If they can't take a Winged Pony with a bowtie Alchemist, but they can take a Dragon seriously, the problem lies with them. Both of those things are equally not real. Next your going to tell me I can't play as an Awakened Gorilla Wizard. Go on, I dare you.
Depends on the campaign.
Would work fine in some. Not in others. And it's not about "equally not real", it's about what fits in that particular campaign.
But who cares? If the problem is with them, then don't play with them. They don't want to play the kind of game you want to play, so you shouldn't be playing with them.
If your campaign has Pathfinder magic, everything fits.
Hm. Let me think. I'm imagining my human cleric in Carrion Crown, trying to save the village from being overrun by undead. I'm doing research in the town library. "Hey Teletubbyfolk, could you get me that Tome with historical records of the dead prisoners? After this, let's regroup with Elf wizard and Dwarf fighter at the town hall. You can also talk to any townsfolk you see on the way there and comfort them that everything will be okay."
Aren't they just gnomes in pajamas? And you know Teletubbyfolk are just as real as the dwarf and elf ya? In a setting where Owlbears are thing ya?
oh, Anzyr
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Uh it is your problem. You should let them play what they want just as you should play what you want. Why would you even be bothered something like that?
I don't play what I want if I know what I want will bother the group.
For example, my first choice character in my current campaign was a warforged (converted, or using the PF android). The GM told me that warforged don't make sense in his setting for reasons that would spoil the plot.
So I'm playing a Suli monk/bloodrager and it's awesome.
On the other hand, the same game has a grippli PC who resulted from a unique magical curse rather than being a member of a species of frog-men, so not everything weird is automatically out.
PF involves group storytelling and that means compromise.
If your campaign has Pathfinder magic, everything fits.If they can't take a Winged Pony with a bowtie Alchemist, but they can take a Dragon seriously, the problem lies with them. Both of those things are equally not real. Next your going to tell me I can't play as an Awakened Gorilla Wizard. Go on, I dare you.
Depends on the campaign.
Would work fine in some. Not in others. And it's not about "equally not real", it's about what fits in that particular campaign.
But who cares? If the problem is with them, then don't play with them. They don't want to play the kind of game you want to play, so you shouldn't be playing with them.
No. It doesn't. You're looking at it entirely wrong. It's not just a matter of "It's possible in the rules or by magic." It's a matter of fitting in the campaign at hand - fitting the mood. Fitting the theme. Having a character who wants to be there in the first place and who the other characters want to have there.
Canonical example: If you're playing Skull & Shackles, bring a character who wants to be a pirate. Your desert specialized paladin can wait for another game. (Note that S&S can be adapted to work for characters who don't want to be pirates, but if the rest of the groups wants to play pirates, then don't bring someone who doesn't fit.)
Uhm if the setting has Pathfinder magic, pretty much everything *does* fit the theme. A desert specialized Paladin could be a lot of fun to play in a campaign about Pirates. Heck, the reason the PC ends up in the party alone sounds like a fantastic story. Though I treat paladins fairly and hanging out with pirates is unlikely to make them fall.
I don't play what I want if I know what I want will bother the group.
For example, my first choice character in my current campaign was a warforged (converted, or using the PF android). The GM told me that warforged don't make sense in his setting for reasons that would spoil the plot.
So I'm playing a Suli monk/bloodrager and it's awesome.
On the other hand, the same game has a grippli PC who resulted from a unique magical curse rather than being a member of a species of frog-men, so not everything weird is automatically out.
PF involves group storytelling and that means compromise.
There is literally no way an Android could ruin the GM's setting unless it didn't have Pathfinder magic. If it did there is a 0% chance of that happening. Seriously, I'm going to need a justification as how that could ruin the GM's campaign.
Seriously, I'm going to need a justification as how that could ruin the GM's campaign.By the player being a tool about getting his way, and then not delivering on it in the game afterwards.
Playing the character you want to play isn't "getting your way" anymore then selecting Duck Hunt in Super Smash Bros. Wii U is "getting your way". How does an Android not fit in a setting with Pathfinder magic. Please give an actual explanation.
I did once (help) ruin a game by misunderstanding what the GM was looking for. It was a superhero game, not PF, but my character was rules legal and a superhero. The pitch, as I heard it, was kid sidekicks of 50s super-heroes. He wanted and the other players (except for me and one other) brought four-color 50s-style super-heroes - real hero types, bright and shiny.
The other guy brought a ninja kid and I brought a demon-child, apprenticed to the team's mage, learning about the human world and to control himself - redemption arc and all. Both were cool characters and would make perfectly good superheroes, but in a dark edgy nineties kind of way.
Needless to say, they clashed badly and the game only lasted a couple of sessions.Can you please explain for me how this 'clash' could possibly ruin the game? I'm really trying to wrap my head around it, because that conflict of themes sounds awesome to me.
Disclaimer: I was born in 1988
I am also confused by this. Anti-heroes and heroes wanting to solve problems differently is a staple of superhero stories.
|
How does an Android not fit in a setting with Pathfinder magic. Please give an actual explanation.
Sure. Okay. Let's see.
The realm has no 'outer space' area for alien starships to crash from, thus there are no forges for androids to be born from. No existent civilization has developed the technology to produce electronic constructs of that nature. So none of the Technology Guide or related materials from the bestiaries are allowed.
How does an Android not fit in a setting with Pathfinder magic. Please give an actual explanation.Sure. Okay. Let's see.
The realm has no 'outer space' area for alien starships to crash from, thus there are no forges for androids to be born from. No existent civilization has developed the technology to produce electronic constructs of that nature. So none of the Technology Guide or related materials from the bestiaries are allowed.
Gate. Inevitables.
Mad wizards prototype.Visitor from an alternate prime.
Just off the top of my head. I can go on if need be.
I did once (help) ruin a game by misunderstanding what the GM was looking for. It was a superhero game, not PF, but my character was rules legal and a superhero. The pitch, as I heard it, was kid sidekicks of 50s super-heroes. He wanted and the other players (except for me and one other) brought four-color 50s-style super-heroes - real hero types, bright and shiny.
The other guy brought a ninja kid and I brought a demon-child, apprenticed to the team's mage, learning about the human world and to control himself - redemption arc and all. Both were cool characters and would make perfectly good superheroes, but in a dark edgy nineties kind of way.
Needless to say, they clashed badly and the game only lasted a couple of sessions.Can you please explain for me how this 'clash' could possibly ruin the game? I'm really trying to wrap my head around it, because that conflict of themes sounds awesome to me.
Disclaimer: I was born in 1988
It's a clash of cultures, which to some (myself included) makes for a great game, and to others makes for a bad game.
Comic books in the 50s had some very distinct rules about what could be published and what couldn't (mostly for the large name brands, like Marvel). No dark themes, no anti-heroes, had to promote Americanism (this one may not be true), female characters couldn't be sexual or show off too much skin, heroes were heroes and villains could be redeemed, etc... It's pure 1950s white America. Granted, there were some exceptions - but those were in smaller brands of comics.
If that's the game someone wants to run and everyone at the table wants to play - except one person - then t *could* ruin a game if the majority aren't willing to deal with the culture clash. Especially if the game's premise is based upon everything being in a bright and shiny white America comic, where racism doesn't exist and the black man knows his place.
Take a look at some of the old comics. Go to your local comic book store and pick up one of the Essential books (preferably book 1 of one of the teams, like X-Men or Avengers), and you'll really see what I mean. I wanted to read through all the old X-men comics, and boy was it a chore to get through those early 50s comics, where everything was bright and shiny. Of course, I'm a huge fan of Sandman and Lucifer comics, so the dichotomy is pretty severe for me.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gate. Inevitables.
Oh, so you want to play an inevitable? That's different from an android.
Mad wizards prototype.
Mad wizard hasn't been born yet.
Visitor from an alternate prime.
Changing the setting. Actually, that's what all of these boil down to. You just refuse to accept a setting where androids don't exist.
And like I told BNW, the setting doesn't have to be this way. You're allowed to change it. That doesn't mean that the original setting is invalid.
Gate. Inevitables.Oh, so you want to play an inevitable? That's different from an android.
Mad wizards prototype.Mad wizard hasn't been born yet.
Visitor from an alternate prime.Changing the setting. Actually, that's what all of these boil down to. You just refuse to accept a setting where androids don't exist.
Your setting has Gate. Other planes exist. And Androids make perfect sense to be created by Inevitables. Your setting has magic, a mad wizard's prototype makes perfect sense.
I'm not changing the setting at all. There's no reason those explanations don't work, other then "I don't want them to".
|
|
Your setting has Gate. Other planes exist. And Androids make perfect sense to be created by Inevitables. Your setting has magic, a mad wizard's prototype makes perfect sense.
I'm not changing the setting at all. It already has magic.
Each of these things makes as much sense as each of them not existing. The setting can be written either way.
Each of these things makes as much sense as each of them not existing.Your setting has Gate. Other planes exist. And Androids make perfect sense to be created by Inevitables. Your setting has magic, a mad wizard's prototype makes perfect sense.
I'm not changing the setting at all. It already has magic.
Incorrect, because the player wants to play one. Therefore them existing makes more sense.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Incorrect, because the player wants to play one.
What you are talking about is not 'what makes sense', but 'who has control'. That is the real conflict you are fighting.
This boils down to one kid wanting to play cops and robbers and the other wanting to play cowboys and indians. Even while using the same sticks and rocks.
Incorrect, because the player wants to play one.What you are talking about is not 'what makes sense', but 'who has control'. That is the real conflict you are fighting.
This boils down to one kid wanting to play cops and robbers and the other wanting to play cowboys and indians. Even while using the same sticks and rocks.
Er... no. This is wanting to be a Law Man in your game of cowboys and indians. Especially, since Jack is playing a Cattle Rustler and Betty is a Pistol Dueler.
Well, since there is no "previous drow of folklore" and Gygax and Greenwood made up the Drow out of whole cloth, then why not?
"Dungeons & Dragons co-creator Gary Gygax stated that "Drow are mentioned in Keightley's The Fairy Mythology, as I recall (it might have been The Secret Commonwealth--neither book is before me, and it is not all that important anyway), and as Dark Elves of evil nature, they served as an ideal basis for the creation of a unique new mythos designed especially for the AD&D game."[9] The form "drow" can be found in neither work.[10] Gygax later stated that he took the term from a "listing in the Funk & Wagnall's Unexpurgated Dictionary, and no other source at all. "I wanted a most unusual race as the main power in the Underdark, so used the reference to 'dark elves' from the dictionary to create the Drow."[11]"
In other words, Gygax found a word and devised a brand new race out of it. Just like he did with having some weird little plastic toy 'dinosaurs" (two of which looked nothing like any real dino) and devising the Bulette and the Rust Monster. Just like Tolkien took the word "Orc" (and devised a new race from that. ("Orc" is an Old English word that pretty much just means "monster, "orcneas' was used in Beowulf, with uncertain translation).
Now "dark elf" and svartálfar and/or Dökkálfar are completely different. However, even those have only a rare mention outside the Eddas, and even there exactly what they are supposed to be is rather confusing. As kyrt-ryder and gamer-printer pointed out they are rather like dwarves or better yet duegar.
As mentioned earlier, the word "Drow" is indeed an alternative name for the Trow of the Orkney Islands, which were a race of fairie folk which were sort of like a cross between a troll and a fairy. I don't disagree with you that Gygax only used the name and didn't based Drow off of anything in the original folklore, but their is definitely a rich lore from the Orkney islands on Drow.
|
|
Er... no. This is wanting to be a sheriff in your game of cowboys and indians. Especially, since Jack is playing a Cattle Rustler and Betty is a pistol dueler.
Only if your sheriff is this guy walking into this story.
Er... no. This is wanting to be a sheriff in your game of cowboys and indians. Especially, since Jack is playing a Cattle Rustler and Betty is a pistol dueler.Only if your sheriff is this guy walking into this story.
Exactly. An improvement that makes for a unique story even if historical accuracy gets shoved to the side. That was what you were going for right?
Well, since there is no "previous drow of folklore" and Gygax and Greenwood made up the Drow out of whole cloth, then why not?What are you talking about? Ben even linked information about the previous drow of folklore. Gygax and Greenwood did make up the drow themselves, but their were creatures called Drow already in folklore/myth, and the D&D drow are a deviation from that form of drow.
Actually they used the term "trow", and "dark elf" and svartálfar and/or Dökkálfar . Gygax only saw the word, he didnt base his Drow after the Trow of the Okneys. They arent even close. In fact there the "dark elf" and svartálfar and/or Dökkálfar arent very much at all like Gygaxian "drow" except dark colors.
Er... no. This is wanting to be a sheriff in your game of cowboys and indians. Especially, since Jack is playing a Cattle Rustler and Betty is a pistol dueler.Only if your sheriff is this guy walking into this story.
I don't know...
I mean, I'm ok with railroading for an AP or a module, but reading off a script is a bit too much.
It was a joke. I'm trying to lighten the mood around here. It's definitely needed.
Wow, that tiers article is a really awful article. Makes it hard to take anything written on the blog particularly seriously.
|
|
There is literally no way an Android could ruin the GM's setting unless it didn't have Pathfinder magic. If it did there is a 0% chance of that happening. Seriously, I'm going to need a justification as how that could ruin the GM's campaign.
We haven't reached that point in the plot yet but I'm guessing it has something to do with the hints of a technologically superior fallen civilization we've seen around.
Incorrect, because the player wants to play one. Therefore them existing makes more sense.
When the player's character concept and the GM's setting concept conflict, why does the player win by default?
People in my group usually approach a campaign with multiple character concepts, or even no concept, and then develop a character that suits the campaign and party. The GM then frequently adjusts the setting according to player input - one of my players invented his character's hometown, another invented his religion, and a third invented both.
Collaborating in this way tends to produce results that are both interesting and believable. For example, one player wanted to play a hardboiled detective wizard with a pistol, and I told him that in the setting wizardry and firearms were both restricted to the nobility. He ended up being a defector/reformer whose personality conflicts with other nobles were a recurring theme.
Much better than five people coming to the table with five different games in mind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It was a joke. I'm trying to lighten the mood around here. It's definitely needed.What?
I SAID I CANT HEAR YOU!
It was a joke. I'm trying to lighten the mood around here. It's definitely needed.
I nominate jokes at Gimli's expense.
Wow, that tiers article is a really awful article. Makes it hard to take anything written on the blog particularly seriously.
i know that feel
Gygax only saw the word, he didnt base his Drow after the Trow of the Okneys. They arent even close.Well, since there is no "previous drow of folklore" and Gygax and Greenwood made up the Drow out of whole cloth, then why not?What are you talking about? Ben even linked information about the previous drow of folklore. Gygax and Greenwood did make up the drow themselves, but their were creatures called Drow already in folklore/myth, and the D&D drow are a deviation from that form of drow.
Thats the point. That he made up these things, that don't come from the tradition of drow, but now if you modified drow now from the tradition gygax set people get annoyed, despite the fact that the gygaxian drow themselves are a break from tradition.
|
Thats the point. That he made up these things, that don't come from the tradition of drow, but now if you modified drow now from the tradition gygax set people get annoyed, despite the fact that the gygaxian drow themselves are a break from tradition.Gygax only saw the word, he didnt base his Drow after the Trow of the Okneys. They arent even close.Well, since there is no "previous drow of folklore" and Gygax and Greenwood made up the Drow out of whole cloth, then why not?What are you talking about? Ben even linked information about the previous drow of folklore. Gygax and Greenwood did make up the drow themselves, but their were creatures called Drow already in folklore/myth, and the D&D drow are a deviation from that form of drow.
Thats kinda irrelevant though since they are complaining about changing gygaxian drow and not the real life mythology version. They aren't anything a like, so person complaining about former has no reason to care about latter. As in, you can't say "You can't complain about changing D&D drow because drow themselves aren't like original drow!" since thats not what they are arguing about.
(though I'm bit confused of what we are actually talking about since I thought original post in this quote chain was about "Since gygax made them up, can't they change them as much as they want?" instead of "Since gygax made them up, you can't change them at all!" and I'm too tired to check earlier posts <_< If someone was actually arguing about latter, I guess you could say that "Gygax changed drow already" is valid argument, though it wouldn't matter much since person would likely be talking about D&D Drow since Gygax did make those up even if name was taken from somewhere else)
Plus there are tons of examples were word for something originally meant completely different thing. Like most of D&D monsters for example xD Tarrasque doesn't look anything like mythological version, yet if D&D one was changed, pretty much all people surely would complain about changing it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the other hand, the same game has a grippli PC who resulted from a unique magical curse rather than being a member of a species of frog-men, so not everything weird is automatically out.PF involves group storytelling and that means compromise.
So i got turned into a frog, and then kissed by this girl who said she was a princess, but it turns out she was only a dutchess so... 3/4 of the way there i suppose...
Comic books in the 50s had some very distinct rules about what could be published and what couldn't (mostly for the large name brands, like Marvel). No dark themes, no anti-heroes, had to promote Americanism (this one may not be true), female characters couldn't be sexual or show off too much skin, heroes were heroes and villains could be redeemed, etc... It's pure 1950s white America. Granted, there were some exceptions - but those were in smaller brands of comics.That at least is not entirely correst. Take a look at Wonder Woman's 1950s costume. Even the one that expanded her back coverage after the Comics' Code came in is still swimsuit level coverage. In general though I agree with your points, and would have been very doubtful about a "demon-child learning redemption" character as a good fit for that era. Even the periods Batman is hardly the anti-hero he sometimes appears as.
True, but even the 1950s wonder woman was still at least "swimsuit" (as you say), compared to the 90s version of sexualized T&A.
Here's a classic example of the 50s version.
sorry for that tangent...
my reply to DrDeth was against his comment that Drow were completely invented. They existed before Gygax, just not in the form DnD fans are familiar with.
Maybe an error in editing, but both links point to the same picture.Comic books in the 50s had some very distinct rules about what could be published and what couldn't (mostly for the large name brands, like Marvel). No dark themes, no anti-heroes, had to promote Americanism (this one may not be true), female characters couldn't be sexual or show off too much skin, heroes were heroes and villains could be redeemed, etc... It's pure 1950s white America. Granted, there were some exceptions - but those were in smaller brands of comics.That at least is not entirely correst. Take a look at Wonder Woman's 1950s costume. Even the one that expanded her back coverage after the Comics' Code came in is still swimsuit level coverage. In general though I agree with your points, and would have been very doubtful about a "demon-child learning redemption" character as a good fit for that era. Even the periods Batman is hardly the anti-hero he sometimes appears as.True, but even the 1950s wonder woman was still at least "swimsuit" (as you say), compared to the 90s version of sexualized T&A.
Here's a classic example of the 50s version.
I just tried to edit them, and they are different links. I opened them up, and they go to the appropriate links for me.