Keep It (Your Race/Class Choice) Simple, Silly!

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Over on another forum, I'm planning on running a Pathfinder adventure path, Council of Thieves for those who are curious. There was a great deal of enthusiasm for the game, but within the last week, I've reread the adventure path, as well as commentary and criticism of it on Paizo's forums, and I realized that I misrepresented the campaign to the players.

The problem has sort of arisen in that virtually all the players wanted to play some exotic race/class combo. The party was shaping up to include:

2 aasimars, one with the Mighty Godling 3rd party class
1 kitsune
1 dhampir Zen Archer
and a human ninja

I began to feel after my reread and reassesment that this party didn't fit the kind of narrative Council of Thieves is trying to tell. That the PCs are local nobodies who become heroes by cleaning up their hometown because no one else is going to do it for them. A very local, very simple atmosphere. While one exotic race is allowed in the form of tieflings, who make up a large population of the city the adventure path is set in, stuff like aasimars and kitsune should probably be rare.

I've asked the players if maybe they can revise their characters somewhat to help make the campaign a bit more grounded. Some have agreed, others are trying to persuade me to keep their original character (the kitsune's player in particular), but overall I get a general sense that the enthusiasm for the campaign has been dampened dramatically by this.

Did I do the right thing by asking them to transition more towards core stuff that would fit the tone of the campaign better? Or should I have allowed all the wierd combinations the Advanced Race Guide and the new aasimar book have allowed? I want to run this game, but I feel like few of the players are interested now that they can't play their scion of the goddess of justice, or foxgirl celebrity diva.

[Togath]

I would say you should allow the alternate choices, as you didn't state from the start you didn't want them to play those races(not 100% sure how the kitsune is a problem, as it's not a catgirl style race[the default fluff anyway has it as a fox, a multi tailed oddly coloured fox, or a human] it should be able to fit into any setting where any near human race could fit)

[Madfellow]

I wouldn't say you did anything wrong, but if anyone's really pushing for their exotic character, I think you should let them keep it. Maybe see if you can re-fluff their character idea so they keep the same abilities, but have a different background.

[Flickerdart]

Why can't rare races stand up and defend their hometown? In fact, it could work even better - they might be outcasts in their society due to being different, and take up the mantle of the city's defender to prove that they at least deserve respect.

Really, just about any character can fit into just about any module. All you need is a little creativity.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

The kitsune's player and I have met halfway. She gets to play a kitsune with the caveat that she was brought to Westcrown by a nanny when she was a child, so Westcrown feels more like home than Tian Xia did.

[Kol Korran]

Most times, at least some of the players will have a fairly different feel of the setting, despite you explaining it, as many things can be understood in different ways, and some things are left to interpretation, which may be different from you and your players.

Explaining things does help, but can't prevent things. I often find it useful to list things that may be banned/ limited in some way before hand. (I try to do little of this unless there is a good reason).

As to your question- I sort of understand your reasoning, and accept it if you wish to set this tone for the campaign. Though I tend to leave character choices up to the players- collaborative story telling and all that.

If you felt this is important, then it's best to have been dealt with now, rather then later, where it could have messed the campaign seriously (though I can't quite see how, but then again- I don't know the campaign). people will find new characters and most likely equally excited. A race does not a character make. (At least in my opinion).

I would try to find ways to make their odd races possible if you can, fit into the story somehow. As have been mentioned- it might take a bit of creativity (An orphanage that took the odd bits of life into its hearth? Might get some of the characters interlinked from the start).

One thing I'd be worried about as a player though- how much does the DM wants this to be a collaborative story telling, and how much is he "wanting to tell his own story"?

[Yora]

I usually start campaigns by stating what races and classes are available for PCs. Since the very first thing is to ask them any if they have any preferences for what type of campaign it is going to be, and in 10 years not a single player had any, they have nothing to complain about. :smallwink:
When you notice the problem only after characters have been chosen, tell the players you made a mistake and explain why this campaign wouldn't work.

[Gamer Girl]

Did I do the right thing by asking them to transition more towards core stuff that would fit the tone of the campaign better? Or should I have allowed all the wierd combinations the Advanced Race Guide and the new aasimar book have allowed? I want to run this game, but I feel like few of the players are interested now that they can't play their scion of the goddess of justice, or foxgirl celebrity diva.


This is very, very common. Most players like exotic. It's boring to be 'just a human or even a human copy like an elf. And oddly, most DMs and published setting adventures are stuck in the 1066 mindset: the world is all dirt poor dirt farmers with a couple kings and nobles in Europe.

Myself, this is why I run a high magic, high fantasy game: what the players pick does not matter. Aasimars? Fine your character is from the Protected Aasimar Ghetto. Kitsune? My world is full of cat folk, so easy. and so on.

[Totally Guy]

I have said "This is a game about orcs violently exiled from their tribes." The game wouldn't have fit that premise if the players weren't playing orcs.

The campaign concept was altered slightly to one of uniting the tribes to reform the horde. But that was through input from the players and also incorporated the initial premise.

I think you made a good call.

[Gettles]

This is very, very common. Most players like exotic. It's boring to be 'just a human or even a human copy like an elf. And oddly, most DMs and published setting adventures are stuck in the 1066 mindset: the world is all dirt poor dirt farmers with a couple kings and nobles in Europe.


I think its also that the more obscure races have less "baggage" attached to them. There is less pressure to conform to stereotypes such as the snobbish, tree-hugging elf or the surly drunken dwarf.

[supermonkeyjoe]

I have the exact opposite problem, al of my players stick with the common PHB races/ races of eberron selection!

I would say let them keep their race/classes so long as they can adequately justify their characters motivations, it should really be all about the characters, rather than just what combination of game mechanics they have.

[Kalmageddon]

I think that giving a selection of races and classes available for the players at their character creation is a fair and good thing do to. A good campaign should have a distinct atmosphere and if the PC's don't fit that's a big problem.

The important thing is talking about it with the players beforehand and being firm but calm in explaining your reasons, or you might end up with compromises that don't make anyone happy.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

This is very, very common. Most players like exotic. It's boring to be 'just a human or even a human copy like an elf. And oddly, most DMs and published setting adventures are stuck in the 1066 mindset: the world is all dirt poor dirt farmers with a couple kings and nobles in Europe.

Myself, this is why I run a high magic, high fantasy game: what the players pick does not matter. Aasimars? Fine your character is from the Protected Aasimar Ghetto. Kitsune? My world is full of cat folk, so easy. and so on.
Kitsune are fox-related, not cat-related.

Technically this campaign isn't in the 1066 mindset. More the 1492-ish mindset. It's basically Renaissance Venice if it had been ruled by Italian Nazis.

[kyoryu]

I usually start campaigns by stating what races and classes are available for PCs. Since the very first thing is to ask them any if they have any preferences for what type of campaign it is going to be, and in 10 years not a single player had any, they have nothing to complain about. :smallwink:
When you notice the problem only after characters have been chosen, tell the players you made a mistake and explain why this campaign wouldn't work.

One of the things I've picked up from Burning Wheel is the idea of campaign buy-in. Before you even start planning, discuss with your players what kind of game you're going to be playing, the setting, etc.


This is very, very common. Most players like exotic. It's boring to be 'just a human or even a human copy like an elf. And oddly, most DMs and published setting adventures are stuck in the 1066 mindset: the world is all dirt poor dirt farmers with a couple kings and nobles in Europe.

I don't understand the "humans are boring" mentality. The vast, vast majority of well-loved characters in fiction are human. Having an "interesting character" is far more about *who* the character is than it is about *what* the character is. That's not arguing, of course, that non-humans or exotic races are boring or examples of poor roleplaying. Just that there's no reason for a human character to be automatically "boring" and no reason why adding animal ears and fur to a boring human character makes them inherently more interesting.