.

I have the RotRL anniversary book, having read over it a couple times, I'd be amazed if it lasted two months.

[Marcus Robert Hosler]

Scythia wrote:

Fake Healer wrote:

1 adventure path lasts around 1.5- 2 years.

What?

What are you doing that they take that long? You could film and edit a movie adaptation in less time than that.

I have the RotRL anniversary book, having read over it a couple times, I'd be amazed if it lasted two months.

Umm. Play once a week?

[DM_aka_Dudemeister]

Scythia wrote:

Fake Healer wrote:

1 adventure path lasts around 1.5- 2 years.

What?

What are you doing that they take that long? You could film and edit a movie adaptation in less time than that.

I have the RotRL anniversary book, having read over it a couple times, I'd be amazed if it lasted two months.

I've been running Kingmaker for 4+ years. When you take the time to do plenty of Roleplay, when you add things so that your player's character histories, backstories and choices impact the story and when you realize that high level combat is slow, yeah it takes time.

About the fastest I've seen any AP completed is 6 months. Any faster than that and I suspect major cuts have been made to the source material.

I couldn't imagine finishing an AP in two months.

[Fake Healer]

Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

Scythia wrote:

Fake Healer wrote:

1 adventure path lasts around 1.5- 2 years.

What?

What are you doing that they take that long? You could film and edit a movie adaptation in less time than that.

I have the RotRL anniversary book, having read over it a couple times, I'd be amazed if it lasted two months.

Umm. Play once a week?

Yup RotRL took just over 2 years, once a week, 4 hours a session....

Savage Tide was almost 2 years at the same pace, and Second Darkness was right around 2 years.

[Zhayne]

I am not sure 'lacking options' and 'simplified' are synonyms.

[Faelyn]

Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

Werebat wrote:

So if the GM wants to run a tribal-style campaign set in a cold world with barbarians, druids, and sorcerers, a player who digs in their heels and INSISTS on playing a wizard, gunslinger, or similarly incongruous character is being kind of a tool.

Not really. They just really want to play a class that can't buy spell scrolls, new guns, or ammo. If the player is really all for that that is on them.

No one's setting is too precious not to let the players interfere with it, but that doesn't means there is not logical consequences for going against the grain. Some players love that, so I see no reason not to allow them to go for it (cause if I did, I would have banned the rogue).

I am going to have to disagree with you there. Imagine you were a GM and put countless hours into creating your own unique setting for your players, filled with it's own unique races and areas. Now let's say your player comes up and says "Hey GM, I know you said there aren't any firearms, or kitsune in the setting you build for us, but I want to play a kitsure gunslinger that uses a lever-action carbine." You would not be annoyed with that? I would, but that's just me. (I also follow along the ideals of making characters that relatively fit the theme to a campaign.)

[Scythia]

Fake Healer wrote:

Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

Scythia wrote:

Fake Healer wrote:

1 adventure path lasts around 1.5- 2 years.

What?

What are you doing that they take that long? You could film and edit a movie adaptation in less time than that.

I have the RotRL anniversary book, having read over it a couple times, I'd be amazed if it lasted two months.

Umm. Play once a week?

Yup RotRL took just over 2 years, once a week, 4 hours a session....

Savage Tide was almost 2 years at the same pace, and Second Darkness was right around 2 years.

We play weekly as well.

Maybe it's the average six hour sessions, or maybe we just run things efficiently due to experience, but that sounds like an amazingly long time for an AP to take.

Something like Kingmaker, or a personalized sandbox game, sure, but most AP seem pretty linear.

Edit: oops, missed your four hour session. Sorry.

[Marcus Robert Hosler]

Faelyn wrote:

Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

Werebat wrote:

So if the GM wants to run a tribal-style campaign set in a cold world with barbarians, druids, and sorcerers, a player who digs in their heels and INSISTS on playing a wizard, gunslinger, or similarly incongruous character is being kind of a tool.

Not really. They just really want to play a class that can't buy spell scrolls, new guns, or ammo. If the player is really all for that that is on them.

No one's setting is too precious not to let the players interfere with it, but that doesn't means there is not logical consequences for going against the grain. Some players love that, so I see no reason not to allow them to go for it (cause if I did, I would have banned the rogue).

I am going to have to disagree with you there. Imagine you were a GM and put countless hours into creating your own unique setting for your players, filled with it's own unique races and areas. Now let's say your player comes up and says "Hey GM, I know you said there aren't any firearms, or kitsune in the setting you build for us, but I want to play a kitsure gunslinger that uses a lever-action carbine." You would not be annoyed with that? I would, but that's just me. (I also follow along the ideals of making characters that relatively fit the theme to a campaign.)

Why yes I would. Gunslingers cannot normally start with that kind of weapon, so I would deny them their house-rule.

If a player wants to play an entire game with their starting weapon then I see no reason to stop them. The Kitsune I just handwave as made through magic. The player only thinks their species has a culture.

To me the whole point of GMing is seeing how players change your world. Giving them the freedom to do that seems necessary.

I picture guardians of the galaxy as an RPG group. Two of them are custom races. Would that story have been improved if the GM said, "Sorry this is space, there are no talking earth animals wielding machine guns. In fact no one has even heard of a raccoon." or what would have happened if the GM said, "Dude I made ALL these custom races. No you can't play an earthling from the 80s."

[Faelyn]

Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

Faelyn wrote:

Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

Werebat wrote:

So if the GM wants to run a tribal-style campaign set in a cold world with barbarians, druids, and sorcerers, a player who digs in their heels and INSISTS on playing a wizard, gunslinger, or similarly incongruous character is being kind of a tool.

Not really. They just really want to play a class that can't buy spell scrolls, new guns, or ammo. If the player is really all for that that is on them.

No one's setting is too precious not to let the players interfere with it, but that doesn't means there is not logical consequences for going against the grain. Some players love that, so I see no reason not to allow them to go for it (cause if I did, I would have banned the rogue).

I am going to have to disagree with you there. Imagine you were a GM and put countless hours into creating your own unique setting for your players, filled with it's own unique races and areas. Now let's say your player comes up and says "Hey GM, I know you said there aren't any firearms, or kitsune in the setting you build for us, but I want to play a kitsure gunslinger that uses a lever-action carbine." You would not be annoyed with that? I would, but that's just me. (I also follow along the ideals of making characters that relatively fit the theme to a campaign.)

Why yes I would. Gunslingers cannot normally start with that kind of weapon, so I would deny them their house-rule.

If a player wants to play an entire game with their starting weapon then I see no reason to stop them. The Kitsune I just handwave as made through magic. The player only thinks their species has a culture.

To me the whole point of GMing is seeing how players change your world. Giving them the freedom to do that seems necessary.

I picture guardians of the galaxy as an RPG group. Two of them are custom races. Would that story have been improved if the GM said, "Sorry this is space, there are no talking earth animals wielding machine guns. In fact no one has even heard of a raccoon." or what would have happened if the GM said, "Dude I made ALL these custom races. No you can't play an earthling from the 80s."

Well, different strokes for different folks.

[Wiggz]

Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

I picture guardians of the galaxy as an RPG group. Two of them are custom races. Would that story have been improved if the GM said, "Sorry this is space, there are no talking earth animals wielding machine guns. In fact no one has even heard of a raccoon." or what would have happened if the GM said, "Dude I made ALL these custom races. No you can't play an earthling from the 80s.

On the flip side, was Star Wars and Star Trek, Firefly and Battlestar Galactica all really so bad because humans dominated the cast of protagonists and antagonists both? The Emperor, Vader, Boba Fett, Luke, Obi Wan, Solo, Leia, Kirk, Sulu, Chekov, Uhura, Bones, Malcom Reynolds, Inara, Jayne, River Tam, Saffron, Starbuck, Apollo, Adama, Roslin, Baltar and on and on... all fascinating and unique characters with tremendous depth, and every one of them a plain old boring, bland human.

And don't even get me started on Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones.

Couldn't Rocket have just as easily been written as an experimented-upon cybernetic human with the same personality traits, the same specialities, the same jokes? And if he had been, wouldn't a retcon'ed suggestion of him being transformed into a raccoon have earned more than a few eye rolls? Was Rocket a great character because he was a talking raccoon or because he was a wise-cracking outsider with unique skills, a penchant for heavy weaponry and a tragic backstory, none of which actually had the slightest thing to do with his being a raccoon?

[graystone]

Wiggz, while those where humans dominated, look at the 'PC's' of the stories.

Starwars: wookies and robots
Startrek: from Vulcans to borg, shapechangers to Klingons. Plenty of non-humans in the protagonist roles.
Firefly: River isn't what I'd call a 'normal' human. And I wouldn't count the reavers as human anymore.
Battlestar: cylons
LotR: what party was only human there?
Game of Thrones: The only one that really is almost all human.

[JoeJ]

graystone wrote:

Wiggz, while those where humans dominated, look at the 'PC's' of the stories.

Starwars: wookies and robots
Startrek: from Vulcans to borg, shapechangers to Klingons. Plenty of non-humans in the protagonist roles.
Firefly: River isn't what I'd call a 'normal' human. And I wouldn't count the reavers as human anymore.
Battlestar: cylons
LotR: what party was only human there?
Game of Thrones: The only one that really is almost all human.

But would it work to allow a player to be a Vulcan or an elf in a Firefly game? Or a Cylon in Lord of the Rings? Even when you have multiple races, not every race fits into every universe.

[Necromancer]

bring up Star Trek and not mention Picard?

throws up hands

[Marcus Galden]

Wiggz wrote:

Marcus Galden wrote:

No, not really. As has been said, roleplay is what brings the character to life, and that can be done with any race/class.

I don't disagree with that at all. It has been my experience though, that exotic race and class selection replace good role-play at least as often as they enhance it. Usually Dwarves are played as Humans with beards, Elves as Humans with pointy ears, Tengu as Humans with feathers, Catfolk as Humans with claws and so on. The 'originality' of the concept is determined by the specific permutation of attribute bonuses and racial traits rather than how the character is actually played. With fewer options available, I imagine more effort would actually be put into how the characters are played in order to find your voice and stand out.

Like I said, I'm not out to change anyone's mind. Just making a few comments and looking to others for comments of their own. I fell in love with Lord of the Rings/Game of Thrones type fantasy and intrigue where the magical was magical, the alien was alien and the 'Cantina Effect' seemed silly even in Star Wars. I'm sure many others feel very differently and that's fine - I've just never walked out of a great movie or put down a great book and thought 'that sure would have been a lot better without all of those Humans in it'. We've the capacity to be anything we want without changing our skins - I hate that becoming so accustomed to skin-changing it has replaced that potential, like our clothes defining who we are rather than our actions.

I can understand where you're coming from, as a unique race/class combo can be a crutch for poor roleplay, but I'd argue that the sort of player who relys on that as a crutch would be just as poor a roleplayer with a standard race/class combo, and make that just as much a crutch, simply in the opposite direction (stereotypical instead of outlandish)

As for LotR, I can understand the appeal. I love it too, and I have no problem if everyone wants to play that. But if someone wants to be a bit different, I think they should be able to. After all, while we think of LotR as "core", when it was first written it really wasn't.

I mean, prior to LotR/The Hobbit, non humans were encounters, not main characters. And for some specifics about core at the time of LotR's writting.

The Hobbits: Hobbits were Prof. Tolkien's own invention, and certainly wouldn't be considered core for a fantasy story prior to his work

Gimli: While Dwarves existed in Norse myth, they were unpleasant, nasty, petty creatures. Gimli might own some of his traits to his mythological fore-bearers, his nobility and gruff good-heartedness is again from the Professor. And besides, Norse myth wasn't exactly "mainstream" at the time. Definetly not core

Legolas: Again Elves existed in Norse and Celtic myth, as semi-divine creatures and fey sprites respectively. The doom-laden elder race with one foot in this world and one in the next are Tolkien's own. Not core.

Gandalf: Demigod in disguise, not core at all.

Aragon: Human. But a better human than other humans. Basically an Azlanti. Not core.

Boramir: Regular human. Core.

Again, I think you can have plenty of fun with a LotR style game, and there's nothing wrong with wanting/playing one. But I don't think that you can really use the story that changed what was "standard" for fantasy as an argument for restricting options in a fantasy game.

[graystone]

JoeJ wrote:

graystone wrote:

Wiggz, while those where humans dominated, look at the 'PC's' of the stories.

Starwars: wookies and robots
Startrek: from Vulcans to borg, shapechangers to Klingons. Plenty of non-humans in the protagonist roles.
Firefly: River isn't what I'd call a 'normal' human. And I wouldn't count the reavers as human anymore.
Battlestar: cylons
LotR: what party was only human there?
Game of Thrones: The only one that really is almost all human.

But would it work to allow a player to be a Vulcan or an elf in a Firefly game? Or a Cylon in Lord of the Rings? Even when you have multiple races, not every race fits into every universe.

But we aren't talking about that are we. It's like saying you can ONLY have humans and Vulcans in star trek. And they can only be science officers and engineers. Being a Bolian security officer would be out of bounds even though it fits the star trek setting. Wiggz was talking about how human-centric those settings where and I pointed out they had plenty of non-humans in them.

I'm cool with things being off limit when it fits the setting. All Marcus Robert Hosler was doing was pointing out that unusual things can sometimes fit well into a setting if you give it 1/2 a chance.

[Gorbacz]

Wiggz wrote:

Couldn't Rocket have just as easily been written as an experimented-upon cybernetic human with the same personality traits, the same specialities, the same jokes? And if he had been, wouldn't a retcon'ed suggestion of him being transformed into a raccoon have earned more than a few eye rolls? Was Rocket a great character because he was a talking raccoon or because he was a wise-cracking outsider with unique skills, a penchant for heavy weaponry and a tragic backstory, none of which actually had the slightest thing to do with his being a raccoon?

Rocket Raccoon is a great character because, among others, he's an inversion of the "cute furry anthropomorphic talking animal" trope. Under that trope, said talking animal is by default a light-headed kid-friendly comic relief. What Marvel has done was that they threw the trope upside down by making Rocket a mean, lean, swearing son of a very big gun. You see him for the first time and your reaction is "Oh, another Simon/Pumbaa/Balooo!". Then he opens his mouth and pulls out a gun thrice his size, and you know that your Disney-made stereotype just got flipped over. And masterfully so, because following tropes is easy, inverting them is hard.

The very same thing happened when Paizo made Seelah the iconic paladin - after 40 years of bearded and moustached white Christian ... sorry, "LG gods of justice and valor" men in shining armor, we got a black gal. Trope, flipped over, instant victory.

[Samy]

Gorbacz wrote:

following tropes is easy, inverting them is hard.

No it's not. Inverting is the easy part. Just flip aspects around. If the trope is white, make it black or asian or even mixed. If the trope is hetero, make it some variety of LGBT. If the trope is male, make it female. Inverting is easy.

*Selling* the inversion, to your superiors if any, or to your audience. Now that can be the hard part.

[Thomas Long 175]

I'd get bored fairly quickly with that kind of game. Seems to take out probably 70% of the fun for me.

[swoosh]

Gorbacz wrote:

The very same thing happened when Paizo made Seelah the iconic paladin - after 40 years of bearded and moustached white Christian ... sorry, "LG gods of justice and valor" men in shining armor, we got a black gal. Trope, flipped over, instant victory.

Er.. you know 3.5's paladin iconic was a black woman too, right?

Not exactly breaking any boundaries there (maybe even a step back since Paizo added the boob-plate).

[Thomas Long 175]

Wiggz wrote:

Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

I picture guardians of the galaxy as an RPG group. Two of them are custom races. Would that story have been improved if the GM said, "Sorry this is space, there are no talking earth animals wielding machine guns. In fact no one has even heard of a raccoon." or what would have happened if the GM said, "Dude I made ALL these custom races. No you can't play an earthling from the 80s.

On the flip side, was Star Wars and Star Trek, Firefly and Battlestar Galactica all really so bad because humans dominated the cast of protagonists and antagonists both? The Emperor, Vader, Boba Fett, Luke, Obi Wan, Solo, Leia, Kirk, Sulu, Chekov, Uhura, Bones, Malcom Reynolds, Inara, Jayne, River Tam, Saffron, Starbuck, Apollo, Adama, Roslin, Baltar and on and on... all fascinating and unique characters with tremendous depth, and every one of them a plain old boring, bland human.

And don't even get me started on Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones.

Couldn't Rocket have just as easily been written as an experimented-upon cybernetic human with the same personality traits, the same specialities, the same jokes? And if he had been, wouldn't a retcon'ed suggestion of him being transformed into a raccoon have earned more than a few eye rolls? Was Rocket a great character because he was a talking raccoon or because he was a wise-cracking outsider with unique skills, a penchant for heavy weaponry and a tragic backstory, none of which actually had the slightest thing to do with his being a raccoon?

Don't read if you haven't watched guardians of the galaxy!:

A good bit of Rocket's humor was the fact that his character was so incredulous. A great deal of the depth was the fact he was a raccoon. A lot of his drama and bad mojo was the fact that he felt outcast and discriminated against because he was a freak as a raccoon! It was about 90% of his drama issues and a huge chunk of his wise cracks were very "speciest."

So no, he really wouldn't have gone over as well as a straight human.

And no, not all of those characters had huge depth. In fact, alot of them were stereotypical roles.

Leia was the strong female lead that slowly fell for the roguish guy. Classic femme fatale, a story trope dating in the hollywood business back into the 50's. Beyond that she didn't really have a whole lot of depth. Her whole character was rolled up into "I want to free the galaxy," and "I'm kinda starting to like this guy, even though I know he's not exactly the guy you bring home to dinner."

Not a whole lot of character growth. Beyond her fondness for Han, she didn't change one bit throughout the story arc, which honestly makes her less of a character to me. To me, that makes her a flat one dimensional character. A character who doesn't look at themselves and change based on what they experience isn't really a character so much as a piece of cardboard propped up in the story line.

[Samy]

swoosh wrote:

Er.. you know 3.5's paladin iconic was a black woman too, right? Not exactly breaking any boundaries there (maybe even a step back since Paizo added the boob-plate).

No, Alhandra was white -- although hispanic might be arguable.

You're probably thinking of Ember the monk.

[Kydeem de'Morcaine]

Depends on the reasons and the group.

If the GM isn't real adept at dealing with a bunch of weird carp coming out of the dark, then sure I'll go along with making things easier for him.

If the GM is trying out some weird homebrew setting or house rules and wants to see how it interacts with the basics before opening up to the rest, that is fine.

If it is because the GM wants to keep a firm rein on the game so the story goes where he wants, I think I will pass.

If the group is fairly into the role play, I got not problem. I can always come up with a weird personality for my uniquifosity.

If the group is more of a numbers crunching roll the dice group, I think it would get fairly frustrating.

If it was a permanent change to "Here there be only 4 from now to forevermore!" I might try it for a while, but I'd probably start looking for another group.

[Haladir]

So the OP is thinking of running a D&D 5e game with the basic rules? ;-)

I could totally have fun in a game like that. I'm generally of the "less is more" approach.

Honestly, I usually limit myself to options from the Core Rulebook when I design my own characters. I find the background and personality the most fun part of character design. When playing, I usually prefer role-playing encounters to combat. I prefer to play out RP encounters rather than rolling social skill checks.

The game I GM is a "Core Only Plus" game: Anything in CRB is allowed, anything from a non-Core source requires GM approval. And I'm not afraid to say "no."

[Wiggz]

graystone wrote:

Wiggz, while those where humans dominated, look at the 'PC's' of the stories.

Starwars: wookies and robots
Startrek: from Vulcans to borg, shapechangers to Klingons. Plenty of non-humans in the protagonist roles.
Firefly: River isn't what I'd call a 'normal' human. And I wouldn't count the reavers as human anymore.
Battlestar: cylons
LotR: what party was only human there?
Game of Thrones: The only one that really is almost all human.

I didn't say they were all humans, just as in the OP I didn't suggest a 'human only' game. Star Wars the 'robots and wookies' were 3 of what, a dozen primary characters? Two dozen? There was only one non-human PC in the original Star Trek crew, two in the Next Generation, only one in Enterprise, and so on. Reavers and Cyclons are basically Orcs and Elves of their franchises and LotR is made up exclusively of the four races I mention in the OP. With all due respect, you're making my point for me.

[Cranky Dog]

Though I already answered that I wouldn't mind, I can also understand why other people, especially those familiar with all the options, would be bummed.

It's like if a mother takes a child to a candy store, and he's only allowed to take from the black licorice whips, peppermints, ribbon candy (all stuck together in one lump) and circus peanuts bins (on sale!) while every other kind of candy is on glorious display behind them.

Now if you can *only* see the black licorice, peppermints, ribbon candy and peanuts, then you'll be plenty happy to have whatever you get. Otherwise, you feel like you're constantly missing something greater.

A similar comparison can be made for the novice group who only has the Core Rulebook and Bestiary 1, but have one player who has all the books and years of knowledge. That one player may feel much more limited than the others.