Have you ever wanted to play a non golarion canon in pathfinder but you GM doesn't let you?
For example: I want to play a Sith Named Jerico but my GM said ¨NO, IT IS NON CANON, WAYT FOR STARFINDER, BLA BLA BLA...¨
Duuuude, I Don't want to wait it's only a Daring Champion saying he fights supernatural.
¨BUT HE SUL´T EXIST¨
You get the point
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Certain characters (e.g. goofy ones, blatant references) don't fit the feel the GM and possibly other players are looking for, and they break immersion. Often, it's possible to find a build/backstory/character that will work for both parties. Unless it's a goofy game, explicitly playing a Sith will be disruptive. You can probably include a lot of what you actually want, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Thaks, But Wat´s a newsletter? :O
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Have you ever wanted to play a non golarion canon in pathfinder but you GM doesn't let you?
For example: I want to play a Sith Named Jerico but my GM said ¨NO, IT IS NON CANON, WAYT FOR STARFINDER, BLA BLA BLA...¨
Duuuude, I Don't want to wait it's only a Daring Champion saying he fights supernatural.
¨BUT HE SUL´T EXIST¨You get the point
I generally soak my head in a bucket until such notions go away.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, I'd let you play it but...no one would no who the Sith are and everyone would think you're crazy. There would be no "force" although there would be magic, that could do the things that you claim you can with the force (even though you can't actually because mechanically you're a swashbuckler). So while your character might have grand ideas of being an intimidating dude in a black robe/cape everyone else is just going to think "There goes Ricky, dude ain't right in the head".
That being said, refusing to allow you to play a character because it breaks immersion is valid. If the GM considers it to be disruptive, or it later becomes disruptive to the game is a good as reason as "it breaks the rules" or even "it breaks the game despite being legal".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After playing with another player who quite literally made his character as a caricature of Harambe (for Iron Gods of all things), I'm wishing your GM was around for that short campaign.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can say that I've played non-cannon characters before.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it's about "canon" so much as "that concept doesn't really fit the sort of game I'm running" or occasionally something like "that's a bit of a stretch, let me tell you about the idea for the game and you can see if you can justify how you'd fit into it" (like if your concept is "protector of tribal lands who has sworn to never leave the mountains" it's going to be rough if this is a sailing campaign.)
Like a gunslinger (pre-Bolt Ace) in a world without guns, or a wizard in a low-magic campaign will generally get vetoed.
But as for "Golarion Cannon" the GM is free to overrule absolutely anything in a published book and still call the world "Golarion" but the players really aren't, without GM approval. If you want GM approval, sometimes you've got to sell it. If you're playing a Pathfinder version of something, don't say "I'm playing [that thing]" say "I'm playing a character inspired by [that thing]."
As for "you have a silly joke character that gets old" as a problem, that generally gets solved by the rest of the group telling that player to make a new one.
I tell people if they want to play a Sith play Star Wars. There's no room in my campaign for classes that aren't made for Pathfinder.
Cal, I don't think he was talking about playing a Sith as its own class. Seems to me he's talking about flavoring a character in an existing class as being a "Sith".
If that's the case, then I apologize for being snippy. I've had a pretty rotten day and I seem to be taking it out on everyone.
Have you ever wanted to play a non golarion canon in pathfinder but you GM doesn't let you?
For example: I want to play a Sith Named Jerico but my GM said ¨NO, IT IS NON CANON, WAYT FOR STARFINDER, BLA BLA BLA...¨
Duuuude, I Don't want to wait it's only a Daring Champion saying he fights supernatural.
¨BUT HE SUL´T EXIST¨You get the point
If you read down to my reply, let me apologize for it. I spouted off something rude and I shouldn't have. I've had a bad day and it's been taken out on everyone around me. I hope you accept my apology. I didn't mean to be rude, but it just happened and it shouldn't have.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Depends on the campaign.
Not all ideas work for all campaigns. I tend to respect the GM's wishes in these matters,since when I GM, I expect the same courtesy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there's a fundamental difference in mindset that occurs when you refer to your character as something from an entirely different world/setting. I'm fine with a mystical warrior swordsman with a particular moral code, but the second you frame it in another setting, like Star Wars, I have a problem with it. Part of this is my own bias as a GM/player, but part of it is also that I know it's coloring your perception of your own character in a way that breaks immersion for everybody.
I think it's fine for a GM to refuse a concept that doesn't mesh with their campaign. Heck, I'm running Hell's Rebels right now and the players' guide has restrictions for non-evil, non-lawful characters, with restrictions on deities and personality types that don't fit the adventure. That's just how games operate.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'd say a lot depends on what exactly you mean by playing a Sith. If we're talking about a literal Sith directly imported from the Star Wars universe and constantly referencing Star Wars stuff ... then I could see that breaking immersion for a lot of games.
On the other hand, taking inspiration from the Sith for your character is perfectly fine. If you want a Sith in the sense of a badass sword-swinger who shoots lightning and follows some variant of the Sith Code ... yeah, I could see a Chaotic Neutral Magus (or Evil, if your group's cool with evil characters) doing all of that quite nicely.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I make my players make their characters to fit the story/setting. If some of them wants to import some Sith filosophy for his character in a way that fits the story I let him and even encourage him to do it if it sounds cool. But playing a character that doesn't come from the setting is often disruptive and ruins all the sense of reality.
I like making some references that my players can understand as inner jokes, but I take a lot of care that they can fit the setting.
P.ex. in Skull and Shackles the cook Ambrose Kroop told the PCs of a chef in Port Peril who yelled a lot and told him he was a disgrace because he had lost his passion for cooking. We all knew it was a Kitchen Nightmares reference. We laughed about it. But it sounded that something that could happen so it didn't seem quite off.
I also made the boggards in Way of the Wicked sound a bit like WoW's murlocks.
I admit I love adding these small references in my games, but not too often and always making sure they fit into the setting and they are not goofy .
I am playing a Star Wars Saga Edition Jedi in a friend's campaign set in Golarion. It's for play-testing purposes for my own Iron Gods campaign, but everyone was jazzed when I asked the GM if I could play it. Basically he's a psychic monk from a monastic order called the J'dai. His order refers to psychic magic as The Force. We had to tweak how light sabers worked, starting feats, and the Jedi skill list since Saga Edition skills work a bit differently than Pathfinder. So far it's been fun, though he almost bit it last session.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Depends on the campaign.
Not all ideas work for all campaigns.
Yeah, this. One of the responsibilities of the GM is to create a fun environment for the table as a whole. One of the responsibilities of the player is to refrain from gratuitously breaking that environment.
If I've been requested to run a dark-and-gritty Seven Samurai knockoff, and someone's already delivered a character sheet Mifune Toshiro, a brawler with three pages of detailed background that I'm supposed to work into the campaign somehow, it would be fairly dickish of me to make the first adventure rescuing Princess Peach Toadstool from the clutches of King Bowser.
... and it would also be pretty dickish of me to allow you to play the Italian plumber Luigi Mario.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, rescuing Princess Yodogimi from the clutches of Warlord Akechi Mitsuhide could be pretty gritty too... even if your campaign is more likely centered around protecting the haunted village of Asami Mura from its ghosts and roving bandits.
Not to be THIS guy, but 6 days later after his post, I'm sure he gets "No that's not a valid argument" as the answer to his question.
I reject all Mario related material... if I'mDMing, don't even ask
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cal, I don't think he was talking about playing a Sith as its own class. Seems to me he's talking about flavoring a character in an existing class as being a "Sith".
I'm sorry but in my games, you don't get to play Sith or Jedi in Greyhawk. The "flavor" simply does not belong, any more than the story or the classes do.
Cal, I don't think he was talking about playing a Sith as its own class. Seems to me he's talking about flavoring a character in an existing class as being a "Sith".I'm sorry but in my games, you don't get to play Sith or Jedi in Greyhawk. The "flavor" simply does not belong, any more than the story or the classes do.
A character in your game couldn't say they draw strength from their anger? Banning Barbarian seems harsh to me, but it's your game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a significant difference between saying "I gain strength from my anger" and saying "I'm a Sith lord".
There's a significant difference between saying "I gain strength from my anger" and saying "I'm a Sith lord".
I guess the question is ultimately "what does the player find appealing about the Sith so that he wants to play one". Since if it's like the ethos, the wardrobe, the philosophy, etc. then all that stuff can be translated without a lot of work. If it's "the connection to other stuff in Star Wars" then it's just not going to work.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a significant difference between saying "I gain strength from my anger" and saying "I'm a Sith lord".I guess the question is ultimately "what does the player find appealing about the Sith so that he wants to play one". Since if it's like the ethos, the wardrobe, the philosophy, etc. then all that stuff can be translated without a lot of work. If it's "the connection to other stuff in Star Wars" then it's just not going to work.
I will totally find a place for a person who wants to play a character with this given set of traits. I however will not connect my world to George Lucas' just because someone wants to walk around with a red lightsaber, black cloak, and heavy breathing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will totally find a place for a person who wants to play a character with this given set of traits. I however will not connect my world to George Lucas' just because someone wants to walk around with a red lightsaber, black cloak, and heavy breathing.There's a significant difference between saying "I gain strength from my anger" and saying "I'm a Sith lord".I guess the question is ultimately "what does the player find appealing about the Sith so that he wants to play one". Since if it's like the ethos, the wardrobe, the philosophy, etc. then all that stuff can be translated without a lot of work. If it's "the connection to other stuff in Star Wars" then it's just not going to work.
Mechanics are often much easier to translate than traits, because traits are what people interact with, and traits therefore are generally what will make (or unmake) the feeling and atmosphere of the campaign.
Yes, it's perfectly legitimate for someone to want to play a halfling telekineticist. However, if you want to make him green, bald, with pointy ears and Grover's voice, and talks in a garbled syntax he does, that can actively distract from other people's enjoyment of the game.
There's a good quote from the 5e DMG, but it's generally valid across the board of RPGs.
It's a good idea to establish some ground rules with your players at the start of a new campaign. In a group consisting of Sithis, Travok, Anastrianna, and Kairon, the human fighter named Bob II sticks out, especially when he's identical to Bob I, who was killed by kobolds. If everyone takes a lighthearted approach to names, that's fine. If the group would rather the characters and their names more seriously, urge Bob's player to come up with a more appropriate name. [Ed. and arguably a more imaginative character, too.]
Player character names should match each other in flavor or concept, and they should also match the flavor of your campaign world---so should the nonplayer characters' names and place names you create. Travok and Kairon don't want to undertake a quest for Lord Cupcake, visit Gumdrop Island, or take down a crazy wizard named Ray.
What about a character who suffers from delusions? He thinks he's from some other universe. The voices in his head give him details of this other world.
Schizophrenia is a real thing. In Golarion gods of madness exist.
What about a character who suffers from delusions? He thinks he's from some other universe. The voices in his head give him details of this other world.
Schizophrenia is a real thing. In Golarion gods of madness exist.
9 out of 10 times I'd say "Thank you, but no, let's try to stick a little closer to what the rest of the table is going for. We're playing an Anything Goes game on Friday for things like you are trying."
Yes, it's perfectly legitimate for someone to want to play a halfling telekineticist. However, if you want to make him green, bald, with pointy ears and Grover's voice, and talks in a garbled syntax he does, that can actively distract from other people's enjoyment of the game.
Actually green, bald and pointy ears fit very well to a certain other Small sized and well-known race...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, it's perfectly legitimate for someone to want to play a halfling telekineticist. However, if you want to make him green, bald, with pointy ears and Grover's voice, and talks in a garbled syntax he does, that can actively distract from other people's enjoyment of the game.Actually green, bald and pointy ears fit very well to a certain other Small sized and well-known race...
Irradiated svirfneblin?
Irradiated svirfneblin?Yes, it's perfectly legitimate for someone to want to play a halfling telekineticist. However, if you want to make him green, bald, with pointy ears and Grover's voice, and talks in a garbled syntax he does, that can actively distract from other people's enjoyment of the game.Actually green, bald and pointy ears fit very well to a certain other Small sized and well-known race...
Of course!
To generalize the point: The more Pathfinder options you consider, the more seamlessly you can integrate foreign content. Of course, there are still limits - but on the other hand, as a player you will not only import a favored part of a foreign universe but also let it interact with the (usually) rich campaign world.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What about a character who suffers from delusions? He thinks he's from some other universe. The voices in his head give him details of this other world.
Schizophrenia is a real thing. In Golarion gods of madness exist.
Schizophrenia is a real thing. And, as someone who has known people who suffered from it, I can tell you it's also a terrible thing, not something to make fun of.
A mentally deranged or unstable character might be interesting if portrayed in a non goofy non parodic way. But using it for portraying a goofy completely out of context character can be offensive.