PDA

View Full Version : Character Races: Do players get a choice?



Maglubiyet
2015-03-16, 02:54 PM
My first few pick up games outside my group of friends I was shocked by the diversity people tried to embody in a game world. GM's would give loose instructions about character creation beforehand. As a consequence the parties would end up being the most god-awful combinations of races and backgrounds (to say nothing of classes and alignments for those systems that have them). You get things like: a half-pixie weretiger, a techno gnome, a fallen half-angel/half-demon alien, a psionic minotaur, and always that one dwarf straight out of LotR.

I'm all for letting players have the characters they want to play, and for one shot games, no problem. But in many of these extreme cases, party composition alone would be enough sink a group before it even began. So when I run a campaign I'm very clear up front about which races are allowed as PC's. In my mind this makes a more coherent game world and I don't need to explain how a cyclops, an awakened camel, and an aquatic elf all ended up sitting in the same tavern together.

I've found this doesn't always sit well with new players. Is this just my own hang-up -- am I just being a "racist" here, uncomfortable with the full diversity that modern gaming worlds offer?

Beta Centauri
2015-03-16, 03:07 PM
I've encountered the same issue. I tend to prefer very simple, standard characters, and races with any uniqueness coming from reflavorings of those. But if I give anyone half a chance (which I prefer to do) I end up with a motley crew of monstrous characters and convoluted class combinations. This bothers me particularly when I'm hoping to run a game that sticks to a certain theme or tone.

Some people are simply not interested in making standard characters. I can understand that, and so I could understand not liking being restricted in one's options, even if one isn't trying to make something overpowered. I don't like to pick players based on the kind of character they apply with, but I guess I'm starting to see the point. I don't know if you have that option in a live game, but maybe you can ask people to provide a range of characters they're willing to play, and then you choose the ones you think make the most "coherent" party. If people want to play in your games, they'll soon learn how to make characters they enjoy that also fit your preferences.

I recommend making it clear what you prefer, but doing so as broadly as possible. It seems like what you prefer is a coherent game world, so make it clear what you mean by that so that players can try to create characters that fit your idea of "coherency." You'll still get some oddness, but I recommend rolling with it as much as possible. Remember that there are other people who can help explain oddness in the party make up, and as it will help make it easier to play what they want they have a big incentive to offer such explanations.

kaoskonfety
2015-03-16, 03:11 PM
Grab bags happen when the DM allows it. Nearly every player I've gamed with has had SOME off the wall idea or another they just been itching to see the light of day.

Granted the list you provide looks more like Gamma World than D&D, but I've heard of worse.

Experience from GURPS has shown me to set clear guidelines or have the players sit down together to work on their characters as a party. By default "only core, everything else requires approval" will at least let you see what is coming before there is a huge pile of it at your door.

Yora
2015-03-16, 03:14 PM
In my games there are usually only three or four races to pick from, depending on where the game takes place.

cobaltstarfire
2015-03-16, 03:15 PM
Yes, players get a choice, but that choice may or may not be tempered by the GM and the setting.

Some game worlds don't have a full spectrum of races, and some do. There's nothing wrong with either.

I normally play in games that are very open, that come with the warning that there will of course be consequences as the people of that world responds to whatever your character is and does.

If you don't want the players to make a weird party, than make very clear what your expectations are for their party makeup, and do character generation as a group.

jaydubs
2015-03-16, 03:22 PM
As a DM, I just say any of the standard races are allowed. If you want something more exotic, talk to me about it first for approval. As long as it doesn't totally clash with the setting, and isn't something too powerful, I'll probably okay it.

Honestly though, I find that different races are rarely a problem unless there's some setting based racial animosity between them. Or some kind of weird limitation (either setting or mechanical), like never going out in the day, or only breathing in water, or being grounds for instant arrest and execution.

Alignment can be a bit trickier. But so long as the character are flexible about it, even opposite alignments can co-exist in the same party.

gom jabbarwocky
2015-03-16, 03:28 PM
As someone for whom D&D is no where near my go-to game, I kind of figure that having a party full of weirdos was kind of part-and-parcel of the experience. The party consists of a ogre minstrel, a minotaur pirate, and a centaur cleric? You must be playing D&D!

I also figure that if you're having trouble inventing a reason as to why these freaks are even sharing the same room, well, tell the players that's their job to figure it out. You've got bigger fish to fry.

At the same time, if you want to establish rigid boundaries as to what kinds of PCs are permitted in your games, and which ones aren't, well, it is your game, right? As a GM, you can do that. It's not unheard of for GMs to say, "look, guys, we're just sticking to core, none of that weird stuff, okay?"

themaque
2015-03-16, 03:42 PM
Just so long as you're clear with the party right up front, that shouldn't be bad. Restrictions can be good.

Just let them go crazy now and again. Could be fun.

goto124
2015-03-16, 11:43 PM
Honestly though, I find that different races are rarely a problem unless there's some setting based racial animosity between them. Or some kind of weird limitation (either setting or mechanical), like never going out in the day, or only breathing in water, or being grounds for instant arrest and execution.


As someone for whom D&D is no where near my go-to game, I kind of figure that having a party full of weirdos was kind of part-and-parcel of the experience. The party consists of a ogre minstrel, a minotaur pirate, and a centaur cleric? You must be playing D&D!

At the same time, if you want to establish rigid boundaries as to what kinds of PCs are permitted in your games, and which ones aren't, well, it is your game, right? As a GM, you can do that. It's not unheard of for GMs to say, "look, guys, we're just sticking to core, none of that weird stuff, okay?"

I was thinking mostly this. It is a fantasy world- I want to see all these races, even if they're just humans with funny hats. Hats are cool.

It's also okay to restrict the PC races though, for whatever reason (which seems to be mostly 'to limit weirdness'). Just let the players know beforehand.


I also figure that if you're having trouble inventing a reason as to why these freaks are even sharing the same room, well, tell the players that's their job to figure it out. You've got bigger fish to fry.

It can be as simple as 'we're all helping one another to reach our goals'. A CE won't mind helping an LG if it fulfils her goals. Alignment problems often manifest in other ways though, and that's outside the scop of this thread.

Vrock_Summoner
2015-03-16, 11:52 PM
You think this is just a race issue? I mostly play in standard race or even human-only games, and it's still weird how we end up with a party consisting of a demon-sumoning cultist whose aims vary from world domination to just protecting his friends, a lunatic with every cliche tragedy packed simultaneously into his backstory for "depth," a pickpocket who ran from a lynching sentence, and a former guardsman who just wants to earn an honest buck.

Gritmonger
2015-03-16, 11:57 PM
Honestly, I go with what the players prefer.

I've had parties that were almost all just humans, and I've had a Half-Ogre, a Wemic, a Human Wizard, and a Quarter-Treasure-Troll in one party. If the players want a chaotic mix of character types, it's up to me to come up with a reason and a story.

If the players detail a more limited environment, then they are wanting to either stay in those limits, or come up with really good in-character reasons for why they are who they are.

Really, all my job consists of is generating a world around the characters the players want to play. And if they want to play a really wacky combination of misfits - the reigns are off on me as well.

YossarianLives
2015-03-16, 11:58 PM
I find a world with hundreds of races out there. All sentient and developed, very, very unrealistic, silly, and unmanageable. But I'm also fine with 'weirdness'. Especially if the character is interesting and fresh.

With that in mind encouraging 'weirdness' can also lead to having chaotic-stupid murderhobos.

Darth Ultron
2015-03-17, 12:09 AM
Players should have a choice.

The DM makes the setting and the set races, but after that...the players can choose whatever they want to play.

Why is it even a big deal if the group is full of crazy races? So what if they are different races? So what if ''most'' of the races don't get along. Even if every single elf and drow hate each other to death....there can still be a couple of elves and drow that can be friends.

Even more so ''an adventuring group'' is an ''elite group'' that exists on the edge of ''normal society''. So, finding an elf and dwarf in an adventuring group is common, for example. But the other 99.9% of elves and dwarves don't even speak to each other much.

I think too many DM's get locked into ''D&D must be exactly like Earth in 1300 AD.'' And I never really understood why.

Mastikator
2015-03-17, 01:05 AM
[snip] You get things like: a half-pixie weretiger, a techno gnome, a fallen half-angel/half-demon alien, a psionic minotaur, and always that one dwarf straight out of LotR.
[snip]
This is the sort of thing that would completely throw me off, why does playing any of those races count as ok, but burning down an orphanage and assassinating the king in the nude count as "derailing the game" (I assume it wouldn't fly as "serious roleplaying")? I don't get how choosing to create a preposterous character doesn't count as not being serious.

If it's not supposed to be serious, if you're just goofing off, then it's no problem for me.

Edit-
About choice, my opinion is the same as Henry Ford's about his Model T 1909, you can choose any race, as long as you choose human.

Gritmonger
2015-03-17, 01:13 AM
This is the sort of thing that would completely throw me off, why does playing any of those races count as ok, but burning down an orphanage and assassinating the king in the nude count as "derailing the game" (I assume it wouldn't fly as "serious roleplaying")? I don't get how choosing to create a preposterous character doesn't count as not being serious.

If it's not supposed to be serious, if you're just goofing off, then it's no problem for me.

Edit-
About choice, my opinion is the same as Henry Ford's about his Model T 1909, you can choose any race, as long as you choose human.

Eh, as silly as some concepts might sound, a lot of it is in roleplay. You can have a vanilla party of all humans who just don't take anything seriously, while the half-pixie weretiger might be wanting to otherwise make a very serious stab at roleplaying.

So, my brother who played the quarter-treasure-troll didn't play up being descended from a scandinavian desk toy; it was an initial impulse, but his playing in-game was quite different, and his quarter-treasure-troll only came up when they faced a dragon.

Vitruviansquid
2015-03-17, 02:08 AM
There are actually DM's out there who let the players play whatever kind of character they want?

The notion is as outlandish to me as a DM telling you exactly what race and class to play.

BWR
2015-03-17, 03:05 AM
It all depends on the game. Some settings are very restrictive in what they allow - L5R for instance, or Ars Magica etc. (good luck convincing the GM to allow non-humans there). Others are less so, like Star Wars. D&D games, which this is obviously about, vary. I've played in single-race games and have had a blast. I've also played in rather loose settings and had fun. Diversity in a game generally requires a setting that is open to it. I wouldn't want a party consisting of a non-magical spellweaver, a reformed illithid, a sentient black pudding and a lovesick galeb-duhr in anything resembling standard Dragonlance (or FR, GH, Mystara, etc.) but it could work in Planescape - sure they'd be an odd group but there are weirder things out there.

The biggest problem I have with all this diversity is that players, IME, rarely if ever play the race as anything but a collection of stats with a thin veneer of basically human personality spread over it. Different conceptions of justice, or society or time or anything. This also applies to any of the common non-human races like elves or dwarves. And while I can certainly understand the appeal of playing something with fun mechanics and odd looks, it seems like such wasted roleplaying potential to ignore the actual important differences in a character and only focus on the mechanics.

goto124
2015-03-17, 03:35 AM
The biggest problem I have with all this diversity is that players, IME, rarely if ever play the race as anything but a collection of stats with a thin veneer of basically human personality spread over it. Different conceptions of justice, or society or time or anything. This also applies to any of the common non-human races like elves or dwarves. And while I can certainly understand the appeal of playing something with fun mechanics and odd looks, it seems like such wasted roleplaying potential to ignore the actual important differences in a character and only focus on the mechanics.

Huh. The 'wasted roleplaying potential' doesn't bother me much somehow. I personally see no point in forcing players to nab 'human' instead of 'elf' just because the character concept doesn't deal much with elf-ness (unless the setting is really specific about elf-ness, but that's rare).

And then again, I'm an anti-antirollplayer, if that makes any sense.

Mr.Moron
2015-03-17, 04:18 AM
There are actually DM's out there who let the players play whatever kind of character they want?

The notion is as outlandish to me as a DM telling you exactly what race and class to play.

I've played exclusively under those sort of GMs. Seeing how those games turn out is exactly why I don't run things that way myself.

I pretty much always restrict character choices to those that reflect the environment around them.

Gettles
2015-03-17, 05:12 AM
I find it adorable that you think that replacing a thri-Keene and goliath with a human and a dwarf will cause a group to take things any more seriously.

Komatik
2015-03-17, 05:23 AM
Let's go to the Warhammer World.

To Marienburg.
A party of a human, a high elf from a merchant colony, a dwarf and an ogre. This actually works out pretty fine. There'll probably be some squabbling, but it's okay.

Now:
A human from Araby, a wood elf from Loren, a Slayer and an ogre warrior from the Mountains of Mourn.
Holy cluster**** batman.

goto124
2015-03-17, 05:25 AM
Why is the former better than the latter anyway? Why are they different?

Komatik
2015-03-17, 05:30 AM
Why is the former better than the latter anyway? Why are they different?

Just trying to show that it is not only the race that matters - race-wise, both are pretty circus-tastic motley crews, but the first one is culturally much more coherent while the latter is all over the place in ways that will likely be highly incompatible.

Mr.Moron
2015-03-17, 05:45 AM
I find it adorable that you think that replacing a thri-Keene and goliath with a human and a dwarf will cause a group to take things any more seriously.

Not in isolation, but it is certainly part of a bigger approach that does help. Setting expectations is a huge part of getting people invested in a concept. In order to take things seriously they need know going in exactly what it is they're taking seriously.

Providing not just guidelines in race, but also on the expected tone, plot elements as well what sort of general character types would be appropriate/inappropriate lets everyone have a clear idea of what's up. It narrows scope and gets everyone moving in the same direction. When people are all acting on those guidelines in good faith they'll be reinforcing each others expectations and drawing each other deeper into the game.

It's not a miracle cure for every player that has trouble getting into character. However the approach can go a long way compared to just having folks just do ~whatever~ and throwing some hints at your first plot hook.

Milo v3
2015-03-17, 05:45 AM
I allow most races in my games, because my group is decent with flavour that. They can make a "Hungerseed Tiefling Halfling Titan Mauler Totem Warrior Barbarian/Skirmisher Warder Ranger/Mirrored Soul Summoner" without making a ridiculous character, all the while the Dwarf Pyrokineticist/Brawler is the one who is ridiculous with all his "roleplaying 5 Charisma".

In my experience race doesn't really decide how ridiculous a concept is, the player's attitude does.

bluntpencil
2015-03-17, 06:37 AM
I find that giving the players absolute minimal choices actually forces them to attach true character, beyond "I'm a special snowflake" junk, to their characters.

I'm running a Dark Heresy game where all the party members are Guardsmen. From the same regiment. Okay, some of them have different skills and gear, but they're all Imperial Guard. They're all from Scintilla. They've all got similar backstories.

However, they have all developed into very different characters, with unique personalities. They were handed character sheets and told "Make these numbers human", as opposed to being told "make some numbers".

Satinavian
2015-03-17, 06:41 AM
I give my players the choice.

But at the same time i expect my players to make charakters that fit in the group. I will give out details on location, theme of the campaign, genres, mechanical constraints and maybe expected loyalties. Then the players are responsible to make fitting characters that can work in the group. Everything in the setting and considered power range is allowed. Also, i don't forbid PvP.

Usually in the session where the campaign details are laid out, people already start dividing party roles and bringing in ideas.



As player i am so bored with the humans.

goto124
2015-03-17, 07:51 AM
I find that giving the players absolute minimal choices actually forces them to attach true character, beyond "I'm a special snowflake" junk, to their characters.
(snip)
However, they have all developed into very different characters, with unique personalities.

It sounds like in previous campaigns, those same players had done the usual 'choose what you want' and came out with very little real roleplay? I've always thought that roleplay is pretty much all up to the player. If the player doesn't want to put in that much effort, that's the way it'll go whether he's a half-rainbow troll swordsage or a human warrior.

One could have a game with only 1 race (e.g. human) fluff-wise, but be able to adjust your stats or other crunchy stuff via other means.

Random: I can think of a character concept that may not work well with any race except human: an attractive barbarian. Most attractive races (e.g. elf) don't have muscles, and most races with the strength won't be attractive (half-orc anyone?)
Maybe catfolk, maybe...

M Placeholder
2015-03-17, 08:15 AM
Random: I can think of a character concept that may not work well with any race except human: an attractive barbarian. Most attractive races (e.g. elf) don't have muscles, and most races with the strength won't be attractive (half-orc anyone?)
Maybe catfolk, maybe...

On the Elf barbarian - That would be a decent choice for a character for Dark Sun, and it would work - the movement bonus under raging would be huge, and strength would be good too. Con might be a bit low, but with good rolls at creation, it could work. A Kagonesti Barbarian would work too.

It would also work with Tieflings, and many other races.

As for the character races, it depends on the setting. If Im running a Planescape game, then practically every PC race is available, and if its Ravenloft, then its pretty much humans or half elves only. In a 5th ed game Im in, we only got the standard races to choose from (Character Creation was one week before the release of Elemental Evil), but everyone has got a really rounded character. I probably would have went with a Gnome Bard to start with even if we had a huge choice anyway.

Joe the Rat
2015-03-17, 08:32 AM
I find a world with hundreds of races out there. All sentient and developed, very, very unrealistic, silly, and unmanageable.

For a singular world, there is probably some conceptual limit a practical number of sentient races. But with multiple worlds in play, that number can go up quite a bit. Having that technicolor cast with varying degrees of humanoid will make a setting more fantastic, cosmic, or cosmopolitan. Having a Goblin Market or Creature Cantina scene really opens up the weirdness of your world - or highlights that there's more than one world in play. If your party is representative of that world (set), it ought to look rather varied. But you can also have a very vanilla looking group coming into said world as outsiders, or just entering the broader scope of the setting. Conversely, you can bring your esoteric and multispecies contingent into a more homogenous setting, making their outsider nature really stand out.

Something I'd love to see more of is a tighter cast of races, but with more cultural distinctions within. We tend to do this with humans, even in multispecies settings. But it's rarer to see dwarves or halflings or alfar or jawas in the same world that don't share a common culture.

My last DM really went to town with this idea. Set in a reborn human empire, there was very little variance in human culture (though the lack of human PCs might have been a factor), but each of the other player races had very distinct subgroups which diversified their traits. Heavy metal scandanavian craftdwarves, pseudogermanic wizard dwarves, redneck dwarves, etc. All with a common language, but with very different values and outlooks. I added a branch of elves that speak the same basic language, but are so culturally removed that their vocabulary and manner makes it difficult to understand their elvish without practice. Think English, with US, UK, and Australian speakers using regional dialects (pick one) and heavy slang. You can probably get the gist of what everyone is saying, but there will be some major "huh?" moments in there.

DigoDragon
2015-03-17, 08:45 AM
Random: I can think of a character concept that may not work well with any race except human: an attractive barbarian. Most attractive races (e.g. elf) don't have muscles, and most races with the strength won't be attractive (half-orc anyone?)
Maybe catfolk, maybe...

The last campaign I ran in D&D had a race based off the Final Fantasy Gria (http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Gria). Psuedo half-dragon humanoids with plenty of strength and fairly attractive to certain non-human races. It was popular in my group, so the concept could happen in the right situation. :smallsmile:

Thrudd
2015-03-17, 08:55 AM
My first few pick up games outside my group of friends I was shocked by the diversity people tried to embody in a game world. GM's would give loose instructions about character creation beforehand. As a consequence the parties would end up being the most god-awful combinations of races and backgrounds (to say nothing of classes and alignments for those systems that have them). You get things like: a half-pixie weretiger, a techno gnome, a fallen half-angel/half-demon alien, a psionic minotaur, and always that one dwarf straight out of LotR.

I'm all for letting players have the characters they want to play, and for one shot games, no problem. But in many of these extreme cases, party composition alone would be enough sink a group before it even began. So when I run a campaign I'm very clear up front about which races are allowed as PC's. In my mind this makes a more coherent game world and I don't need to explain how a cyclops, an awakened camel, and an aquatic elf all ended up sitting in the same tavern together.

I've found this doesn't always sit well with new players. Is this just my own hang-up -- am I just being a "racist" here, uncomfortable with the full diversity that modern gaming worlds offer?

I'm the same way. A coherent world with believable people is the most important thing to me. Immersion is hard if it's clearly a joke game, and a party with ridiculous monster and half monster races make the whole thing a joke, to me.

My games have a limited number of specific playable races which are allowed. They also almost never include everything from published sources and those things they do include are often modified. So there is no point in players hunting through magazines and splat books looking for weird stuff, most likely it isn't a part of my game world anyway.

Making a unique character does not/should not require picking something out of the monster manual or random splat book.

I don't create worlds with fifty different sentient races all living in close proximity to eachother and having different cultures. It's too much work. Making sure the playable races I use have sensical civilizations and developed relationships with eachother is important to me. The players make their chsracters in the context of the world I have created.

That said, there are settings where you could explain all manner of weird, crazy stuff and it would totally fit, like planescape or spelljammer. The setting has to be a fantasy equivalent of mos eisely space port, with an inter dimensional gathering place and portals to an infinite number of worlds populated by any crazy thing you could imagine. It can be lots of fun. That is just not the usual setting that I like to run in D&D.

Kiero
2015-03-17, 08:59 AM
When I run games, I'm always pretty prescriptive about the premise, which includes what sorts of characters are appropriate. The last game I ran was historical, so that was easy, to a degree.

When I play, I only play humans, all the outlandish stuff doesn't appeal at all. Furthermore, reading about other people's games, the fastest way to kill my attention stone-dead is the usual party of mismatched weirdoes, without even a single identification character amongst them.

Tengu_temp
2015-03-18, 07:20 AM
Many of my games take place in settings where humans are the only sapient species, so that solves the problem. In the rest of them, I accept or reject weirdos on a case-to-case basis. It's important for them to fit the setting and the game, but also for the player to show that there's more to the character than just being a half-golem minotaur. There are many players who want to play special snowflakes, but treat their weirdness as replacement for personality and don't bother to make them fleshed-out characters in their own right.

Coincidentally, the easiest way to spot such players is to identify them by a single phrase: "I don't like playing humans, humans are boring".

roko10
2015-03-18, 11:21 AM
....so am I the only one who likes not playing humans here and not want to be a "special snowflake"?

I mean, I'm a pretty big Warforged fan, but I don't really play them to stick out. I just think fantasty robots are pretty awesome. Nor do I play Kobolds purely for cheese reasons; I just like dem reptiles. I can roll with playing Human only; it's just that, if I may play another race, I'd go with the latter.

Frozen_Feet
2015-03-18, 11:49 AM
Majority of games I play already have a short list of setting-appropriate character options. So it's pretty damn rare for me to have to worry about this particular question at all.

Even if a setting or game system technically allows for wide selection of odd species, it's perfectly okay for a GM to ban species from books they don't own and species which don't exist in a specific setting. It's bloody damn rare for such a varied selection to be part of the core rules. They tend to be add-ons and hence subject to GM approval.

Karl Aegis
2015-03-18, 11:58 AM
Anyone get players with weird weights? I seem to recall seeing a 3'3" tall ninja that weighed over 300 pounds at one point.

Sith_Happens
2015-03-18, 12:17 PM
So when I run a campaign I'm very clear up front about which races are allowed as PC's.
...
I've found this doesn't always sit well with new players. Is this just my own hang-up -- am I just being a "racist" here, uncomfortable with the full diversity that modern gaming worlds offer?

I'd say this is entirely reasonable, the only thing I recommend (if you aren't already doing it) is to also explain up front what your reasons for the restriction are, that way new players should be more likely to take it than leave it.

I am curious what the problems that led to this actually are, though, I've been in some very diverse parties without trouble. If it's just a matter of


I don't need to explain how a cyclops, an awakened camel, and an aquatic elf all ended up sitting in the same tavern together

--the solution is to make the players explain it. To me at least it goes without saying anyways that if a campaign is starting in Area X and I want to play a character that obviously isn't or wouldn't normally be native to Area X, that I should come up with a relatively reasonable explanation for why that character is in fact currently in Area X.

Metahuman1
2015-03-18, 12:19 PM
"I don't like playing humans, humans are boring".

Yeah, cause, you know, wanting to play a game were all the known laws of reality are out the door as a default is perfectly ok, as long as you want everyone to be the same as they are in realty except for at best a couple of insignificant cosmetic changes. Unless they have the writing talents of Alan Moore, the patience to waste it writing a novel just for someone who doesn't have the imagination to want to let people go outside themselves in ways more significant then cosmetic differences.







Also, I'd like to point out that while all human party works nicely for otherwise well optimized caster partys, as soon as you start seeing skill monkey and warrior types who aren't abusing polymorph, wild shape or Divine Metamagic, being able to play a Pixie or a were rat or a Half Minotaur or a Goliath or what have you comes in mighty handy for helping them keep pace with the reality warpers. Just saying.

Knaight
2015-03-18, 12:47 PM
The vast majority of settings I use are human only, though there have been notable exceptions (including one where human wasn't an option, because the players were all AI). With that said, the restrictions on the group are largely dependent on what is important in the setting. There are some where a weird menagerie actually works, there are some where a specific non-human entity works, there are some where humans are the only option. This is also group dependent. For instance, most recently I've been running a game about a small, technologically and magically primitive island under attack from a more technologically advanced society - or at least, one reasonably rich person and their private army from said society. It was going to be human only, but people wanted to play non-humans, so I opened up driftwood golems as an option because that actually fit the milieu of the island pretty well.


Also, I'd like to point out that while all human party works nicely for otherwise well optimized caster partys, as soon as you start seeing skill monkey and warrior types who aren't abusing polymorph, wild shape or Divine Metamagic, being able to play a Pixie or a were rat or a Half Minotaur or a Goliath or what have you comes in mighty handy for helping them keep pace with the reality warpers. Just saying.
This is a 3.x specific problem, that's not the board we're in.


Yeah, cause, you know, wanting to play a game were all the known laws of reality are out the door as a default is perfectly ok, as long as you want everyone to be the same as they are in realty except for at best a couple of insignificant cosmetic changes. Unless they have the writing talents of Alan Moore, the patience to waste it writing a novel just for someone who doesn't have the imagination to want to let people go outside themselves in ways more significant then cosmetic differences.
In plenty of games, all the known laws of reality are not out the door. Even in games like D&D, they're generally assumed to be there for most things, with a few glaring exceptions. As for people being "the same as they are in reality except for at best a couple of insignificant cosmetic changes", that's just ridiculous. If you're playing a renowned warchief of a very violent society, you're playing a character not even remotely like yourself. If you're playing a homeless alchemist in debt to a bunch of very dangerous people, you're playing a character not even remotely like yourself. If you're playing a magic using religious fanatic of a fictional nature god with a bad habit of cold blooded killing, you're playing a character not even remotely like yourself. If you're playing an illiterate, innumerate, and generally unintelligent warrior with a gift for fighting in an ancient-Mediterranean setting, you're playing a character not even remotely like yourself. These are not insignificant cosmetic changes, and all can easily be human characters.

DigoDragon
2015-03-18, 12:55 PM
....so am I the only one who likes not playing humans here and not want to be a "special snowflake"?

I like playing those types. :smallsmile:
I usually put together the personality first before picking a race so that they're not a snowflake.


Anyone get players with weird weights? I seem to recall seeing a 3'3" tall ninja that weighed over 300 pounds at one point.

I've seen a 6' 4" 120 pound warrior with 18 strength once. :3
Easy way to mitigate that for human-ish characters is to look up a BMI chart and follow that for a reasonable character mass.

Four-legged characters are a bit harder in my experience.

Beta Centauri
2015-03-18, 12:58 PM
--the solution is to make the players explain it. To me at least it goes without saying anyways that if a campaign is starting in Area X and I want to play a character that obviously isn't or wouldn't normally be native to Area X, that I should come up with a relatively reasonable explanation for why that character is in fact currently in Area X. Agreed, though the GM should go in with an open mind, rather than a set standard the players have to meet. If it makes sense to the players, the GM should make an effort to be okay with it.

Red Fel
2015-03-18, 12:59 PM
This is a 3.x specific problem, that's not the board we're in.

Correction: The problem posed by the OP (players playing characters of unusual race) is a setting-specific problem. The response posed by Metahuman is specific to one such setting, but not to all.

Why is the OP setting-specific? Because not all settings have a concept of "unusual race." Or "usual race," such as a human or human-analogue, for that matter. By way of example: In the Ironclaw setting, there are no "humans." There are many different species, but no single one can be pointed to as the human-analogue. As such, people playing different races is a non-issue; everyone is playing an unusual race.

Same goes with any setting where either (1) only humans are available for PCs, or (2) no human or human-analogue is available for PCs, or (3) the setting defines a specific race for PCs, exclusively. For example, in Werewolf (WoD), you are playing the titular creature. (In oWoD, there were different varieties of skinchangers, but it's my understanding that nWoD streamlined this.) In Call of Cthulhu, you're playing an Investigator; they tend to be pretty thoroughly human. In such games, this isn't an issue.

So let's not be dismissive of setting-specific responses, such as "This really helps melees in 3.X attempt to close the gap with casters," because this entire issue is setting-specific.

And back to the OP, I'm also one of those who finds many core races a bit dull, unless I find a flavorful build that spices them up. For example, in 3.X, I ordinarily prefer unusual races, like Minotaurs, Warforged, and Tibbits; but for one build, requiring a Dragonmark, I found a very entertaining use for Half-Elves, an otherwise dull and underpowered race.

Dismissing these issues of taste with snarky remarks like, "What, playing a midget who harnesses lightning and rides dragons isn't fantastical enough for you?" isn't particularly constructive, humorous though it may be. To quote the pretentious Latin, de gustibus non est disputandum - in matters of taste, there is no dispute. Or, to put it differently, the heart wants what it wants.

And my heart wants shapeshifting cat people and laser robots.

Thrudd
2015-03-18, 01:20 PM
If you're playing a homeless alchemist in debt to a bunch of very dangerous people, you're playing a character not even remotely like yourself.

Speak for yourself. Lol

prufock
2015-03-18, 01:34 PM
It really depends on setting and style. In my campaigns, I generally run a list of PC races from which the players can pick. For example, if you check the Weird West link in my sig, you'll see the allowed races for that setting. There are 9 of them, each with an option advanced template, and a handful of generic templates that they can choose. Some settings have more or less - I'm working on a pirates game right now that will have about three dozen allowable races, and customizable with "half-" templates. I have another setting, Rose Lake, which is a huge grab bag and basically anything goes if you can rationalize it.

Thrudd
2015-03-18, 01:44 PM
I prefer my fantasy settings to be focused on people from more or less "normal" civilization encountering and discovering the "weird" and dangerous stuff that's "out there" in the wild. Therefore, the PC's can't be the "weird" stuff, even if it exists in the setting somewhere. I do not like the snowflake syndrome.
( I sometimes wish Drizzt had never been conceived of, it led so many people to say "but HE is a special good Drow! Why can't I be one? Or a good ogre/Minotaur/anything you thnk looks cool from the monster manual. Ugh)

cobaltstarfire
2015-03-18, 03:15 PM
People are just drawn to different things, there's no need to be a derisive jerk to those folks just because their tastes/interests diverge.

It's important for players to respect what the GM wants from their game, but that doesn't mean the GM has the leave to talk down to the players for having a non-human concept that they'd like to try out sometime.

icefractal
2015-03-18, 03:25 PM
I don't have an issue with limiting the races in a game for setting reasons. But when it comes to "humans only", in a game like D&D, it feels like wasted potential to me. There are already so many other games I play that are human-only - like for example they're set in the real world. So taking a game that does support a more kitchen-sink approach and narrowing it down like that might irk me.

Now as far as players having an adverse reaction - while as I said I don't have an issue with limited races in general, it might trip some flags for me depending on how it's presented:
A) Viking-hat DMing. If the explanation is anything like "because I say so", then I'm not going to stick around, even if I was going to play a human anyway - that DMing style is not for me.
B) Classic archetype fixation. Be a human? Fine. Be a stereotypical LotR-style member of my class? Probably not. Nothing against that style, just had a surplus of it already.

Lord Torath
2015-03-18, 04:14 PM
I like playing those types. :smallsmile:
I usually put together the personality first before picking a race so that they're not a snowflake.

I've seen a 6' 4" 120 pound warrior with 18 strength once. :3
Easy way to mitigate that for human-ish characters is to look up a BMI chart and follow that for a reasonable character mass.

Four-legged characters are a bit harder in my experience.I've got BMIs integrated into several different chargen spreadsheets now. Because everyone knows women shouldn't weigh more than 120 lbs, regardless of how tall they are, right?* :smallsigh: I've even got it implemented for metric characters (Shadowrun), where I have to convert from metric to english, and then calculate the BMI.

Although BMI's vary by height. A twelve-foot human with the same build as a six-foot human (i.e. twice as tall, wide, and long, weighing 8 times as much) will have a BMI twice that of the smaller person. So you need to come up with new averages for each race (halfling, gnome, dwarf, minotaur, etc)


I prefer my fantasy settings to be focused on people from more or less "normal" civilization encountering and discovering the "weird" and dangerous stuff that's "out there" in the wild. Therefore, the PC's can't be the "weird" stuff, even if it exists in the setting somewhere. I do not like the snowflake syndrome.
( I sometimes wish Drizzt had never been conceived of, it led so many people to say "but HE is a special good Drow! Why can't I be one? Or a good ogre/Minotaur/anything you thnk looks cool from the monster manual. Ugh)I'll ask the DM if I can play an odd race sometimes, but I'm always expecting a "No, play one of these races" response. Which makes the occasional "Sure" much more rewarding! My position is, "If you don't ask, the answer's 'No.' It might be anyway, but you'll never know if you don't ask."

* Did we lose Dark Orchid?

veti
2015-03-18, 04:31 PM
I was thinking mostly this. It is a fantasy world- I want to see all these races, even if they're just humans with funny hats. Hats are cool.

On the other hand, there's no obligation on the DM to include all races in their setting. A world that doesn't even have centaurs, or even elves for that matter, can still be a D&D world.

"Half-ogre? Sorry, ogres are biologically incompatible with all other species except, for some reason, cattle, so a half-ogre is basically a minotaur" - is within the range of perfectly valid things for a DM to say.

sakuuya
2015-03-18, 06:46 PM
Anyone get players with weird weights? I seem to recall seeing a 3'3" tall ninja that weighed over 300 pounds at one point.

I recently played alongside a new player whose elven ranger weighed 0 pounds. Her excuse was that in LOTR (or something), elves were able to walk along the top of snow without falling through, so they must not weigh anything.

Grim Portent
2015-03-18, 07:02 PM
If there's a race in a setting I'm running it will almost certainly be open for players, the sole exception being things that are basically just marionettes for something else with no free will of their own.

In one of my homebrew settings the world was designed to allow for as many races to exist in more or less harmony together, with fantastic racism or it's absence being important aspects of some of the nations in the setting. In another I'm working on the whole idea is that the player races consist of the stereotypical villain races, minotaurs, orcs, beastmen, and the goal of any campaign in the setting should be to raid and conquer the races normally designated as good, like dwarves, elves and men.

I'm actually thinking of drafting up a homebrew setting which has kingdoms, cultures and so on established, but with no races attached to those until the players start genning characters, at which point they can all sit down and work out what kingdoms should be which player chosen race.



Truth be told in most settings with multiple sapient lifeforms I find it pretty hard to believe that you could get a traveling group that engages in any form of life threatening activity on a regular basis without it being composed of a band of misfits and renegades from various cultures and races. After all it's not like half-ogres, werewolves, outcast fey and abominations spawned by demons are going to hang around in a society that hates and fears them, far more sensible for them to hit the road and wind up travelling with other outcasts they meet in taverns and inns.

Gritmonger
2015-03-18, 07:08 PM
I recently played alongside a new player whose elven ranger weighed 0 pounds. Her excuse was that in LOTR (or something), elves were able to walk along the top of snow without falling through, so they must not weigh anything.

:confused:

I, uh... What? So, I presume any actual walking motions were accompanied by violent oscillations as forces were applied to no mass at all - or that her strength was commensurately that of a gnat's eyelash... not to say anything of her constitution... and never mind that he didn't walk on water, while water striders do, so logically there has to be some mass to that "0 pounds" due to breaking surface tension...

And how do they poop?

sakuuya
2015-03-18, 07:20 PM
:confused:

I, uh... What? So, I presume any actual walking motions were accompanied by violent oscillations as forces were applied to no mass at all - or that her strength was commensurately that of a gnat's eyelash... not to say anything of her constitution... and never mind that he didn't walk on water, while water striders do, so logically there has to be some mass to that "0 pounds" due to breaking surface tension...

And how do they poop?

Elves don't poop. :smalltongue:

We mostly ran with it, because it was funny, but lots of jokes were made about the ranger floating away during lulls in the action.

Arbane
2015-03-18, 07:23 PM
I recently played alongside a new player whose elven ranger weighed 0 pounds. Her excuse was that in LOTR (or something), elves were able to walk along the top of snow without falling through, so they must not weigh anything.

Please tell me they blew away in a strong wind....



And how do they poop?

Elves don't poop, everyone knows that.

IIRC, GURPS Goblins had a height/weight table that could occasionally result in a goblin have a negative weight. Their families would tie ropes to them and use them to lift heavy objects.

Knaight
2015-03-18, 08:27 PM
I recently played alongside a new player whose elven ranger weighed 0 pounds. Her excuse was that in LOTR (or something), elves were able to walk along the top of snow without falling through, so they must not weigh anything.

Wow. It wouldn't even be that hard to work off of a rough approximate of snowshoe size to figure out about how much one could weigh and not go through snow, going straight to 0 is just lazy.

goto124
2015-03-18, 08:39 PM
I have a character with negative weight. No, even she isn't quite sure how it works.

Sith_Happens
2015-03-18, 08:50 PM
* Did we lose Dark Orchid?

Nope, you just have to enter it manually.

Lord Raziere
2015-03-18, 09:33 PM
Many of my games take place in settings where humans are the only sapient species, so that solves the problem. In the rest of them, I accept or reject weirdos on a case-to-case basis. It's important for them to fit the setting and the game, but also for the player to show that there's more to the character than just being a half-golem minotaur. There are many players who want to play special snowflakes, but treat their weirdness as replacement for personality and don't bother to make them fleshed-out characters in their own right.

Coincidentally, the easiest way to spot such players is to identify them by a single phrase: "I don't like playing humans, humans are boring".

I take offense to that.

so does my bitter elven oracle Meffelkrow, who is hateful of other elves and constantly rants about seeing the future, how he made a deal with the Mysteries of the universe to see the path to find his parents in exchange for doing as they said to fulfill prophecies and make sure certain events come about, a concept only viable because of how long lived he is.

so does my superhero robot EGOH-01, who because of his design by the government, is the first robot ever and wishes to provide a good example, and pave a way for other robots to be accepted by society, having hope and optimism despite the fact that 3rd party politicians tried to have various incredibly restrictive morality codes placed on him that he had to get rid of by himself to make sure he could do his job well.

as well as my catfolk sorceress Sharinelle, starting out as a nervous disciple of inherited water magic coming from a society that rejected wealth and taught her to be disciplined and controlled about her power for the good of the world, who eventually grew into one who had to go against her traditions to fight evil and eventually becomes one who changes their society forever so that they adapt to new times and new ways.

and if you think all my elves are bitter ones, meet Nesalar Valvani, an unabashedly idealistic humble pacifistic elven diplomat who uses nothing but summoning magic, who eventually married a female human cyborg who used to be racist against elves. or Lelk Highwind a reckless dagger-using rogue who loves destruction, singing and jumping over things, proclaims himself a "tactical genius!" and has the ego the size of a planet.

should I mention Professor Dragon, another superhero concept where the once-human gets transformed permanently into a dragon and actually LIKES it? and his real problem is that he doesn't like the fame that comes with his position as a superhero because it messes with his privacy? should I tell you of Multimask, a superhero shattered by her experiences doing superhero work combined with her identity- fracturing shapeshifting powers, who even after she solved her multiple personality problem was a snarky girl who constantly made nerdy references?

should I tell you, of Mantakax Boomabillion, a WoW goblin who realized he was an evil corrupt corporate exec and how what he was doing was all wrong, so he set out to redeem himself by leading a Horde squad to go kill the Lich King, and how he would make sunglasses-puns when he killed certain enemies, how every time there was a mystery to solve he would act as if he was a noir detective with an inner monologue? and how every time else he would act like a pulp millionaire-inventor with a shotgun that shoots fireballs, and forged his squad into an elite team of badasses, should I tell you of the time that when he was outwitted by lich, he blamed himself for not seeing through the trick? How he still had the flaw of being really greedy even when he was trying to do better?

So I say to you, and say to the crowd, say it loud and proud: I DON'T LIKE PLAYING HUMANS. HUMANS ARE BORING.

:smallcool:

As for myself, I allow them to play as many races as I can. I would be a hypocrite if I did otherwise.

Leon
2015-03-19, 06:47 AM
Players should be allowed a broad range of choice but the DM is right to reign in anything they don't feel is appropriate for their game.

The player list in the Op sounds like a Standard pbp line up on these forums.

hifidelity2
2015-03-19, 06:52 AM
As a rule of thumb I will stick with the core rules for any system but if there are any specifics additions (or restrictions) then I tell them in advance

I will also advise them if there are any "racial" issues so they are pre-warned (e.g. a major war with Orcs v Men so anyone playing a 1/2 orc will be distrusted by the general population / authorities etc)

Loxagn
2015-03-19, 08:08 AM
Coincidentally, the easiest way to spot such players is to identify them by a single phrase: "I don't like playing humans, humans are boring".

The problem with this sentiment is that D&D is an amazingly colorful and fantastic world. Humans are boring, in the same way that tracking the weight of every scrap of loot you have on you and worrying about how long it's been since you've actually stated yourself to be drinking water are 'boring'. These are all elements of the real world, and sometimes a player is going into a game because they want to escape the real world. To them, it's fun to come up with a character concept that's visually striking and unique and out there.

Some players love to play humans because they're familiar, and that's great. Some players don't like to play humans because they feel generic, and that's great too. If all the players are happy and nobody feels as though they're being short-changed, then what does it matter whether one player wants to make an Earth Genasi rather than a Dwarf?

Kiero
2015-03-19, 08:46 AM
The problem with this sentiment is that D&D is an amazingly colorful and fantastic world. Humans are boring, in the same way that tracking the weight of every scrap of loot you have on you and worrying about how long it's been since you've actually stated yourself to be drinking water are 'boring'. These are all elements of the real world, and sometimes a player is going into a game because they want to escape the real world. To them, it's fun to come up with a character concept that's visually striking and unique and out there.

Some players love to play humans because they're familiar, and that's great. Some players don't like to play humans because they feel generic, and that's great too. If all the players are happy and nobody feels as though they're being short-changed, then what does it matter whether one player wants to make an Earth Genasi rather than a Dwarf?

You must be reading different campaign settings to me; most of them are bland beyond belief, using different races instead of having much meaningful cultural variation within a specific race.

Lord Raziere
2015-03-19, 09:45 AM
You must be reading different campaign settings to me; most of them are bland beyond belief, using different races instead of having much meaningful cultural variation within a specific race.

Wrong, he has a different imagination to you. Just because you cannot imagine it or find it interesting, doesn't he can't.

Kiero
2015-03-19, 10:02 AM
Wrong, he has a different imagination to you. Just because you cannot imagine it or find it interesting, doesn't he can't.

No, most races in D&D settings are paper-thin, they're exactly why the "humans with pointy ears" charges get laid at them. Instead of bothering with any sort of cultural variations within a species, we get another species or sub-species filling that slot. Why have conflicts between two different cultures of dwarves with opposing views on something, when we can make it goblins vs dwarves, and so on.

I need only compare most D&D settings to any historical period I'd care to choose, and the differences in nuance and richness are pretty stark.

Lord Raziere
2015-03-19, 10:15 AM
No, most races in D&D settings are paper-thin, they're exactly why the "humans with pointy ears" charges get laid at them. Instead of bothering with any sort of cultural variations within a species, we get another species or sub-species filling that slot. Why have conflicts between two different cultures of dwarves with opposing views on something, when we can make it goblins vs dwarves, and so on.

I need only compare most D&D settings to any historical period I'd care to choose, and the differences in nuance and richness are pretty stark.

and just because you can do that, doesn't mean he can't make and imagine his own nuance and differences without needing further info that would in fact, restrict the setting- by making it so wide and generalized the person is allowed to fill in more gaps themselves and actually come up with more plots than the writers could. RPG books aren't exhaustive historical accounts and really can't be- there is a limit to how much can be put into a single book, so at some point you have to recognize that what you have to put in there has to be inspiration and a springboard to come up with more detailed differences themselves, leave some of the canvas blank so to speak, which is much better for the imagination than details that would in fact overly restrict your options, but using those historical periods as inspiration to fill in those blanks? probably a good use of them.

your thinking as if the two things you have there are two opposing things: one to champion and one to mock, when one would be much better used to improve the other, if you really feel that way, and even if you do that, it doesn't impact me and how I would want to fill in those gaps in the slightest, whereas if the writers put in that much detail in the first place, we both lose, because we both might want different details about the setting that the original setting if written as you want, would cut off.

goto124
2015-03-19, 10:21 AM
No, most races in D&D settings are paper-thin, they're exactly why the "humans with pointy ears" charges get laid at them. Instead of bothering with any sort of cultural variations within a species, we get another species or sub-species filling that slot. Why have conflicts between two different cultures of dwarves with opposing views on something, when we can make it goblins vs dwarves, and so on.

Won't it be just as paper-thin if we replaced elves and dwarves with different races/tribes/something of humans?

And we'll be a touch less alright with killing the enemy if they're humans too :smalltongue: And it has the advantage of dodging RL racial issues.

Loxagn
2015-03-19, 10:22 AM
You must be reading different campaign settings to me; most of them are bland beyond belief, using different races instead of having much meaningful cultural variation within a specific race.

Yeah, but that's just, like, your opinion, man. :tongue:

In all seriousness though. Based on what others have said, it's occurred to me that I'm an extraordinarily permissive DM, and seem to allow shenanigans that might be offputting to some. But then, I also game with close friends whom I trust not to 'push their luck', so to speak. I dislike telling players 'no' because I feel that it discourages creative thinking to simply be told 'no'. (Edge cases of course exist; no amount of begging on a player's part will grant them a Great Wyrm Gold Dragon as a PC any time before Epic, for instance) It is, perhaps, a bit more work for me to accommodate such a unique party composition, but this rarely becomes an issue; heroes are already at extreme ends of the bell curve in all the other ways; why not in terms of race also?

As a player, typically I have a concept that comes to mind going into a game, and sometimes those characters leap into my mind fully-formed as humans, others as elves, warforged, drow, half-dragons, anthropomorphic bats, what have you. It may sound hard to believe, but sometimes a race with a different physiology from ours provides a roleplaying opportunity that's more interesting to me than another 'pretty humanoid' race.

Mind you, sometimes it's obvious that a race choice is purely for powergaming purposes; nobody is going to be fooled by claiming the half-minotaur water orc was chosen just because the concept dictated it. But, again. Why does this have to be an issue? If the other players are okay with it and everyone is having fun, then does it really matter?

This is, of course, merely my opinion on the subject, and is not necessarily the only right one. What's 'right' is simply what your group has the most fun with.

goto124
2015-03-19, 10:24 AM
I've always wondered about the concept of a person's lack of roleplaying disrupting another player's roleplaying/immersion, in the cases of the former not directly disrupting the game...

LibraryOgre
2015-03-19, 10:26 AM
Players get a choice from the slate the DM offers them. In some games, you might have a panoply of races, with everyone playing something "exotic". In others, everyone's a human... or a vampire... or a werewolf.

goto124
2015-03-19, 10:29 AM
'I'm a vampire werewolf!'

*gets thwap'd upside the head*

LibraryOgre
2015-03-19, 10:51 AM
'I'm a vampire werewolf!'

*gets thwap'd upside the head*

Had a guy try for that. The ST let him, because the ST was stupid.

DigoDragon
2015-03-19, 11:25 AM
Players get a choice from the slate the DM offers them. In some games, you might have a panoply of races, with everyone playing something "exotic". In others, everyone's a human... or a vampire... or a werewolf.

I once played a human in a combo Vampire/Werewolf/Mage game. Yeah, the GM mashed all three together, said 'Have at!' and I instead asked to play a human. Remarkable was that mine was the most interesting character and the only one to have survived the entire campaign.

Darth Ultron
2015-03-19, 12:07 PM
I wonder why ''race'' is such a big deal?

Say it was an all human group. You have a short harry fighter from a warrior culture, a tall lean woodsman from a nature loving culture, a short plump sneak from a happy family culture and a short wide eyed crater from a industrial culture. They are all human, but they have different backgrounds and personalities. So no problems right?

But then call them dwarf, elf, halfling and gnome...ad suddenly there is a problem?

Thrudd
2015-03-19, 12:32 PM
I wonder why ''race'' is such a big deal?

Say it was an all human group. You have a short harry fighter from a warrior culture, a tall lean woodsman from a nature loving culture, a short plump sneak from a happy family culture and a short wide eyed crater from a industrial culture. They are all human, but they have different backgrounds and personalities. So no problems right?

But then call them dwarf, elf, halfling and gnome...ad suddenly there is a problem?

The problem isn't what you call them, it's how you explain why they are all together, and how you explain the world where all these things exist in close proximity.
It is not impossible to have such a world in D&D (planescape, Eberon to some extent) but I find it actually more limiting to the setting to attempt to include every single race and monster ever conceived of in some sort of cosmopolitan environment where it would make sense for them all to regularly interact.

The problem is when people approach a game assuming that everything ever published is on the table for them and don't bother listening or reading anything about the setting or theme of the game, and dont bother to collaborate with the DM and the other players to form a group that makes sense and fits in the world.

Red Fel
2015-03-19, 12:39 PM
The problem isn't what you call them, it's how you explain why they are all together, and how you explain the world where all these things exist in close proximity.

The solution is to have a special snowflake collaborate with one of the other players to explain his PC's presence, often by tying his backstory to one of the other PC's. By way of example, I was in a Dragonlance campaign where I played a Minotaur; his presence so far inland, among a community of primarily humans, was explained by the fact that he owed a blood debt to another PC's older sister, now deceased, which had passed down to the other PC.

Other than his race, he was a perfectly ordinary, more than slightly Evil, stoic swordsman archetype. But then, I rarely make my snowflakes too special.


The problem is when people approach a game assuming that everything ever published is on the table for them and don't bother listening or reading anything about the setting or theme of the game, and dont bother to collaborate with the DM and the other players to form a group that makes sense and fits in the world.

No, that's not a problem with special snowflakes; it's a problem with selfish and/or self-indulgent players. When a player refuses to listen to the campaign information or collaborate with anyone else, the problem isn't that he's trying to play something unique or unusual; the problem is that he's not playing with everyone else at the table. That would be true even if he played a perfectly ordinary human.

Thrudd
2015-03-19, 12:59 PM
The solution is to have a special snowflake collaborate with one of the other players to explain his PC's presence, often by tying his backstory to one of the other PC's. By way of example, I was in a Dragonlance campaign where I played a Minotaur; his presence so far inland, among a community of primarily humans, was explained by the fact that he owed a blood debt to another PC's older sister, now deceased, which had passed down to the other PC.

Other than his race, he was a perfectly ordinary, more than slightly Evil, stoic swordsman archetype. But then, I rarely make my snowflakes too special. /I

That is fine for one single special snowflake in the party. But you cant have a whole party of them. Once I let one person play a weird crazy race, how can I justify restricting it from everyone else? You could say, "no more than one non-standard race per party, if more than one person wants one, you'll need to decide who gets to play it." But it's easier just to ask people to stick with the established setting, that way it is fair for everyone.

In dragonlance, minotaurs aren't really that much of a "snowflake", there are lots of them and they have a whole society, people know they exist.
I think of a snowflake character as something that is exceedingly rare or almost one of a kind. ridiculous combinations of races, parentage so rarified or unlikely it could only have happened once. A race nobody in the known world has ever seen or heard of. These types of characters are fine as the sole protagonist of a story. But when you have a whole gang of them, it gets silly, unless that is the point of the game... Somehow fate brings together these five characters that are each products of such unlikely events that each of them are unique in the whole world.

Elderand
2015-03-19, 01:19 PM
But when you have a whole gang of them, it gets silly, unless that is the point of the game... Somehow fate brings together these five characters that are each products of such unlikely events that each of them are unique in the whole world.

Why should they be unique ? There is vast continuum of possibilities between bog standard race from core and absolutly unique being in the whole multiverse.

icefractal
2015-03-19, 01:38 PM
Why would the PCs need to be an average representative cross-section of the world's population anyway? They're already in an outlying group by the kind of activities they engage in. If there are only 100 literate goblins in the whole world, that's still plenty to have one in the party.

Elderand
2015-03-19, 01:42 PM
Why would the PCs need to be an average representative cross-section of the world's population anyway? They're already in an outlying group by the kind of activities they engage in. If there are only 100 literate goblins in the whole world, that's still plenty to have one in the party.

True, if you wanted PC that were representative of the population you'd end up with half the party being human commoners and theother half spread between the other core races.

Forrestfire
2015-03-19, 01:49 PM
At least in D&D, by definition, every PC is at least a bit of a special snowflake. These are people who have made it their career to go into dangerous situations and come out alive, in a world that is very much trying to brutally kill them. Oftentimes, they have magic powers or almost supernatural skill with weaponry, and when they're not on the job, they travel from place to place looking for another job.

If this is not a special snowflake, I'm not sure what is. Adding in a little more specialness to the mix is only an issue if you make it one, and honestly, I've found that it's quite easy to explain almost anything in-setting to a satisfactorily verisimilitude-keeping degree.

Mr.Moron
2015-03-19, 02:02 PM
I've found that it's quite easy to explain almost anything in-setting to a satisfactorily verisimilitude-keeping degree.

Can I be an Ice Cream Cone an Ice Cream Cone that talks like Elvis and Ice Cream Cone that is Elvis an Ice Cream Cone but only one of my Ice Cream Scoops is Elvis and Ice Cream Cone with one Scoop that is Elvis and another scoop that's an Orc, An Ice Cream Cone with one Scoop that is elvis, and elvis is actually made of little miniature Orcs.

My general background is that my character was made by a wizard using Polymorph any Object.

EDIT: Also I move around with my telekinetic powers (but a that should be obvious)
EDIT: Also I get the strength bonus of each of the orcs that make up that Elvis (+2 per Orc).

cobaltstarfire
2015-03-19, 02:08 PM
So the problem isn't actually people playing weird things, it's people playing weird things when it's inappropriate.

I can understand that being frustrating. The games I've actually GM'd had pretty limited races themselves. One was all human, and the other was very limited on account of most races simply not existing, being extinct, or being super rare. Fortunately I had no trouble at all with any of my players in either.


But I also get really excited when I hear interesting story/character ideas from my fellows, and would try to figure out a way to work them in anyway. It's generally pretty easy since they've already got it worked out in their back story.

Loxagn
2015-03-19, 02:20 PM
<snip>

No need to resort to a Straw Man argument. Do you actually know any players who would actually approach a gaming table with a concept that inane? I'd be willing to bet it's approximately the same as the percentage who would bring Pun-Pun to the table.

Fishman
2015-03-19, 02:21 PM
As someone for whom D&D is no where near my go-to game, I kind of figure that having a party full of weirdos was kind of part-and-parcel of the experience. The party consists of a ogre minstrel, a minotaur pirate, and a centaur cleric? You must be playing D&D!

I also figure that if you're having trouble inventing a reason as to why these freaks are even sharing the same room, well, tell the players that's their job to figure it out. You've got bigger fish to fry.Obviously, a motley band like that either escaped from the circus, or are a circus.

Forrestfire
2015-03-19, 02:23 PM
Can I be an Ice Cream Cone an Ice Cream Cone that talks like Elvis and Ice Cream Cone that is Elvis an Ice Cream Cone but only one of my Ice Cream Scoops is Elvis and Ice Cream Cone with one Scoop that is Elvis and another scoop that's an Orc, An Ice Cream Cone with one Scoop that is elvis, and elvis is actually made of little miniature Orcs.

My general background is that my character was made by a wizard using Polymorph any Object.

EDIT: Also I move around with my telekinetic powers (but a that should be obvious)
EDIT: Also I get the strength bonus of each of the orcs that make up that Elvis (+2 per Orc).

While I understand that you're intentionally going for ridiculousness, I'm going to entertain your concept as I would any other that I might propose in a game (or that might be proposed to me if I'm DMing).

So, a wizard did it. In a setting (because all the official settings have mad scientist wizards) where that's something that can happen. That works. What we now need is elaboration and fleshing out of the character. How did this ice cream cone get out of whatever wizard's lab it was made in? What sort of interactions does it have with normal-ish people? Does it consider itself a person or just a creation? How's it tied to the rest of the party?

Mechanically, let's say this is 3.5, so we can stat it up using, say... a Korobokuru, for Oriental Adventures. It's Small-sized, which means, in-combat, it's got a 5-foot zone of control, and gets a bonus to AC and attacks for being little. Movement with telekinesis and wielding weapons/having hands as normal can be covered by "it's got about the same ability to manipulate things as a small humanoid. Two "arms" at once, moves a bit above the ground, but its telekinesis is affected by local conditions so it still gets affected by difficult terrain."

Korobokuru have no penalty to Strength (+2 con, -2 int), so you can put your highest starting stat into Strength and that can be having the racial strength bonus of each orc used to make the ice cream cone. I might consider giving a free Mantle of the Icy Soul to the character as well, granting him immunity to Cold but vulnerability to Fire, which isn't incredibly unbalanced at LA +0, since Fire is common and dangerous. Swap the Goblinoid Subtype to Orc and we're good.

In a game with my group, the character might be a bit odd, but overall, leads to some interesting setting implications, and has an easy character subplot hook. After all, what sort of mad wizard would create such a creature, and what if he wants this (possibly escaped) creation back? Maybe instead, the wizard is a questgiver, and the ice cream cone is on a test run. Does the ice cream cone look to it as a creator/god figure or something more like a father? How does it see itself? I'm sure the other characters think it's incredibly odd, but it presumably pulls its weight, or is funny enough. It's OoC based on Elvis, but Elvis doesn't exist in-setting, so it's basically a bardic ice elemental that happens to be made of a food material. Doesn't seem too out of line, honestly, given the sort of things that exist in established settings.

Gritmonger
2015-03-19, 02:43 PM
Special snowflake keywords, to me, include the following: only, last, best, unique. Couple this to a broad application of skills and powers and a lack of focus, while simultaneously taking umbrage at anybody who can also do something they can do, especially if others can do it better.

I find that a special snowflake is not so much about the character concept itself but more in how a snowflake expects to be treated and reacted to. It crosses over with Sue mechanics, but breaks down because a Special Snowflake player can't control the reactions of other players, who more often than not will ignore the personal angst and declared unique state, mostly because they don't affect the individual's roleplay but the individual expects them to affect everyone else's roleplay.

I had a character that might have fallen into this role - a clone with the unique ability to interface directly with electronics. He could have tried to get everyone else to respond to him, or tried to gadget his way to bestest in the group. But, because of his own situation, instead he had a no-kill policy with "enslaved" artificial intelligence, and more than once it made him make crucial decisions that changed outcomes. It also meant he was extremely responsive to issues of mind control or captivity. Around others he expected no reaction. He tried hard to cull from the internet how to appeal to other humans (he had zero emotional experience with others) which inevitably resulted in bland crowdsourced warmed-over 'cool' dress and decoration.

The difference from a special snowflake was that uniqueness translated to emotional isolation in roleplay, artificial creation deeply affected his perception of machine intelligence and ethics.

Were he a special snowflake, he would have tried to constantly get everyone else to join in his angst over being alone, and expecting stories to revolve around this angst, while not delving into the aspects involved in being intellectually an adult but emotionally completely without experience.

Mr.Moron
2015-03-19, 02:50 PM
No need to resort to a Straw Man argument. Do you actually know any players who would actually approach a gaming table with a concept that inane? I'd be willing to bet it's approximately the same as the percentage who would bring Pun-Pun to the table.

That's not a straw man argument. A straw man argument would be if I said "You'd allow this crazy Ice Cream character. That's stupid. Your position is flawed because you'd allow the crazy Ice Cream Cone, let me explain why".

A straw man argument is when you create an absurd argument, attribute that argument to someone, then argue against the absurd argument you've created.

Simply responding to a statement of "Anything can be justified" with "Including this insane Ice Cream Cone?" is not a straw man. It's an attempt to point out that if the Ice Cream Cone isn't allowed, than saying almost anything can be justified might be a bit of an overstatement.

It's all moot at any rate since it turns out I would in fact be allowed to play the outlandish Ice Cream Cone. This means that if nothing else Forrestfire's position is solidly self-consistent. We might have different tastes but damn when he says anything goes, anything goes.

(Though, at small size I don't know if my Ice Cream Cone would be big enough to fit an entire Elvis but that's really neither here nor there).

cobaltstarfire
2015-03-19, 02:55 PM
Hey, well if it's a pokemon RPG (and there are two systems and many people who engage in free form roleplay for pokemon) there's totally an entire species line of pokemon that looks like an Icecream cone.

....So, it can still be justified.


Also the point was ALMOST anything, not all things, in any other situation the icecream cone would probably fall outside of the almost into things that probably can't be justified.

Gritmonger
2015-03-19, 02:56 PM
(Though, at small size I don't know if my Ice Cream Cone would be big enough to fit an entire Elvis but that's really neither here nor there).

You did not specify a double-scoop of orc-Elvis-ripple sir.

Oh, and you have a coupon. I'll have to get the register key...

Forrestfire
2015-03-19, 03:21 PM
(Though, at small size I don't know if my Ice Cream Cone would be big enough to fit an entire Elvis but that's really neither here nor there).

In that case, it's simpler. Use a warforged, give it the cold subtype, and refluff as needed. Grab magical flight at some point for full telekinesis, maybe. I'm not sure if it'd fit in most campaigns, but it's definitely something that could be made to work if played right.

Hiro Protagonest
2015-03-19, 03:30 PM
I'm that boring guy that will always play human. Or sometimes robot, but it has to be a certain type of robot. Actually, I like the idea of being a genetically-engineered human, but I'm worried that my idea for an Exalted Modern flesh-and-brass Alchemical of that nature might be too special-snowflakey, since it uses altered rules for the exaltation's Elsewhere storage function.

cobaltstarfire
2015-03-19, 03:53 PM
I'm that boring guy that will always play human. Or sometimes robot, but it has to be a certain type of robot. Actually, I like the idea of being a genetically-engineered human, but I'm worried that my idea for an Exalted Modern flesh-and-brass Alchemical of that nature might be too special-snowflakey, since it uses altered rules for the exaltation's Elsewhere storage function.

Hey if it's fun who cares if it's "snowflakey", although it does kind of sound like you'd have to find a really particular game for it to work....

Lord Raziere
2015-03-19, 06:16 PM
I wonder why ''race'' is such a big deal?

Say it was an all human group. You have a short harry fighter from a warrior culture, a tall lean woodsman from a nature loving culture, a short plump sneak from a happy family culture and a short wide eyed crater from a industrial culture. They are all human, but they have different backgrounds and personalities. So no problems right?

But then call them dwarf, elf, halfling and gnome...ad suddenly there is a problem?

actually I have a problem with calling all those races human. it just takes the magic out of it, because I don't see a "dwarf" and "short hairy fighter from a warrior culture" as the same thing- they conjure completely different images in my mind.

say Dwarf:
I picture people in armor working at great anvils in a mountain using magma as their forge, vast industry of making various bejeweled decorations encrusted with every kind of metal, with some of the more progressive ones working on making clockwork machines or even steampunk devices, while their priests pray in great sonorous voices in vast cathedrals to their dwarven gods, and a king who wears armor of pure gold- but has it enchanted to actually be light as a feather and stronger than steel just to lure the people that think he is just a office layabout king into a false sense of security so that when he faces them in battle, he shows them how much of a badass he really is.

say short hairy fighter from a warrior culture:
I picture a 5 ft tall guy who towers over any dwarf, who is wearing furs, stinks, a crude axe that any dwarf would turn their noses up at, really messy, uneducated....probably goes around killing looting and burning...

it just isn't the same association. please don't take the magic out of it by calling them all humans, thats missing the point of fantasy and just turns it into a pseudo-historical thing.

Admiral Squish
2015-03-19, 06:36 PM
Personally, I think anything that takes choice from the player isn't all that great.
Granted, I expect my players to have a little bit of sense when they're making characters, but if they come to me with something really off-the-wall and are really eager to play it, I might just bend some things to make it work.
Ultimately, if the DM wants to run a game where the players need to be one race, or at least humanoids, I feel it's the DM's job to make that clear. The players will always do whatever they think they can get away with, the making of characters should logically fall within that same mindset.

Knaight
2015-03-19, 09:59 PM
it just isn't the same association. please don't take the magic out of it by calling them all humans, thats missing the point of fantasy and just turns it into a pseudo-historical thing.

Plenty of fantasy is deliberately very historical, and plenty of that which isn't still is human only. Having only humans isn't missing the point of fantasy, it's operating outside of a particular narrow slice of it.

Lord Raziere
2015-03-19, 10:21 PM
Plenty of fantasy is deliberately very historical, and plenty of that which isn't still is human only. Having only humans isn't missing the point of fantasy, it's operating outside of a particular narrow slice of it.

no, fantasy is magic, wizards and dragons. history is just the background at best, if you want a historical game, don't making including fantasy stuff in it, just make a historical game.

Darth Ultron
2015-03-19, 10:37 PM
The problem isn't what you call them, it's how you explain why they are all together, and how you explain the world where all these things exist in close proximity.

But why? The adventurers ''come together'' for the safety in numbers and to form a group to cover all sorts of abilities. It does not matter who you are, it's what you can do for the group.



The problem is when people approach a game assuming that everything ever published is on the table for them and don't bother listening or reading anything about the setting or theme of the game, and dont bother to collaborate with the DM and the other players to form a group that makes sense and fits in the world.

I guess the other side is DM's that have the world as ''only humans'' and ''like Earth in 1000 AD''. Or worse the DM that has ''the elves of the valley, but they are cool and you'd role play them wrong..so elves are not a player character race in my game''.

What I don't get is all the hostility from the DM side. It's like they only see two choices: ban a race or have the race fully detailed and part of the setting. But why?

I get that a lot of DM's are ''stuck in the Dark Ages'' and they like their fantasy very LofR. They want human characters going to human towns and cities so they can role play out being human and doing human things. And to such a human focused DM, having something like a thri-kreen walk into a tavern would just disrupt the whole world. It would be fire and brimstone! Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!

But again why?

How is the game effected if a DM lets a character be of any race? What if the DM just did not make a big deal about it? What if the thri-kreen order a drink at the bar...got a few odd looks..and the barkeep just said something like ''we don't see your kind around here much''. No explosions, no fires and pitchforks and no derailing the planet.

russdm
2015-03-19, 11:29 PM
I guess the other side is DM's that have the world as ''only humans'' and ''like Earth in 1000 AD''. Or worse the DM that has ''the elves of the valley, but they are cool and you'd role play them wrong..so elves are not a player character race in my game''.

What I don't get is all the hostility from the DM side. It's like they only see two choices: ban a race or have the race fully detailed and part of the setting. But why?

I get that a lot of DM's are ''stuck in the Dark Ages'' and they like their fantasy very LofR. They want human characters going to human towns and cities so they can role play out being human and doing human things. And to such a human focused DM, having something like a thri-kreen walk into a tavern would just disrupt the whole world. It would be fire and brimstone! Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!

But again why?

How is the game effected if a DM lets a character be of any race? What if the DM just did not make a big deal about it? What if the thri-kreen order a drink at the bar...got a few odd looks..and the barkeep just said something like ''we don't see your kind around here much''. No explosions, no fires and pitchforks and no derailing the planet.

Theme. Does the Playable races fit the campaign themes or the Setting themes. A place where people are heavily xenophobic towards even elves would react very differently to your Thri-kreen than one where it would feel strange, but little else. In Dark Sun, Thri-kreen aren't much of an issue, they are pretty common.

A grim dark horror like game would be bizarre with happy, silly type characters. Imagine a game where you face vast undead or vampiric horrors lurking in the shadows and the party consists of a bard dedicated to singing romance songs, a ballerina, a gnome anything playing jokes (essentially a gnome), and a Vampire hunter or other type hunter of dark spooky critters. The party really doesn't fit the setting very well. The hunter of course works, the Bard maybe, but a ballerina going vampire hunting? A gnome? What game are you playing here? The same party with bard and hunter plus the following makes more sense: An occult investigator or investigator of nasty things, a priest working to defeat dangerous monsters.

Its the same point why having a character dedicated solely to fighting in a setting of nothing but political intrigue is out of place. It doesn't fit well.

When you are playing "Everything non-human is trying to kill you...", having a party of mostly non-humans is confusing, especially if every where the group goes is human places where interacting with locals would mean the party fighting all the time. It gets really annoying very fast. If the game is intended to be serious and you make silly characters, you make the game silly. Serious characters can make a silly game serious.

The reason is that while the GM/DM makes the setting one way, how the players treat it truly defines how the setting actually functions. If you are trying as the GM to make a game set in Grim dark monsterVille of London, and the party is one that looks more like they are out to party or do something completely different, it affects how the setting is viewed.

It's why LotR is written the way it is instead of having drunks wandering around or heaven forbid gnomes. It wouldn't tell the same story with the other group of characters. The theme matters and the party the players have can quickly change the game from being serious to silly in seconds. A party comprising: Lord Demonax, Sir Slaughterfest, Lady McStabbington, Prince KnifeNthGuts, inspires a very different story than a party of : Sir Holiness, Lord Lovely, Lady Purity, Prince Divine. (Yes, I know I have made up some really nice names to use.)

What is the theme of the setting and story and is it serious or not? Players can easily change a game from being serious to silly and for the DM that is rarely as fun for them as for the players because more work is done by the DM than the players. Players have their characters, while the DM has the world to manage.

Ravens_cry
2015-03-20, 01:03 AM
no, fantasy is magic, wizards and dragons. history is just the background at best, if you want a historical game, don't making including fantasy stuff in it, just make a historical game.
I disagree. Ars Magica is more or less Europe if what was thought to be true at the time was true, and one of the most compelling fantasy novels I read recently did something similar for Ancient Mesopotamia.
Heck, the whole idea of fantasy war-gaming and eventually role playing started because someone basically thought 'What if Napoleon had dragons'?

goto124
2015-03-20, 01:46 AM
A party comprising: Lord Demonax, Sir Slaughterfest, Lady McStabbington, Prince KnifeNthGuts, inspires a very different story than a party of : Sir Holiness, Lord Lovely, Lady Purity, Prince Divine.

What if these 2 teams face off?

I'll be Lady McStabbington, stabbing Lady Purity in the back because what's this whole thing about purity anyway?

Terazul
2015-03-20, 03:16 AM
I've never really understood the "How do you explain why they're all together? Eh? EH?" Argument. You have to deal with that regardless of what race/class/alignment combinations your group ends up with. Hell, I think classes conflict way more than races, barring weird racial vendettas. In a world like DnD (by default) where there's tons of magical races, literal alternate planes of existence with extraplanar creatures that get called down on a daily basis, and thousands of species, I find it so weird that people get turned off by stuff that doesn't come out of the PHB. Like, it's right there. The game is telling you a half-djinni is a thing because it wrote it there as a template you could use. Is it necessarily common? Maybe not, perhaps people will quirk an eyebrow in the same way they would an Elf in human lands, but other than that I don't see too much of an issue. I can understand if your players are new, wanting to restrict them so they don't become overwhelmed, or if you have a very specific setting in mind. My friend ran a campaign for us once in the setting of his book, so we were limited to a handful (10 or so?) of custom races; The base races then offshoot tribes/cultures. But for your more experienced (and trustworthy) players? I don't see the issue in giving them the benefit of the doubt, and trying to work in whatever concept they have in mind. One of my most enjoyable recent games our friend gave us free reign on what to play, despite having an established setting, and the here's how the party turned out:

We were all members of a particular army. Quite evil, as well.

Jahzeel Quyến, King Bastard of Bastards (Faedrake Ancestor [Unseelie Fey Magic-Blooded Silverbrow Human], Bard/Marshal/ToB Homebrew Class): Lineage is comes from a very promiscuous silver dragon mother "The Ornithopter of Ages" who has sired many individuals across the world. As such has a bit of dragon blood, unnatural charm, and talent for the arcane. Severe ferrous allergy. Over the course of the campaign ran into several extended members of the family, ending for better or worse with each encounter. Had a powerful crystal sword, amassed a giant conglomerate fanclub/cult/money laundering business (Leadership+PHB2 Business rules) ran by his Elven assistant, and pretty much looked like a fabulous pointy eared human, with traces of silver scales. Not really any wackier than any of the Draconic things running around (or a Dragon Shaman/Class that turns you into a monster or something).

Fiiz, Medico Magnifico (Yordle [a small, furry monstrous humanoid race] Medic): Resident (plague) doctor and stick-in-the-mud, with an excessive drinking disorder. We ventured into lands both where his kind were welcome, and another in which they were hunted.The straight man to Jahzeel. Essentially a furry little gnome in a doctor's coat with one of those plague masks on. Rode around on his Magebred Warbeast Riding Dog, most of the time.

Sparkthief Jig (Changeling, Artificer/Barbarian/Madspark Eccentric): Ahh Jig, our technician and artificer, who still manages to be an exceptional boon to the team despite failing out of their particular academy. Twice. A cigarette in one hand, and a wand or wrench in the other. Specialized in golems and constructs, unfortunately was a magnet for large things falling on top of her. Looked like a generic human most of the time, with a ponytail, goggles, and the aformentioned items in hand. Eventually had a mental breakdown, but came out of it utterly terrifying.

Slade (One of those crazy Incarnate Construct Warforged things you hear about that may or may not actually work, Limit Dragoon): This unholy abomination of dragon and... robot and... something was cranked out by the biomagitech research division shortly before one of the techs went AWOL, and was assigned to our squad. Appears as a very visceral, brutish individual, actually knew quite a few languages and could hold good conversation. Had a bit of a spat with Jig. Eventually when we found that scientist/his creator, he got left in the burning catacombs when we escaped. Jig laughed.

Cain ??? (Human, Some Homebrew ToB Class): Bounty hunter, hired to come along with us. The usual, quiet, duster-wearing type. Wielded kukris, usually we sent him ahead to get burned alive trigger all the traps scout for difficulties. Got along with a disembodied arm (Steve) that we also acquired from the biomagitech division. They kept sending us these "gifts", but we were pretty sure they were trying to kill us.

Voroth, Nightmare Incarnate (Lesser Aasimar Ozodrin): We found a black orb filled with a swirling darkness. We broke it and he popped out. Gosh he's pretty, but he keeps sprouting mouths everywhere. Not really that crazy considering some of the other things we've fought, though. Also, a total gentleman.

Needless to say, we were a very eccentric party, and all over the place, but our motivations and reasons for working together extended well beyond our races. In terms with meshing well , when we showed up in town it was just... Two really attractive dudes(?), a really tall guy in plate armor (are those horns part of the armor?), an average human, and a short furry thing on another furry thing. We were given free reign with odd templates and race choices, but our GM worked with us to justify them in-world and have it work decently well together. There were of course, many silly moments since were playing for fun, but there was also serious character development and interaction. International espionage and global affairs didn't stop just because one of us could grow fairy wings. When we encountered things that were culturally/racially significant to us we dealt with them... but that'd be the same if it had anything else to do with our character's desires or anything else either. I can understand DMs that don't want to go through all that work and everything, and thus prefer the much simpler "Everyone's a [stock fantasy race] because that's more easy for me to deal with", but I really don't see how it is inherently problematic beyond one's own inability to imagine weird races just getting along. It's only an issue if you have every village start running around with pitchforks when an unfamiliar race pops up, which is a different problem entirely. And even then, that's adding something new for the players and characters to deal with from a difficulty and roleplay perspective.

The thing of "fitting the themes" someone above pointed out is something to consider... but often even then the tiniest bit of thought and effort towards it makes it work (in my eyes, anyway). Let's take the example given, for istance: A grim dark horror game full of undead and vampires with a bard that only sings romance songs sounds perfectly acceptable. Why wouldn't someone cling to a romantic uplifting, inspirational idea such as love in a world where everything sucks. A ballerina? Well, even when the world goes to crap, people still take up the arts. Hopefully they learn to apply that in a survival method (agility, battle dancer type maybe?), but that's more to do with an effective character than the concept itself. Maybe their life was cool before vampires killed their love, and now they're out for revenge, using only the skills they have. A gnome anything is just a gnome anything. The fact that you find gnomes unserious is just your own thing. And then there's the Vampire Hunter, who is obviously the genre-savvy veteran who can teach the other people how to survive; or maybe they're new at this too and know just barely enough to keep everyone grounded in the situation they're in.

That took like, barely any work to think about how it could work together, and those are entire classes/concepts, not just races which the thread is about. In fact most of them sound straight up like something you'd read off an Arkham (http://www.arkhamhorrorwiki.com/Musician) Horror (http://www.arkhamhorrorwiki.com/Bounty_Hunter) Character Card (http://www.arkhamhorrorwiki.com/Entertainer), average people who end up in supernatural situations. So at this point, I really am just going to chalk this one up to people's personal suspension of disbelief/not wanting to pitch in extra effort. I don't think it'll throw off your elven revolutionary group when they stumble into a ruin and find their new Warforged friend. Hey! New plot/interaction point.

Lord Raziere
2015-03-20, 06:19 AM
I disagree. Ars Magica is more or less Europe if what was thought to be true at the time was true, and one of the most compelling fantasy novels I read recently did something similar for Ancient Mesopotamia.
Heck, the whole idea of fantasy war-gaming and eventually role playing started because someone basically thought 'What if Napoleon had dragons'?

aaand? I still don't come for the historical stuff. I come for the dragons. you want alternate history, that is a completely different genre. "go play a game about fantasy for the history" is about as logical as "go play a violin because violins look cool"- its the sound of the violin that is what is important, not how the violin looks. similarly, what matters in fantasy is that its sufficiently fantastically magical and such, not whether historical thing or another is accurately portrayed, they are marginal to the point of fantasy, which is fantasy.

Gritmonger
2015-03-20, 07:04 AM
aaand? I still don't come for the historical stuff. I come for the dragons. you want alternate history, that is a completely different genre. "go play a game about fantasy for the history" is about as logical as "go play a violin because violins look cool"- its the sound of the violin that is what is important, not how the violin looks. similarly, what matters in fantasy is that its sufficiently fantastically magical and such, not whether historical thing or another is accurately portrayed, they are marginal to the point of fantasy, which is fantasy.

Wait.

You're telling people that their version of fantasy is badwrongfun if it takes a historical bent?

"Elves or GT*O?"

themaque
2015-03-20, 08:02 AM
aaand? I still don't come for the historical stuff. I come for the dragons. you want alternate history, that is a completely different genre. "go play a game about fantasy for the history" is about as logical as "go play a violin because violins look cool"- its the sound of the violin that is what is important, not how the violin looks. similarly, what matters in fantasy is that its sufficiently fantastically magical and such, not whether historical thing or another is accurately portrayed, they are marginal to the point of fantasy, which is fantasy.

One could argue that is HIGH Fantasy. Flying castles and whatnot. LOW Fantasy Where things are pretty straight laced with some weirdness to them.

BOTH are Fantasy. and both are fun but can admittedly scratch a different itch. High Fantasy it makes sense to have a plethora of different races. Small communities that could never survive with real population limitations, but it works in HF.

And then you have a game with mostly humans set in a realistic world using real feeling rules of dynamics. except of course for those few things that break the rules. Hence, MAGIC and fantasy.

Alberic Strein
2015-03-20, 08:04 AM
aaand? I still don't come for the historical stuff. I come for the dragons. you want alternate history, that is a completely different genre. "go play a game about fantasy for the history" is about as logical as "go play a violin because violins look cool"- its the sound of the violin that is what is important, not how the violin looks. similarly, what matters in fantasy is that its sufficiently fantastically magical and such, not whether historical thing or another is accurately portrayed, they are marginal to the point of fantasy, which is fantasy.
Tastes are not universal.

Also, even in the most epic fantasy where there are no humans, no earth, only starships filled to the brim with beings who transcended humanity and such, in the end, it is still a story about history. About how man with his cultural and societal bagage can envision the world. Conceiving a society alien to man, one who operates not on our past experiences in reality but entirely on devices created through fiction is more than a daunting task. Even ingenious "re-creations" of societies often take their base, their roots in previously established models.

In other words, I would argue that the dragon is actually the smoke and lightings and that you don't really give a damn about the dragon, the color of its scale, the number of its horns, whether or not its wings could allow it to fly in reality. What you care about is whether your character and her merry band of adventurers can kill it. How far its breath extends, for how much its scales can be sold, and how much glory there is to be had in taking it down. It's not about the beast, it's about the challenge at first, and about the glory next. And the glory? It's tied to the world. To the PNJ interacting with your character. And those PNJs? They are dependent on the world building. Their structure of their society, the relationships they entertain with each other and how the PJ can find their place in that world.

And that fantasy society is going to be straight ripped off of our history as the human species. So yes, building a coherent world that won't turn players off with its incoherencies is important. Also there are blind spots in the human minds, things you don't think about by yourself and need a second point of view to see. Which can prove to be an issue if you're bad at improvising. Ripping off a civilization however? You don't need to imagine what Viking humour was like, you actually know what it's like and merely need it to incorporate it in the game.

My players love when fantasy screws up and interwines with historical cultures, because it's not fantasy that pretends to be completely original and throws dragons and farmers throwing fireballs left and right because magic, but an actual thought out world that incorporates history to create a new and exciting adventure.

I am probably liable to get slapped IRL by my players if I introduce horned helmets wearing vikings as anything but a satyre.

To finish on the viking note: "A dragon is nothing but a viking raid turned meatbag."

Tengu_temp
2015-03-20, 08:45 AM
Yeah, cause, you know, wanting to play a game were all the known laws of reality are out the door as a default is perfectly ok, as long as you want everyone to be the same as they are in realty except for at best a couple of insignificant cosmetic changes. Unless they have the writing talents of Alan Moore, the patience to waste it writing a novel just for someone who doesn't have the imagination to want to let people go outside themselves in ways more significant then cosmetic differences.

The problem with this sentiment is that D&D is an amazingly colorful and fantastic world. Humans are boring, in the same way that tracking the weight of every scrap of loot you have on you and worrying about how long it's been since you've actually stated yourself to be drinking water are 'boring'. These are all elements of the real world, and sometimes a player is going into a game because they want to escape the real world. To them, it's fun to come up with a character concept that's visually striking and unique and out there.

Some players love to play humans because they're familiar, and that's great. Some players don't like to play humans because they feel generic, and that's great too. If all the players are happy and nobody feels as though they're being short-changed, then what does it matter whether one player wants to make an Earth Genasi rather than a Dwarf?

I'm not saying that playing a weird character race is bad - as long as the party and the DM are okay with it, it's fine. I played lots of weirdos myself. But if someone says "humans are boring", that means they can't think of any ways to make their characters not-boring other than to give them a weird race. And a dull character with no personality will be dull no matter if it's a human or a vampiric unicorn fairy. The latter just has to wait until the initial weirdness factor wears out.

Also, I don't play DND.


I take offense to that.


You might be among the people I thought of when I wrote my initial post, so... /shrug

cobaltstarfire
2015-03-20, 09:13 AM
I think when I play weird races it's often because they just popped into my head that way. But I really like trying to include non-human manerisms and vocalizations into how they act, and I get those from looking at their biology.

My very grumpy dragonborn is way more interesting to me because when she gets angry at something I can describe her as making sounds similar to a territorial alligator. Sure she could probably be a large angry human woman, but large angry humans can't make the same threatening sounds that a large dangerous animal can, or flash their very large pointy teeth at an annoyance as a warning. And if they did it probably would just get odd looks rather than taken as a serious threat.


I rather like low fantasy human only games too though. It's a completely different feel, but I still like it. It's really amazing how far you can push humans to be...threatening/scary. In a sense humans can be far more threatening to me because they are human, like thinking about the Reavers in Firefly just puts a pit of horror into my stomach that nothing from D&D could ever manage.

That said most games I play in on a scale of 1-10 (1 being silly, 10 being serious) often bounce between a 3 and an 8, and we're all quite happy with that.

I feel like most of the folks who are dogmatically saying that it must only be humans, because otherwise it's confusing and not a serious enough game would leave me feeling super stifled and uncomfortable.

Thrudd
2015-03-20, 09:38 AM
This is all about setting. I don't see anyone saying it must be only humans all the time. It is not "wrong" to play any kind of creature you can think of as long as it fits the setting. If dragonborn are a thing in your setting, then people can play as dragonborn.

Making a coherent and believable setting is the issue for GM's. As a player, one should consult their GM regarding the setting and the Intended theme or tone of the game before getting your heart set on playing that half fairy half leprechaun werewolf.

As a GM, if you know all your players refuse to get into grim dark Conan world and always try to silly it up with their crazy characters, maybe give them what they want one time and just run planescape, or create a similar kitchen sink world.

Hopefully, both GM and players can get on the same page about the tone and theme of the game. It is much better when everyone "gets" the setting and wants to be a part of it, rather than trying as hard as they can to break it or make it something else.

Alberic Strein
2015-03-20, 09:42 AM
I feel like most of the folks who are dogmatically saying that it must only be humans, because otherwise it's confusing and not a serious enough game would leave me feeling super stifled and uncomfortable.

Because this automatically qualifies them as extremely rigid fellows, and gaming with extremely rigid fellows tends to have this effect.

I play human males, that's my thing. But I would definitively blink twice at anyone calling them boring, or limited in their potential because they are human.

Meta-human races are extremely interesting, and a great source for anecdotes and interesting roleplaying. Why does your alligator woman bites an enemy and then does a barrel roll? Because real-lufe alligators do. Fiction is extremely interesting when trying to make an impossible creature works, what is the psyche of a half-dragon woman? How does it differ from any normal human, and what animal traits are transfered. Those opportunities are awesome, and unless you bring those meta-human races, you can't get the leisure to RP a sentient being who remains non-human nonetheless.

Or can we? The contact with Great Ones can also do that to any mortal, or you could create a society so dehumanized that humans feel more kinship with an angry dragonborn lady than the result of said society. Or an overpowering longing which becomes the driving force, the key to the existence of the character, etc, etc...

Unfortunately, we lack the ability to perfectly recreate another being, another mind which thinks and interprets things in its own way. When we roleplay, we choose guidelines, try to get as much under the skin of the character as possible and explore what interests us in our creation.

In other words, while non-human haters can definitely make anybody uncomfortable and stifled, there is nothing inherently limiting in playing a bona fide human, there are enough role playing opportunities inside this limitation to last for years, decades, if not a lifetime, even more so in a fantasy setting.

cobaltstarfire
2015-03-20, 10:08 AM
Oh no, I have nothing against playing humans (a few of my longest lived characters are humans after all, as you'll note I did say I've played in and enjoyed human only games). If you want to play only humans ever, that's perfectly fine, especially if you can make them interesting. Because you're right there are lots of interesting things you can do with a human.

I was more thinking of GM's who just won't tolerate anything at all ever period, and say the reason is that it's too confusing, or the player is obvious just being a munchkin, or that the game isn't being taken seriously if you play something other than a human/demihuman.


My main issue I think is actually the assumption being made about a player who may want to (or just in general) like playing odd races.


I'm mainly saying this from the perspective as somewho who likes to play all of my characters, not only the humans. Who has had DM's that would shoot down an idea based on the race without hearing the idea (even if the race was available in the universe ) simply because it turns out that they hated said race. Or because they think it's stupid to play anything other than XYZ. I'm not saying anyone here is like that, but it's not really very fun to deal with that.

Broken Twin
2015-03-20, 10:33 AM
For me, personally, I'm not fond of kitchen sink settings. Too many civilized species makes my suspension of disbelief weak. My settings tend to strictly limit the number of intelligent species. Other intelligent creatures are isolated and rare.

Having said that, if the player wants to play a unique character, I'm usually okay with it, as long as they can give me a plausible explanation as to where they come from. You want to play a teifling in a setting where they explicitly don't exist? Sure! Maybe your parents made a deal with a devil, and you bear the cursed mark of their pact. You'll need to hide those horns though, or pass them off as headgear. Otherwise superstitious peasants may try to have you exorcized, which probably won't end well for you. A dryad? Perhaps your tree is on the grounds of another PC's father's court, and you travel with his offspring as payment for them leaving your tree untouched.

As long as my players are attempting to keep within the tone and theme of the game we're building, I'll give an honest attempt at making what they want work. Refluffing solves a lot of problems.

Alberic Strein
2015-03-20, 10:39 AM
@cobaltstarfire Oh don't worry, I get you. It was actually the main point I was trying to convey. Odd races out are an interesting way to develop a character. That and extremely rigid people tend to be a chore to play with. Even more as a DM.

I left out part of the idea. Humans are not locked into being boring no matter what. Odd races are not "unserious" or "confusing".

Some character may be inappropriate for a story, such as a human-eating parasitic plant in a Kingmaker campaign. But other than that, there is nothing wrong with odd races. I'll even go as far as claim that prohibiting them is wrong. Sure it's not what you had in mind, but being thrown out of your confort zone is what makes you grow as a DM.

But yet again, I allow half-gorgons in my games -as in the literal daughter of Medusa and a very courageous man- so I might be a little more open-minded than most.

Thrudd
2015-03-20, 10:58 AM
On the subject of "snowflakes": Special snowflake characters are fine in a fantasy superhero game. Where the players begin as and are assumed to be "big damn heroes" (or villains). Superheroes pretty much all have "snowflake" origins that make them different from everyone else in the world (bit by a radioactive spider, subject of an experiment gone wrong, hybrid human/alien, etc). So fine, you can have a half pixie weretiger and a sentient mechanical dragon and the psionic descendant of a one-time pairing of an angel and a demon. You're like a fantasy version of the avengers, coming together to save the world.

However, not all games are superhero games. So it comes back to setting and theme again. Sometimes, fantasy snowflakes are appropriate and sometimes they aren't.

Lost in Hyrule
2015-03-20, 11:15 AM
I've played in and DM'd a number of games that definitely had crazy parties. My Warforged Bard is among my favorite character concepts I've developed, though those adventures were rather short lived. One party consisted of: Elf, Dragonborn, Shardmind, Minotaur, Shifter. We've had good times doing these things!

In an upcoming campaign I'm going to run (our first true campaign, in fact. Hopefully Levels 1 to 20 in 5e, as opposed to only a handful of levels in all our other games), I plan on having an all human party. Other races exist in the world, the standard fare: Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, Gnomes, Orcs, Goblins, the whole shebang. The story I'm hoping to craft, however, is to take a band of friends/acquaintances from a small town in a human kingdom, and slowly raise them up, Zero to Hero style. First dealing with local problems, moving on to kingdom-wide strife, international conflict, and worldwide threats.

The concept of 'home' is quite important in how the setting works, and as such, their home is the place they each grew up, a town only inhabited by humans. Does this sound like I'm making a wrong decision, based on what some have said here?

P.S. - The players so far seem accepting of this idea. One player said, "Yeah, I like the idea of not having a circus for once." Another said, "I can only be human? Wow... okay!" So they are accepting, but to various degrees.

Thrudd
2015-03-20, 11:56 AM
The concept of 'home' is quite important in how the setting works, and as such, their home is the place they each grew up, a town only inhabited by humans. Does this sound like I'm making a wrong decision, based on what some have said here?

P.S. - The players so far seem accepting of this idea. One player said, "Yeah, I like the idea of not having a circus for once." Another said, "I can only be human? Wow... okay!" So they are accepting, but to various degrees.

Nothing is wrong as long as you've explained the setting to them. You told them it's a story of people from a particular village, if anyone really doesn't want to play that they will tell you.

Kiero
2015-03-20, 11:57 AM
The concept of 'home' is quite important in how the setting works, and as such, their home is the place they each grew up, a town only inhabited by humans. Does this sound like I'm making a wrong decision, based on what some have said here?


As long as you pitch it to your group appropriately, and get their buy-in before you start putting work into it, no problem at all.

Darth Ultron
2015-03-20, 01:04 PM
Theme. Does the Playable races fit the campaign themes or the Setting themes. A place where people are heavily xenophobic towards even elves would react very differently to your Thri-kreen than one where it would feel strange, but little else. In Dark Sun, Thri-kreen aren't much of an issue, they are pretty common.


So the DM sets a theme and forces the players to walk the line...but only the line the DM says so. How oddly Old School? Wounder why this did not get nerfed around 2000 when role playing became all modern and sensitive? How did the DM get to keep the power to play the race ban card?

Though this still comes back to the problem: too many DM's make worlds ''just like Earth in ye olden times''. Way too many DM's are stuck right there.



The concept of 'home' is quite important in how the setting works, and as such, their home is the place they each grew up, a town only inhabited by humans. Does this sound like I'm making a wrong decision, based on what some have said here?

For role play, this sounds bad. So why can't two or five or twelve races live in town? Why do races have to be all separate? And if the barkeep is a goblin and the balcksmith is a minotaur and the alchemist is a gnome.....does the town somehow ''not work''?

And for the game, it's bad to block races as each race has set abilities.

cobaltstarfire
2015-03-20, 01:12 PM
For role play, this sounds bad. So why can't two or five or twelve races live in town? Why do races have to be all separate? And if the barkeep is a goblin and the balcksmith is a minotaur and the alchemist is a gnome.....does the town somehow ''not work''?

And for the game, it's bad to block races as each race has set abilities.

Maybe in this world the races tend to keep themselves more segregated, or just live in far flung regions from one another.

This persons players already are down with the concept so there's nothing "bad" about it.

Hiro Protagonest
2015-03-20, 01:22 PM
For role play, this sounds bad. So why can't two or five or twelve races live in town? Why do races have to be all separate? And if the barkeep is a goblin and the balcksmith is a minotaur and the alchemist is a gnome.....does the town somehow ''not work''?

No, but it happens to be a town only populated by humans because the DM says so.

Last I checked, the DM still holds power over the class ban, race ban, and spell ban cards, and they get these cards because they make the setting. If the DM says "there's no other planes of existence, so no outsiders, half-outsiders, or planetouched, and no Summon Monster, Planar Ally, Planar Binding, or Gate", is that an abuse of power? It depends on if it's for setting reasons, or if someone abused Planar Ally in his last game and they're doing a roundabout 'solution'. "But it's in the official books!" is not a valid excuse, you're not required to always play Planescape/Spelljammer with every official Material Plane and other planes in it.

Thrudd
2015-03-20, 01:25 PM
So the DM sets a theme and forces the players to walk the line...but only the line the DM says so. How oddly Old School? Wounder why this did not get nerfed around 2000 when role playing became all modern and sensitive? How did the DM get to keep the power to play the race ban card?

Though this still comes back to the problem: too many DM's make worlds ''just like Earth in ye olden times''. Way too many DM's are stuck right there.



For role play, this sounds bad. So why can't two or five or twelve races live in town? Why do races have to be all separate? And if the barkeep is a goblin and the balcksmith is a minotaur and the alchemist is a gnome.....does the town somehow ''not work''?

And for the game, it's bad to block races as each race has set abilities.

This is the setting he DM has envisioned. That's the answer to all questions. If the DM wanted a society with fifty different intelligent races living together, it would be so.

But you seem to be disagreeing with the idea that a DM can come up with whatever setting they want, implying that they are beholden to the book regarding what can or can't be there. This is not the case. Yes, the DM has the power to create what they want and introduce house rules and ban things they don't want in the game. That's part of their role in the game.

If players don't like the DMs rulings, they can talk about it. They can ask for what they want or say that they would rather play in a different setting. But it is still the DMs decision, as the person who is running the game.

A compromise must always be reached. If the group doesn't want to play in the setting and the DM won't compromise, then there will be no game, or a poor game.

Darth Ultron
2015-03-20, 01:47 PM
This is the setting he DM has envisioned. That's the answer to all questions. If the DM wanted a society with fifty different intelligent races living together, it would be so.

But you seem to be disagreeing with the idea that a DM can come up with whatever setting they want, implying that they are beholden to the book regarding what can or can't be there. This is not the case. Yes, the DM has the power to create what they want and introduce house rules and ban things they don't want in the game. That's part of their role in the game.

I guess the real bit is that 9 out of 10 DM's always follow the ''limited race idea'', for no other reason then they just want too. Sure they will use words like ''theme'' or ''setting'', but that is just them saying ''this is what I like.''

And there is still no reason a multirace group can't play in any game...other then the DM simply does not like it.

Thrudd
2015-03-20, 01:55 PM
I guess the real bit is that 9 out of 10 DM's always follow the ''limited race idea'', for no other reason then they just want too. Sure they will use words like ''theme'' or ''setting'', but that is just them saying ''this is what I like.''

And there is still no reason a multirace group can't play in any game...other then the DM simply does not like it.
Yes, a DM runs the game they like, why should it be otherwise?

The "reason" for not allowing any/every race is that the hypothetical DM in question has envisioned a world where that doesn't make sense. You may DM a game and create a world where it does make sense.

Felyndiira
2015-03-20, 02:06 PM
I guess the real bit is that 9 out of 10 DM's always follow the ''limited race idea'', for no other reason then they just want too. Sure they will use words like ''theme'' or ''setting'', but that is just them saying ''this is what I like.''

And there is still no reason a multirace group can't play in any game...other then the DM simply does not like it.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a DM being too uncomfortable to DM a a game where the player characters are all minotaurs or bugbears, setting or not.

We are all human, and thus we all have things we like and dislike that don't necessarily have perfectly objective rationale. If a DM simply doesn't like a game with everyone playing exotic races, he is under no obligation to DM it just like how he is under no obligation to play a game he doesn't like.

Darth Ultron
2015-03-20, 02:09 PM
The "reason" for not allowing any/every race is that the hypothetical DM in question has envisioned a world where that doesn't make sense. You may DM a game and create a world where it does make sense.

But why does it not make sense?

If you were to take each ''type'' of person like Geek, Jock, Goth, Slacker and call them ''a race'', then suddenly it does not make sense?

Why does ''making sense'' sound more like ''Tyrant DM''?

Felyndiira
2015-03-20, 02:38 PM
But why does it not make sense?

If you were to take each ''type'' of person like Geek, Jock, Goth, Slacker and call them ''a race'', then suddenly it does not make sense?

Why does ''making sense'' sound more like ''Tyrant DM''?
I'm just curious, but why do you believe there has to be a concrete, hard-drawn line for every group no matter the circumstances?

There are some groups that may enjoy a fully railroaded game with almost no player autonomy. Are they having badwrongfun because their idea of fun isn't concurrent with how most of us at giantitp runs our games?

The fact of the matter is, the DM is just as much of a part of the game as the players. There is no reason a DM has to go so far as to not have fun in his own game just to please the players, and if a DM dislikes exotic race parties enough that he would not have fun DMing for a party, why should he be forced to do so when we are all a-okay with a DM not wanting to run a specific genre or system because of personal preference?

The point is, there is no universal line of DM tyranny drawn in the sand anywhere. Some players are so stingy that they will leave a game if they don't get to kill the party and steal their loot. Some players are okay with almost anything. Most of us, though, have different lines that might even change on a daily basis depending on mood and the states of our inner muses. The line is between a DM and his individual players only, subject to compromise and forming only when people are too stubborn to compromise; and "I will play minotaur or else" is just as stubborn as "core races only."

BWR
2015-03-20, 02:51 PM
But why does it not make sense?

If you were to take each ''type'' of person like Geek, Jock, Goth, Slacker and call them ''a race'', then suddenly it does not make sense?

Why does ''making sense'' sound more like ''Tyrant DM''?

Are you seriously trying to argue that if a DM has made a setting that doesn't include some race (say, minotaurs) and some player wants to play a minotaur, the DM is being a "tyrant DM" for saying no?
Or that a DM should always alter the setting to accommodate anything a player wants?
Are you really trying to equate personality with race?

I really hope I'm reading you wrong here.

Gritmonger
2015-03-20, 02:52 PM
But why does it not make sense?

If you were to take each ''type'' of person like Geek, Jock, Goth, Slacker and call them ''a race'', then suddenly it does not make sense?

Why does ''making sense'' sound more like ''Tyrant DM''?

If the players and DM are both okay with the setting, it's a problem because you in particular wouldn't choose that game?

Players join eyes wide open, because they have to join the campaign, then submit characters for the campaign.

This is not 1 out of 10 campaigns. It is a solid majority. The minority are very often documented in the worst GM and worst Player threads.

I'm starting to consider this is a more general objection to authority.

themaque
2015-03-20, 03:01 PM
But why does it not make sense?

If you were to take each ''type'' of person like Geek, Jock, Goth, Slacker and call them ''a race'', then suddenly it does not make sense?

Why does ''making sense'' sound more like ''Tyrant DM''?


In my campaign setting, I typically don't allow elves. They left the world, and the few who remain are all super powerful and high level. It does not fit the context of the world for a low level elf to just be wandering around. while, I have allowed them occasionally, the fact that they are there are there at all becomes a major plot point so unless I'm prepared to deal with that, NO ELVES.

Does that make me a Tyrant GM? If I'm setting a game in Ancient Greece is it wrong for me to say no one of Japanese decent?

cobaltstarfire
2015-03-20, 03:41 PM
I guess the real bit is that 9 out of 10 DM's always follow the ''limited race idea'', for no other reason then they just want too. Sure they will use words like ''theme'' or ''setting'', but that is just them saying ''this is what I like.''

And there is still no reason a multirace group can't play in any game...other then the DM simply does not like it.

"Hey guys I've got this new idea to run a game where you're all humans in a town full of humans and [the rest of what the dm has in mind]"

And then the players say "Hmm, that's a bit different from our usual, but yeah sure sounds fun"


Where exactly is the problem here again? The DM is happy, the players are happy. There is no tyranny.

Thrudd
2015-03-20, 05:03 PM
But why does it not make sense?

If you were to take each ''type'' of person like Geek, Jock, Goth, Slacker and call them ''a race'', then suddenly it does not make sense?

Why does ''making sense'' sound more like ''Tyrant DM''?

That depends on each DM and the world they have created, doesn't it? Maybe minotaurs do not exist. Maybe minotaurs only live in labyrinths and eat babies, so they would not be found in town acting as a blacksmith. You think it is "tyranny" that a DM might invent a setting that doesn't include every creature in the monster manual as a playable race, and use every optional rule in the DMG? It's a creative choice. It is not necessarily related to experience level (people implying that restricting playable races is something you would do because it was "too much to handle"). Not every game needs to take place in forgotten realms, greyhawk, dragonlance, or eberron.

Having different fantasy races is not the only way to depict different sorts of characters. a human could be a big 7ft tall strong guy that charges into battle, or a skinny little guy that backstabs people and picks pockets, or a know it all that studies books all day and has a magic spell to answer for everything. That's what the ability scores represent in D&D

Talakeal
2015-03-20, 05:58 PM
In my experience players want completely different things out of their characters.

Some people enjoy depth and are interested in personality and background.

Other people enjoy novelty and want to play exotic characters with strange powers.

In my experience people who want to play nonstandard races usually fall into the latter group. They refuse to give their characters any sort of backstory or social relationships, and tell me that people are flat out boring, and there has never been a single person in all of human history which they found interesting. They refuse to play human characters and generally also refuse to play "mundane" classes either. I have never been able to play a game like Call of Cthulhu or Aces and Eights because these players simply found nothing entertaining about it.


I don't have a problem with people playing an unusual race because it is something they really want to do, but more often they are just bored and want to try something weird. This by itself isn't too big a problem, but it causes three major issues:
1: They are almost certain to grow bored and abandon the character.
2: If I allow one person to play something weird everyone wants to do the same, which makes it really hard to run a lot of stories that aren't about the band of misfits trying to gain acceptance and people's reactions to them.
3: Game balance can be a bitch. Particularly in a system like 3E D&D with its horrible LA and racial HD rules.

russdm
2015-03-20, 06:23 PM
So the DM sets a theme and forces the players to walk the line...but only the line the DM says so. How oddly Old School? Wounder why this did not get nerfed around 2000 when role playing became all modern and sensitive? How did the DM get to keep the power to play the race ban card?

Though this still comes back to the problem: too many DM's make worlds ''just like Earth in ye olden times''. Way too many DM's are stuck right there.

I never implied that. I was stating that the players have more power over the game and the game working than the DM does, but that people complain that the DM holds too much power when the game works through comprise better.

People play more what they know then what they don't and having players that like to abuse DM willingness may make it harder to try different things; that still doesn't change the fact that the players have more power over the game than the DM does anyway.

The DM can ban your character concept, but you the player can completely work over the game to completely destroy it despite what the DM wants.



For role play, this sounds bad. So why can't two or five or twelve races live in town? Why do races have to be all separate? And if the barkeep is a goblin and the balcksmith is a minotaur and the alchemist is a gnome.....does the town somehow ''not work''?

And for the game, it's bad to block races as each race has set abilities.

Why do all races need to be together? Is the Game made by players and DM or is just one of the two? Are you arguing that it is wrong for any playable races to be missing or that the players and DM should make comprises on what is available and let a player work out their unique option with the DM?

Why is DMs making choices about worlds bad, but good when players can play whatever they want even if it overrules anything the DM has done? Does what the DM want then matter at all? Is the DM even needed or wanted at this point?

A point that I think you are not getting: DMs don't have that much actual power over their games as much as the power that players have. Players frequently direct how the game goes more than the DM really ever does.

Darth Ultron
2015-03-20, 09:53 PM
Are you seriously trying to argue that if a DM has made a setting that doesn't include some race (say, minotaurs) and some player wants to play a minotaur, the DM is being a "tyrant DM" for saying no?
Or that a DM should always alter the setting to accommodate anything a player wants?

Well, yes? First I don't really get the idea that the DM climbs up on his high horse, makes a setting and puts it way up on a pedestal. Second, I don't really get the idea that the DM makes ''a setting a game'' and the setting ''is tiny and small''. I know it's a really big rage right now, but I just don't get it. Third I'd think a DM could take a couple seconds to ask the players what they wanted in the game.

And after all that, lets say the DM makes an ''ancient Ireland'' like' setting. Then a player comes along and wants to play a minotaur. And a minotaur does not fit into the DM's vague inaccurate vision of fictional Ireland. So the DM flips out and says ''no, only stuff I like in my setting!'' The DM just can't add a group of minotaurs to his setting ''because''.

cobaltstarfire
2015-03-20, 09:56 PM
Third I'd think a DM could take a couple seconds to ask the players what they wanted in the game.



Yeah so, that guy you said was doing "bad" said that he ran it by his players and they were fine with it. So again, what exactly is the problem?

Maglubiyet
2015-03-20, 10:32 PM
And after all that, lets say the DM makes an ''ancient Ireland'' like' setting. Then a player comes along and wants to play a minotaur. And a minotaur does not fit into the DM's vague inaccurate vision of fictional Ireland. So the DM flips out and says ''no, only stuff I like in my setting!'' The DM just can't add a group of minotaurs to his setting ''because''.

So are you saying that you absolutely can't be happy unless you get to play the character you want, no matter what the setting? Why stop at minotaur, why not pick a superhero or a cyborg?

Maybe you wouldn't pick those for the same reason a DM won't allow the minotaur -- they do not fit in the setting. Just because something has the name "fantasy" in the description doesn't mean anything goes.

russdm
2015-03-20, 10:33 PM
And after all that, lets say the DM makes an ''ancient Ireland'' like' setting. Then a player comes along and wants to play a minotaur. And a minotaur does not fit into the DM's vague inaccurate vision of fictional Ireland. So the DM flips out and says ''no, only stuff I like in my setting!'' The DM just can't add a group of minotaurs to his setting ''because''.

I don't agree with the flipping out bit because its wrong, but you gave the answer that should have been given.


And a minotaur does not fit into the DM's vague inaccurate vision of fictional Ireland.

You just went and answered your own complaint about why not.

I am going on the assumption though that the DM and Players discussed everything required for playing the game before they started and the minotaur issue should have come up and been resolved. Making it an issue after that is just the player trolling the game for their own amusement.

Darth Ultron
2015-03-20, 10:36 PM
So are you saying that you absolutely can't be happy unless you get to play the character you want, no matter what the setting?

Yes.

And I really don't see why a DM can't alter their ''setting on a pedestal'' to include any race.

Milo v3
2015-03-20, 10:46 PM
Yes.

And I really don't see why a DM can't alter their ''setting on a pedestal'' to include any race.

So you'd allow people to play as balors in a modern non-magical setting?

Maglubiyet
2015-03-20, 11:05 PM
And I really don't see why a DM can't alter their ''setting on a pedestal'' to include any race.

Maybe there's a valid in-game reason. A minotaur isn't just a guy in a funny suit -- it is an alien species with radically different abilities and limitations from a human. His presence would demand explanation. He's either really rare, in which case he will be the focus of every adventure because people will want to use him or kill him. Or he's one of many and minotaurs are common, which would require changing many of the assumptions of the game world.

YossarianLives
2015-03-20, 11:08 PM
Yes.

And I really don't see why a DM can't alter their ''setting on a pedestal'' to include any race.

Bu... Bu... But... Gah!

Surely if the DM can compromise by adding unintended creatures to his setting the players should be just as capable, if not more of compromising on what character they want to play.

Maglubiyet
2015-03-20, 11:12 PM
Bu... Bu... But... Gah!

Surely if the DM can compromise by adding unintended creatures to his setting the players should be just as capable, if not more of compromising on what character they want to play.

Yeah, at this point I kinda think Darth is just trolling. Or minotauring, as the case may be.

Lord Raziere
2015-03-20, 11:24 PM
So you'd allow people to play as balors in a modern non-magical setting?

I think thats a communication problem between the GM and the players at that point than a race choice problem.

really, this is all a communication problem disguised as a race choice problem: people should state their preferences for what they want to play and what the GM wants to run up front so that there is no confusion mid way and awkward moments like these so that everyone is clear on what game will be played beforehand, and work out what kind of game will be ok for everyone. there shouldn't be any point where the GM naively assumes that the players automatically know the setting their running and won't deviate from it, or where the Player has such little knowledge of the game that will be running to the point where they think they can make any concept they want and it will be accepted.

as a person who likes playing weird concepts and maybe might want to play a big demon someday, I have to pay attention to whether or not the GM is amenable to that sort of thing before I even pitch the idea. I don't go into PbP recruitment threads for modern no-magic games going "I want to play a Balor" or something, its a modern no-magic game, why would I want to play in that? I mean no magic? just modern day? thats one of the most boring things I could think of and would avoid even trying to get into one.

and lets assume instead that I'm going into an IRL game: if they say that its modern no magic, I'll just say "nope, not interested" then walk out because I'm not interested in that, because no gaming is better than bad gaming. I wouldn't even try to play in that setting, because it wouldn't hold any interesting challenges for the characters I have in mind, and if the GM really likes this sort of setting, they probably have special snowflake paranoia anyways. in short, speaking as the hypothetical weirdness player in this scenario: what possible reason would I have to do this? Because I can't think of any aside from being a jerk/troll to the players in it, and I don't want to be a jerk.

the players who are even interested in playing that sort of game, probably aren't the people to make balors anyways, while the people who make balors probably aren't interested in that sort of game and would like something more high-fantasy kitchen sink to play in, so the only reasons those two would be submitting their characters to the same non-magic modern game, is the GM being a terrible communicator, or the player being a jerk.

Terazul
2015-03-20, 11:45 PM
So what do odd race players expect in the way of rewards? A human might be able to marry the human Count's unwed progeny if they save the county from a wyrm, but what does the catwere get? Are they expected to accept only shiny baubles and coins for their heroic deed payable in two years time after the county has recovered? Are they supposed to find their own mate on their own time and possibly accept one without their own land? Do they not get a chance for their children to inherit leadership from them? Do they not get the chance to plan their children's education? Is somebody else supposed to support their family for them? Is the Count accepting responsibility for the care of your family in his household acceptable for you? I'm not as familiar in intercultural rewards as much as some of you might be.

I imagine the rewards they want will vary depending upon the character's motivations and goals? Race doesn't necessarily have anything to do with that.:smallconfused:

See, this is an odd example because it assumes that the human would necessarily be interested in that at all, simply because they're human, and that just because someone was a werecat they wouldn't be (or automatically assuming discrimination against them by not having it offered at all). I think a bunch of leaps are being made in terms of how relatable "weird" races are, assuming that you'd do things so much differently just because they're... well, not human. Like even amongst humans you'd have to deal with different cultural standards, norms, and acceptable rewards. I think the issue here is really people feeling familiar with certain races and then having assumptions based on how they'd act, and when odd ones get thrown into the mix they don't know how to respond. Which is something you could talk to your players about, anyway.

Seriously though, with as many half-* races that exist just because humans were fiddling around with other races, I am not sure where all this "humans are confused by other races and don't know how to react" baseline is coming from. If anything, it should only be as odd as a group of humans from one region acclimating with another. Which is a thing that happens in the real world, like right now. Just add cat ears.

Vizzerdrix
2015-03-21, 12:07 AM
So long as the restriction goes both ways (DM and Players) I'm fine with it. But the second the DM decides to start throwing those same banned races at the players that wanted to use them then their is a problem. And it must be dealt with swiftly, mercilessly, and with buckets of chum!

Talakeal
2015-03-21, 12:10 AM
So long as the restriction goes both ways (DM and Players) I'm fine with it. But the second the DM decides to start throwing those same banned races at the players that wanted to use them then their is a problem.

I vehemently disagree with this. There are tons of races that are suitable for NPCs that are not suitable for PCs. I don't think any DM would, for example, let a player play as The Tarrasque, but it isn't unreasonable to fight one. Likewise if you are playing an X-files style game about discovery of the unknown I wouldn't want to allow Mulder and Scully to have a little green man as a partner yet still be unsure about whether or not aliens exist.

goto124
2015-03-21, 01:47 AM
Kender....

BWR
2015-03-21, 05:12 AM
Well, yes? First I don't really get the idea that the DM climbs up on his high horse, makes a setting and puts it way up on a pedestal. Second, I don't really get the idea that the DM makes ''a setting a game'' and the setting ''is tiny and small''. I know it's a really big rage right now, but I just don't get it. Third I'd think a DM could take a couple seconds to ask the players what they wanted in the game.

And after all that, lets say the DM makes an ''ancient Ireland'' like' setting. Then a player comes along and wants to play a minotaur. And a minotaur does not fit into the DM's vague inaccurate vision of fictional Ireland. So the DM flips out and says ''no, only stuff I like in my setting!'' The DM just can't add a group of minotaurs to his setting ''because''.

I'm sorry but this sort of 'reasoning' basically leaves you with no restrictions at all. By this 'logic' anything a player wants is fair game and the DM should allow it. You want to run a game where everybody is a LG paladin working for the greater good, some ******** wants to play backstabbing PVP-ing CE assassin, the DM and the other players should just bend over and take it and let it ruin the game rather than insisting the disruptive player get with the program?
I should allow shapeshifting gelatinous cubes riding transforming love-powered mechs in my L5R game because some wanker thinks it sounds fun and can't get his head around the concept of L5R?
I should allow someone to play a god just because some moron thinks that sounds fun?

And how can you say "inaccurate vision of fictional Ireland" with a straight face? Think a little about that, then get back to me.

Newsflash: ALL settings have limits, all settings have things that do not fit in. Most games (by which I mean the type of story a GM wants to run in a setting) have limits to what will make it work well or not. Players whining about wanting to play something that either doesn't exist in the setting or will make the game a rocky, unpleasant experience do not have any right to ruin the game.

M Placeholder
2015-03-21, 05:29 AM
Yes.

And I really don't see why a DM can't alter their ''setting on a pedestal'' to include any race.


Hey Darth, are you from anywhere near Newcastle Upon Tyne, England? If so, Ill invite to my Dark Sun campaign and let you play as a Warforged:smalltongue:



Back to the conversation at hand.....

It all depends on the setting. In the games Ive been a part of, all of the players have selected the races that were allowed by the GM, and rarely did they actually select an exotic race. In the 5th edition game Ive started, I selected a Gnome bard, the others are Dwarf Fighter, Elf Druid, and three humans - Sorcerer, Paladin and Barbarian. Nobody selected a Drow, Dragonborn, Tiefling or Half Orc.

For the Dark Sun game I am GMing, I allowed all of the races from the 3.5 setting minus the Aarakocra, as there would be a lot of gametime set in Tyr - Human, Half Elf, Dwarf, Elf, Halfling, Mul (Dwarf/Human hybrid), Half Giant and Thri Kreen. All of the players picked the humanoid races, and I gave two latecomers a Half Giant and a Thri-Kreen.

So it may just be my experience, but generally players will pick the mundane over the exotic.

themaque
2015-03-21, 07:18 AM
I think thats a communication problem between the GM and the players at that point than a race choice problem.
-snip-

the players who are even interested in playing that sort of game, probably aren't the people to make balors anyways, while the people who make balors probably aren't interested in that sort of game and would like something more high-fantasy kitchen sink to play in, so the only reasons those two would be submitting their characters to the same non-magic modern game, is the GM being a terrible communicator, or the player being a jerk.

Here here. I second this opinion. There are settings and campaigns where a free for all anything goes lazefair character creation fits.

It can be really fun to just let loose and play the odd bunch. Even in a normally straightlaced world.

However there should be clear communication between GM and players ahead of time. Good Lord Raziere hit the nail right on the head.

LibraryOgre
2015-03-21, 07:40 AM
So long as the restriction goes both ways (DM and Players) I'm fine with it. But the second the DM decides to start throwing those same banned races at the players that wanted to use them then their is a problem. And it must be dealt with swiftly, mercilessly, and with buckets of chum!

"Ok, this game is called 'Against the Drow'. We're going to be fighting drow."
"I want to be a drow!"
"Dammit, Dave."

Thrudd
2015-03-21, 09:48 AM
the players who are even interested in playing that sort of game, probably aren't the people to make balors anyways, while the people who make balors probably aren't interested in that sort of game and would like something more high-fantasy kitchen sink to play in, so the only reasons those two would be submitting their characters to the same non-magic modern game, is the GM being a terrible communicator, or the player being a jerk.


I think a lot of people can enjoy playing any game for what it is. I can play a modern game and a fantasy magic game and a sci fi game happily, all with different types of characters. If I want to make a demon character in a crazy fantasy game, it doesn't mean I can't enjoy other types of characters in other games. I think most people are willing to play the game they are presented with.

I have never understood people who will only play one type of game, and less so one specific type of character. I guess that is because I love gaming of all sorts, I'm happy to try pretty much anything and play anything if it's with my friends (I even played toon, big eye small mouth, and a sailor moon rpg once).

But I have known people like that. One guy I knew had no interest in any sort of game besides D&D, and he only wanted to play a Drow ranger. He would compromise and go with elf instead, but that was it. All characters were otherwise identical: a soft spoken loner badass with a big hooded cloak that dual wields scimitars.

Another guy from this same group (who was the DM for AD&D), had to be cajoled and bribed to be willing to play in another game. At the time, we were short on players (drow ranger guy declined to play, of course), and without him we would also lose another player who wouldn't want to play without him. So we convinced him by letting him play a special snowflake that was stronger (on paper) than all the other characters. (It was wod werewolf, and I let him play a weretiger instead of being part of the pack). He didn't really want to play a non-fantasy setting, though I think it was really more that he had control issues, he was a terrible DM with insane godlike NPC that was constantly showing up to mess with the party.

In other words, try to broaden horizons and try different things and enjoy them for what they are. don't be the one who ruins your friends' games because you refuse to try anything different.

Admiral Squish
2015-03-21, 10:19 AM
"Ok, this game is called 'Against the Drow'. We're going to be fighting drow."
"I want to be a drow!"
"Dammit, Dave."

I dunno there's some interesting options there.
There's obviously a drizz't clone option.
Or perhaps Dave wants to play a drow who's trying to use the PCs to ruin a rival's plots.
Or maybe Dave plays a drow prisoner of the PCs, forced to fight alongside them with a geas or something, and slowly comes to see the positive side of the surface races.

I'm just saying, there are ways to make it work as long as the player and DM are both good at their jobs and communicate about what they expect from the game and player respectively.

cobaltstarfire
2015-03-21, 10:23 AM
I agree with most of your post (that diversity can be a fine thing).




In other words, try to broaden horizons and try different things and enjoy them for what they are. don't be the one who ruins your friends' games because you refuse to try anything different.

But I disagree with this part, no one is obligated to do something just because they're your friend.

If my group wanted to play a game or setting idea that didn't grab my interest I'd just pass on it and catch up with them later.

Lord Raziere
2015-03-21, 10:55 AM
"Ok, this game is called 'Against the Drow'. We're going to be fighting drow."
"I want to be a drow!"
"Dammit, Dave."

See, thats a person being a jerk right there; why, as a weird concept player, would I want to play a Drow in a game where it will probably be basically designed to make all the drow completely evil, and therefore be so dissonant to my drow concept that all the other PC's will probably design all their backstories to somehow hate drow, which would clash with what their intending to do, and thus pretty much guarantee my drow dying because its a game about Against The Drow. if I want to play a character, I want it to survive to get the maximum amount of roleplaying I can out of them, that game? I'd surprised if I didn't die real quick.


I think a lot of people can enjoy playing any game for what it is. I can play a modern game and a fantasy magic game and a sci fi game happily, all with different types of characters. If I want to make a demon character in a crazy fantasy game, it doesn't mean I can't enjoy other types of characters in other games. I think most people are willing to play the game they are presented with.

I have never understood people who will only play one type of game, and less so one specific type of character. I guess that is because I love gaming of all sorts, I'm happy to try pretty much anything and play anything if it's with my friends (I even played toon, big eye small mouth, and a sailor moon rpg once).

But I have known people like that. One guy I knew had no interest in any sort of game besides D&D, and he only wanted to play a Drow ranger. He would compromise and go with elf instead, but that was it. All characters were otherwise identical: a soft spoken loner badass with a big hooded cloak that dual wields scimitars.

Another guy from this same group (who was the DM for AD&D), had to be cajoled and bribed to be willing to play in another game. At the time, we were short on players (drow ranger guy declined to play, of course), and without him we would also lose another player who wouldn't want to play without him. So we convinced him by letting him play a special snowflake that was stronger (on paper) than all the other characters. (It was wod werewolf, and I let him play a weretiger instead of being part of the pack). He didn't really want to play a non-fantasy setting, though I think it was really more that he had control issues, he was a terrible DM with insane godlike NPC that was constantly showing up to mess with the party.

In other words, try to broaden horizons and try different things and enjoy them for what they are. don't be the one who ruins your friends' games because you refuse to try anything different.

1. ok, but I'm not one of them and wasn't talking about those people. I don't roleplay fantasy and sci-fi to be a normal dude doing normal things in modern day. I have real life for that.

2. Good for you, but not everyone is you.

3. Sounds like a guy I knew. but he had other issues surrounding him- lets just say he was repetitive and cyclical in more ways than just the character he made.

4. I'm confused.....why did you play with this guy? no gaming > bad gaming. learn it live it love it.

5. I'm not really ruining their gaming experiences. ruining their gaming experience would be joining a game I don't like, to try and play characters I don't find fun, and thus probably ruin the game for everyone else. they deserve someone who will actually like the game for what it is. a smaller group that can play well together is better than a larger one that constantly clashes in desires, which would just create bad gaming for everybody, and you should know the mantra for that by now.

Thrudd
2015-03-21, 11:45 AM
I agree with most of your post (that diversity can be a fine thing).



But I disagree with this part, no one is obligated to do something just because they're your friend.

If my group wanted to play a game or setting idea that didn't grab my interest I'd just pass on it and catch up with them later.

Right, you don't need to play. That would be better than insisting that they only always play the kind of game you want, or insist that whatever game someone is running must include specific concessions just for you.



1. ok, but I'm not one of them and wasn't talking about those people. I don't roleplay fantasy and sci-fi to be a normal dude doing normal things in modern day. I have real life for that.

4. I'm confused.....why did you play with this guy? no gaming > bad gaming. learn it live it love it.



1. I have never seen an rpg of any setting in which you play a normal dude doing normal stuff. Modern day settings might be action movies, espionage/super spy stuff, zombie/horror, in any regard playing roles and scenarios that generally aren't things any of us really do. So that argument is invalid. It's ok not to like it, but hopefully your dislike is not based on a mistaken assumption that games set in contemporary settings are all about "normal" people and every day events.

4. I played with this guy because I worked with him and was new to the unit, when they learned I was a gamer I was invited to the game. Other members of the group got interested in the other game books I owned and wanted me to run stuff for them. After the werewolf game we didn't play with him anymore. He PCS'd not long after, anyway, and we had a couple new folks who were more open for stuff.

Sometimes, refusing to play is the same thing as ruining your friends' game, because there won't be a game without you. Can a game really be that bad, that you can't at least give it a try and try to have fun? If it turns out really bad, you can say you just can't do it and ask to stop...but I mean, it's a game, right? It's not like a life commitment, you're not marrying someone. It isn't like you can't play other games simultaneously.

Tengu_temp
2015-03-21, 12:01 PM
So long as the restriction goes both ways (DM and Players) I'm fine with it. But the second the DM decides to start throwing those same banned races at the players that wanted to use them then their is a problem. And it must be dealt with swiftly, mercilessly, and with buckets of chum!

The only problem is are players who demand to be given access to everything that exists in the game world. This entitled "if a race/class/power/etc exists in the game, then it must be available to the players" approach was born among DND 3e players, and is pretty much nonexistant anywhere else. And for a good reason: if the campaign is about stopping an invasion of mysterious giant invaders from the north, many of whom wield the power to command the dead, then should the DM let a player play one of them giants? Or give them access to the same power? That's strip all the mystery out of them, and be completely unfitting for the campaign idea.

themaque
2015-03-21, 12:19 PM
I have never understood people who will only play one type of game, and less so one specific type of character. I guess that is because I love gaming of all sorts, I'm happy to try pretty much anything and play anything if it's with my friends (I even played toon, big eye small mouth, and a sailor moon rpg once).

But I have known people like that. One guy I knew had no interest in any sort of game besides D&D, and he only wanted to play a Drow ranger. He would compromise and go with elf instead, but that was it. All characters were otherwise identical: a soft spoken loner badass with a big hooded cloak that dual wields scimitars.


Personally, I'm with you. I love playing different characters. Different roles, genders, goals, or ideals. To be, experience, or portray something different from myself and what I did before.

But, if this guy is enjoying himself, and isn't taking away from anyone else, what's the problem? Some people have a specific niche they love to play and that's not wrong.

Some actors dissapear into a role. You don't see Actor #3 you see Col Feldman. Next film it's not Actor #3 nor Col Feldman but Billie Joe Bob Son. In his next film he is someone TOTALLY different. These people are masters of their craft, but not the only way to play the game.

If you see a Jean Claude Van Damn movie, you know what to expect. It will be Jean Claude doing something Jean claudy. Steven Seagal is Steven Seagal. Those films have a following and that's just the way some people like to game. They don't wanna learn new mechanics, they know how they have fun. So long as it doesn't take away from anyone elses fun there is nothing wrong with that.

Unless you end up on the "Worst Gamer EVER" thread, there is no wrong way to play the game.

Except of course unless you play a Kender. But that's just my own personal cross to bear.

Thrudd
2015-03-21, 01:00 PM
Personally, I'm with you. I love playing different characters. Different roles, genders, goals, or ideals. To be, experience, or portray something different from myself and what I did before.

But, if this guy is enjoying himself, and isn't taking away from anyone else, what's the problem? Some people have a specific niche they love to play and that's not wrong.

Some actors dissapear into a role. You don't see Actor #3 you see Col Feldman. Next film it's not Actor #3 nor Col Feldman but Billie Joe Bob Son. In his next film he is someone TOTALLY different. These people are masters of their craft, but not the only way to play the game.

If you see a Jean Claude Van Damn movie, you know what to expect. It will be Jean Claude doing something Jean claudy. Steven Seagal is Steven Seagal. Those films have a following and that's just the way some people like to game. They don't wanna learn new mechanics, they know how they have fun. So long as it doesn't take away from anyone elses fun there is nothing wrong with that.

Unless you end up on the "Worst Gamer EVER" thread, there is no wrong way to play the game.

Except of course unless you play a Kender. But that's just my own personal cross to bear.

Yeah, there's no problem with someone playing the same character all the time, so long as it fits the game. it's just too bad that you can't convince him to try anything else that might be fun, and hang out with everyone. If he's in the group, you're never playing anything but D&D. If you play something else, he goes off by himself to play MUDs all night, where he can play his Drow ranger. It's a social thing, more than strictly a game issue. If we were strangers meeting at a store for the only purpose of playing a specific game, then nobody cares who doesn't play or why or what they're doing instead.

cobaltstarfire
2015-03-21, 01:21 PM
Sometimes, refusing to play is the same thing as ruining your friends' game, because there won't be a game without you. Can a game really be that bad, that you can't at least give it a try and try to have fun? If it turns out really bad, you can say you just can't do it and ask to stop...but I mean, it's a game, right? It's not like a life commitment, you're not marrying someone. It isn't like you can't play other games simultaneously.

Again, you are under no obligation to do something just because someone else is your friend. It's really odd how you acknowledged what I said, and said sure it's fine to just not play, and then turn around and say "but you're ruining my fun if you do that".

If he doesn't play hes "ruining" your game, if he's allowed to make a character to make things interesting to him it's still "ruining" your game. If he's going to "ruin" your game no matter what he does, he's better off not playing at all.

NomGarret
2015-03-21, 01:27 PM
As a player, I really prefer honest descriptions of the game before I come up with a character or pick from the pool of things I've wanted to play. Part of this is party composition. While I feel no compulsion to optimize a party, I do like playing characters that have something useful to contribute. The other part is not wanting to burn a character on a story that won't fit them. I'll hold off on the dragonslayer for a campaign that features dragons, for example.

As a DM, I tend to bounce ideas for campaigns in development off my players before fully fleshing them out. This keeps me from wasting time on a game no one enjoys, it also gives a chance to let player inclinations fill in the arbitrary spaces in the campaign world. As it pertains to races, I'll usually pick a couple that will and a couple that won't exist for story reasons. Dwarves would be fine, please don't play elves, for instance. Then I pick a target number of how diverse the area/world is and let players help determine the rest. 5-6 races is certainly an ethnic mix, but on par with core expectations. So if someone wants to play a Minotaur or Goliath but not a half-Orc, great! Now all the spots on the map that were penciled in as "savage orcish tribes" get swapped out for minotaurs, the PC has a link to the world and that's one fewer arbitrary decision for me!

themaque
2015-03-21, 01:48 PM
Yeah, there's no problem with someone playing the same character all the time, so long as it fits the game. it's just too bad that you can't convince him to try anything else that might be fun, and hang out with everyone. If he's in the group, you're never playing anything but D&D. If you play something else, he goes off by himself to play MUDs all night, where he can play his Drow ranger. It's a social thing, more than strictly a game issue. If we were strangers meeting at a store for the only purpose of playing a specific game, then nobody cares who doesn't play or why or what they're doing instead.

Okay, I can see your point. It WOULD be fair for him to give something else a try now and again. Who knows, he may like it? But he's under no obligation to do so.

Your best bet may be to try and find some new players i'm afraid.

Thrudd
2015-03-21, 01:53 PM
Again, you are under no obligation to do something just because someone else is your friend. It's really odd how you acknowledged what I said, and said sure it's fine to just not play, and then turn around and say "but you're ruining my fun if you do that".

If he doesn't play hes "ruining" your game, if he's allowed to make a character to make things interesting to him it's still "ruining" your game. If he's going to "ruin" your game no matter what he does, he's better off not playing at all.

Well, it is sort of like the sixth player saying "I'm taking my ball and going home.", leaving the rest of your friends saying "aww, I wanted to play three on three." Yeah, we'll get over it and think of something else to do. But it's still a disappointment.

It's hard to continue entertaining someone that has such specific needs, when the rest of the group has more varied interests. Inevitably people like this drift away, because they just won't participate in things that bring the rest of the group together.

But this is nothing to do with the game. You are absolutely right, nobody should play a game they don't want to play.

charcoalninja
2015-03-21, 03:52 PM
RPGs to me represent such a dramatic investment in time and energy that I have a very difficult time restricting the players in their choices. I would rather take 10 minutes on my DM end to come up with a reason for the character they're extremely excited about to exist in the setting, than kill that enthusiasm dead in its tracks. Not allowing your players to play what they want deprives everyone of their best RP and efforts which to me hurts the game far more than erasing Orc land on a map and replacing it with Minotaur land.

Of course that doesn't mean I endourse pvp and asshat behaviour. Being a permissive DM means I let your IDEAS pass and enter the game. We're all still going to play like grown ups. But if I do plan to allow a more sandbox you make the bed you sleep in game I will inform my players of that and put more of my effort to make sure people aren't taking it personally or making it personal.

I cannot fathom a theme, or plotline or story that could not also function with a strange race in the place of a more normal one. I really can't understand the resistance to it. Especially in homebrew settings. You've ALREADY made everything. There isn't X because you just decided there's no X. Just decide to include the PC... It's just that simple.

Gritmonger
2015-03-21, 04:18 PM
RPGs to me represent such a dramatic investment in time and energy that I have a very difficult time restricting the players in their choices. I would rather take 10 minutes on my DM end to come up with a reason for the character they're extremely excited about to exist in the setting, than kill that enthusiasm dead in its tracks. Not allowing your players to play what they want deprives everyone of their best RP and efforts which to me hurts the game far more than erasing Orc land on a map and replacing it with Minotaur land.

Of course that doesn't mean I endourse pvp and asshat behaviour. Being a permissive DM means I let your IDEAS pass and enter the game. We're all still going to play like grown ups. But if I do plan to allow a more sandbox you make the bed you sleep in game I will inform my players of that and put more of my effort to make sure people aren't taking it personally or making it personal.

I cannot fathom a theme, or plotline or story that could not also function with a strange race in the place of a more normal one. I really can't understand the resistance to it. Especially in homebrew settings. You've ALREADY made everything. There isn't X because you just decided there's no X. Just decide to include the PC... It's just that simple.

I just got out of a consult session with a new player, friend of another player, where, when having been through a session as taking over an NPC participant and having seen the type of game being played, on being asked what he wanted to play, replied: "Domino's Delivery Driver."

The session he had just played through had the characters facing off against a Gibbering Mouther in a sanctuary of Xammux, hidden beneath a medieval farm in a points-of-light universe with law versus chaos. And dungeons and dragons, mind you.

Honestly enough, I can work with that if I have to - aside from the fact that there is no Domino's in this world, or pizza, or home-food-delivery... but throwing stuff like this at a session that all the other players have had a hand in creating to be the way it is before you joined... and which you observed before trying to join...

I'm all for choice, but it sound sometimes like some people just want to mess with everyone else at the table. And that I'm not cool with.

Lord Raziere
2015-03-21, 04:37 PM
1. I have never seen an rpg of any setting in which you play a normal dude doing normal stuff. Modern day settings might be action movies, espionage/super spy stuff, zombie/horror, in any regard playing roles and scenarios that generally aren't things any of us really do. So that argument is invalid. It's ok not to like it, but hopefully your dislike is not based on a mistaken assumption that games set in contemporary settings are all about "normal" people and every day events.

4. I played with this guy because I worked with him and was new to the unit, when they learned I was a gamer I was invited to the game. Other members of the group got interested in the other game books I owned and wanted me to run stuff for them. After the werewolf game we didn't play with him anymore. He PCS'd not long after, anyway, and we had a couple new folks who were more open for stuff.

Sometimes, refusing to play is the same thing as ruining your friends' game, because there won't be a game without you. Can a game really be that bad, that you can't at least give it a try and try to have fun? If it turns out really bad, you can say you just can't do it and ask to stop...but I mean, it's a game, right? It's not like a life commitment, you're not marrying someone. It isn't like you can't play other games simultaneously.

1. To a weirdness player like me, those are normal every day events.

2. Good.

3. See, I don't think your actually an adaptable player, your a social player, you don't actually care about the character you roleplay, you just want hang out and you don't really care how, and thats good for you, but I don't treat roleplaying like that. I make a character, its like making an art piece, it has to be just right or it doesn't work, and any kind of art I'm not interested, which doesn't inspire me, just doesn't work. please, don't assume that I'm in this for the same reasons as you are.

Thrudd
2015-03-21, 04:53 PM
3. See, I don't think your actually an adaptable player, your a social player, you don't actually care about the character you roleplay, you just want hang out and you don't really care how, and thats good for you, but I don't treat roleplaying like that. I make a character, its like making an art piece, it has to be just right or it doesn't work, and any kind of art I'm not interested, which doesn't inspire me, just doesn't work. please, don't assume that I'm in this for the same reasons as you are.

Apologies. I didn't realize it was that serious for you. I hope you find fulfillment.

I don't think that being a social player precludes being adaptable. But you're right, I have never taken a game or a character that seriously, either playing or GMing them.

Maglubiyet
2015-03-21, 06:13 PM
I make a character, its like making an art piece, it has to be just right or it doesn't work, and any kind of art I'm not interested, which doesn't inspire me, just doesn't work..

Do you allow yourself to be limited in creating your characters ahead of time -- e.g. by campaign setting/background, race, languages, skills, etc.

Or do you come up with a character completely independent of the setting and then find a world to play in? Or some combination of the two, like you make the character and then tailor it to fit in a particular world?

Darth Ultron
2015-03-21, 06:40 PM
Surely if the DM can compromise by adding unintended creatures to his setting the players should be just as capable, if not more of compromising on what character they want to play.

Sure, if they want too. Say a player makes up a cool elf character and puts a lot of work into it. Then they go find a DM that climbs up on his high horse and points to his setting up on the pedestal and says ''I decree that there are no elves in my setting...because no reason". So, ok, the player then just makes another character to make the DM happy. The player makes an ''outdoorsly'' human, and has little fun playing something they don't want to play....but at least the DM is happy right?

Or....ok, how about the DM just adds a couple elves to the world? It's not such a big deal to add a single elven homeland. It does not ''ruin the poor setting'' to add something to it.

And what is wrong with the character being ''the only one around''? After all that is very common in fiction.

Lord Raziere
2015-03-21, 06:46 PM
Do you allow yourself to be limited in creating your characters ahead of time -- e.g. by campaign setting/background, race, languages, skills, etc.

Or do you come up with a character completely independent of the setting and then find a world to play in? Or some combination of the two, like you make the character and then tailor it to fit in a particular world?

most of the time, the latter: I make a character independently then hope someday that I will find a world to put them in.

but sometimes when looking for a game that I like, I make one for one that I find, however due to a vast majority of the games that I play being PbP and therefore prone to the games dying, I keep a lot of characters whose stories are not finished that I hope someday will be.

the result is that I have a lot of characters, but many of their stories left unfinished no matter which method I use, and even if I found a IRL game, its very likely that I will only be able to play one character to really develop. no matter which method originally used, they end up being characters I hope to insert in some other game someday. though technically through communication with the GM, my concepts do a little tailoring and filling in some details, like my cutoff hivemind scout character was an idea before, now that it in a game she has a wrist scanner/laser gun hybrid device that she uses which I never thought of, but since it makes sense and works with the concept, its now a part of the character.

Maglubiyet
2015-03-21, 07:06 PM
Sure, if they want too. Say a player makes up a cool elf character and puts a lot of work into it. Then they go find a DM that climbs up on his high horse and points to his setting up on the pedestal and says ''I decree that there are no elves in my setting...because no reason". So, ok, the player then just makes another character to make the DM happy. The player makes an ''outdoorsly'' human, and has little fun playing something they don't want to play....but at least the DM is happy right?

Jeez, dude, don't be such a martyr. If you don't want to play by someone else's rules then don't play. No one is forcing you to be in their campaign if you don't like it.

EDIT: Seriously, I don't understand the mindset. Somebody here already said they would prefer not to play than to play in a bad game. Why force yourself to do something that's not going to be much fun? No reason to torture yourself for a game.

themaque
2015-03-21, 07:20 PM
Sure, if they want too. Say a player makes up a cool elf character and puts a lot of work into it. Then they go find a DM that climbs up on his high horse and points to his setting up on the pedestal and says ''I decree that there are no elves in my setting...because no reason". So, ok, the player then just makes another character to make the DM happy. The player makes an ''outdoorsly'' human, and has little fun playing something they don't want to play....but at least the DM is happy right?

Or....ok, how about the DM just adds a couple elves to the world? It's not such a big deal to add a single elven homeland. It does not ''ruin the poor setting'' to add something to it.

And what is wrong with the character being ''the only one around''? After all that is very common in fiction.

So a GM is being tyrannical and unyielding when he bans a certain race.
What is the player being when he literally asks for the entire world to change to fit his whims?

Edit:
If the GM said, play whatever you want and he made an elf only to be told last minute said "No elves". then the GM is a jerk.
If he says "Whoops, I'm sorry I forgot no elves" then I would grumble but comply. Accident's happen and everyone's human. (he he he) but a petition could be made.
If the GM said "No Elves in this world" at the start, the player CAN petition for a change. Maybe it will happen. Maybe not. If he still makes an elf after being told no, the player is a jerk.

Lord Raziere
2015-03-21, 07:27 PM
So a GM is being tyrannical and unyielding when he bans a certain race.
What is the player being when he literally asks for the entire world to change to fit his whims?

Probably one who doesn't know when to see where the wind is blowing and jump ship. even if the GM isn't being tyrannical, its still better to get out while you still can if you and him don't see eye-to-eye than to have a bad experience in a game that you don't like- and if your "friends" try to pressure you to stay when you clearly don't like it, I would hesitate to call them your friends.

themaque
2015-03-21, 07:36 PM
Probably one who doesn't know when to see where the wind is blowing and jump ship. even if the GM isn't being tyrannical, its still better to get out while you still can if you and him don't see eye-to-eye than to have a bad experience in a game that you don't like- and if your "friends" try to pressure you to stay when you clearly don't like it, I would hesitate to call them your friends.

I would be surprised if someone drew a line in the sand that firm for a character concept that hadn't even been played yet, but I would rather that than someone throwing a fit or pouting for the next 6 months to be sure.

Milo v3
2015-03-21, 07:48 PM
Sure, if they want too. Say a player makes up a cool elf character and puts a lot of work into it. Then they go find a DM that climbs up on his high horse and points to his setting up on the pedestal and says ''I decree that there are no elves in my setting...because no reason". So, ok, the player then just makes another character to make the DM happy. The player makes an ''outdoorsly'' human, and has little fun playing something they don't want to play....but at least the DM is happy right?

Or....ok, how about the DM just adds a couple elves to the world? It's not such a big deal to add a single elven homeland. It does not ''ruin the poor setting'' to add something to it.

And what is wrong with the character being ''the only one around''? After all that is very common in fiction.

Okay, what if the explanation your character gives for existing breaks everyone else's (not just the GM's) verisimilitude because you forced the GM to add elves into a setting that's highly detailed with every other race, making elves basically appear out of nowhere.

Lord Raziere
2015-03-21, 08:00 PM
I would be surprised if someone drew a line in the sand that firm for a character concept that hadn't even been played yet, but I would rather that than someone throwing a fit or pouting for the next 6 months to be sure.

speaking as a the weird concept player here....when I want to play an elf, I want to play an elf. Not elf-lite, not diet elf, not "I can't believe its not elf" human or imitation brand elf. dilution like that only hurts the concept I have in mind and turns me off, because it kind of goes against the intention of the character.

I mean, how would you like it, if someone took a thing you liked, and said "no you can't have that! but you can have this imitation thing that is very much like what you want" it just feels.....cheap. but really, elf is a bad example. better example is probably warforged/robot.

I mean sure I could make a human that speaks robotically, has less emotions is clad in a lot of armor and somehow enchanted to sleep less and not need breathing or eating and things like to imitate a warforged or a robot....but its still not a warforged or a robot, because they're still human, all the other stuff is just tacked on to his human stuff to make him look a lot like a robot, but an actual robot....y'know...gets that stuff as a natural part of being one. similarly, by being an elf, the stuff that surrounds elves comes naturally from being one, while if I tried that on a human, it would be tacking a bunch of stuff onto the human to try and make them look like something else. you can't approach or look at this sort of thing as "human but with a thing tacked on" from my erspective because that removes the wonder/magic/whatever out of them that makes them worth playing. and unfortunately, many roleplayers think of other races as just that: human but with things tacked on, when even with rubber-forehead aliens, I would think it unwise to approach them like that, because it encourages a minimalist mind set that only removes the kind of wonder I like.

hiryuu
2015-03-21, 08:01 PM
Players should have a choice.

The DM makes the setting and the set races, but after that...the players can choose whatever they want to play.

Why is it even a big deal if the group is full of crazy races? So what if they are different races? So what if ''most'' of the races don't get along. Even if every single elf and drow hate each other to death....there can still be a couple of elves and drow that can be friends.

Even more so ''an adventuring group'' is an ''elite group'' that exists on the edge of ''normal society''. So, finding an elf and dwarf in an adventuring group is common, for example. But the other 99.9% of elves and dwarves don't even speak to each other much.

I think too many DM's get locked into ''D&D must be exactly like Earth in 1300 AD.'' And I never really understood why.

Oooh, the time period of Dante's Inferno? The date the Chinese Empire had 60 million citizens? The start of the Aztec Empire? SIGN ME UP

Tengu_temp
2015-03-21, 08:15 PM
I cannot fathom a theme, or plotline or story that could not also function with a strange race in the place of a more normal one. I really can't understand the resistance to it. Especially in homebrew settings. You've ALREADY made everything. There isn't X because you just decided there's no X. Just decide to include the PC... It's just that simple.

Just a few examples off the top of my head:
1. The game is about first contact between humans and other races. Non-humans exist, but for plot purposes, players cannot play them.
2. Humans are the only sapient creatures in the setting.
3. In the setting, elves are supposed to be mysterious, extremely rare and often dangerous fae creatures that other races don't trust and for good reasons. This means elves are not available as a PC race.
4. The game is supposed to have a low fantasy, or traditional fantasy feel. This means that no, you can't play a rainbow birdman, because that'd clash with the game's feel.

Once again, "players should be allowed to play anything they want with no restrictions" is an approach born with DND 3e and its "if it's in a book, it's allowed" mentality. The truth is, any good game requires restrictions. Sometimes those restrictions are so obvious you don't need to spell them out, but that doesn't mean they're not there.

Kiero
2015-03-21, 08:18 PM
Just a few examples off the top of my head:
1. The game is about first contact between humans and other races. Non-humans exist, but for plot purposes, players cannot play them.
2. Humans are the only sapient creatures in the setting.
3. In the setting, elves are supposed to be mysterious, extremely rare and often dangerous fae creatures that other races don't trust and for good reasons. This means elves are not available as a PC race.
4. The game is supposed to have a low fantasy, or traditional fantasy feel. This means that no, you can't play a rainbow birdman, because that'd clash with the game's feel.

Once again, "players should be allowed to play anything they want with no restrictions" is an approach born with DND 3e and its "if it's in a book, it's allowed" mentality. The truth is, any good game requires restrictions. Sometimes those restrictions are so obvious you don't need to spell them out, but that doesn't mean they're not there.

Exactly. If we're playing Conan-esque S&S, there's only humans. Non-humans are evil and non-playable, same goes magic-users.

If that's explicit in the pitch for the game, you don't get to say "alright I'll play", then try to break the rules of the premise when it comes to chargen. Not even if you really, really want to play an elf.

YossarianLives
2015-03-21, 08:54 PM
Sure, if they want too. Say a player makes up a cool elf character and puts a lot of work into it. Then they go find a DM that climbs up on his high horse and points to his setting up on the pedestal and says ''I decree that there are no elves in my setting...because no reason". So, ok, the player then just makes another character to make the DM happy. The player makes an ''outdoorsly'' human, and has little fun playing something they don't want to play....but at least the DM is happy right?

Or....ok, how about the DM just adds a couple elves to the world? It's not such a big deal to add a single elven homeland. It does not ''ruin the poor setting'' to add something to it.

And what is wrong with the character being ''the only one around''? After all that is very common in fiction.

That's entirely (as others have mentioned before) a communication problem. If I'm going to ban something I tell my players before they spend hours building characters.

Darth Ultron
2015-03-21, 09:24 PM
Okay, what if the explanation your character gives for existing breaks everyone else's (not just the GM's) verisimilitude because you forced the GM to add elves into a setting that's highly detailed with every other race, making elves basically appear out of nowhere.

Well, I know it's false. The typical DM that makes a setting does not make much. Your lucky if they write out a couple paragraphs. So it's not like they are making settings with 500,000 words per race. And most settings are small, like LotR small. So they are a couple of miles at best, it's not like they are making continents or planets. So adding something should not be a big deal.

And why can't elves just appear out of nowhere....sounds like a fine plot to me.

Terazul
2015-03-21, 09:27 PM
Is there a reason people keep pulling out examples like "playing a drow in an anti-drow game" and then assuming a player would say a DM is tyrannical or whatnot? Like, that wasn't even being postured by the pro-race-choice side, from what I've seen. What was being argued IIRC, was merely that it is often not nearly as difficult for a DM to be accommodating to non-standard races as people make it out to be. Of course in a Alien investigation setting it messes with things for someone in the party to be one of the Aliens in question, but I've never even seen a suggestion to that extent (maybe I missed this?). The claim is being made about most entirely otherwise "normal" settings where elves don't exist "just because", and that the idea of "just because" is a really poor one, even if one feels that the DM has total creative license over their setting to the exclusion of player concepts. Even if the died out, unless there's a major plot plan for them to resurface or something, the whole "ancient dead race begins surfacing starting with one individual" is a total fantasy trope that's been around for decades. It's not really that zany. I mean really, some of the counterexamples earlier were "how is this party of different races going to get along/together anyway?", and "well how would I know how to reward a werecat?" :smallannoyed:

Hiro Protagonest
2015-03-21, 09:32 PM
Well, I know it's false. The typical DM that makes a setting does not make much. Your lucky if they write out a couple paragraphs.

...Maybe they'll give you a couple of paragraphs, because you're not supposed to know a ton and are allowed to fill in details (without dropping a group of elves in the middle of their Imperium-type human kingdom).

Lord Raziere
2015-03-21, 09:37 PM
It's not really that zany. I mean really, some of the counterexamples earlier were "how is this party of different races going to get along/together anyway?", and "well how would I know how to reward a werecat?" :smallannoyed:

I'm pretty sure both of those questions can be answered with "I am Groot." anyways.

Darth Ultron
2015-03-21, 10:01 PM
...Maybe they'll give you a couple of paragraphs, because you're not supposed to know a ton and are allowed to fill in details (without dropping a group of elves in the middle of their Imperium-type human kingdom).

Sure, all the DM's out there make 500,000 word essays about everything in their special setting...and then keep it all top secret so on one knows about it. So it might as well not exist.


And why can't a DM ''just drop'' any race into a setting again? It's not really that big a deal. A player says ''I want to be a urd''. So the DM says ''ok'' and adds a small urd homeland. And as we are talking about fantasy.....you can do anything. Like take the ''dropping of the elves into the Imperium''. The fey forest has an elf kingdom....that is only in phase with the world on nights of the full moon. So people can come and go then, and the rest of the time the kingdom is not there. So that adds elves to the setting, but dose not make them a massive elven empire or anything.

Thrudd
2015-03-21, 10:07 PM
Sure, if they want too. Say a player makes up a cool elf character and puts a lot of work into it. Then they go find a DM that climbs up on his high horse and points to his setting up on the pedestal and says ''I decree that there are no elves in my setting...because no reason". So, ok, the player then just makes another character to make the DM happy. The player makes an ''outdoorsly'' human, and has little fun playing something they don't want to play....but at least the DM is happy right?

Or....ok, how about the DM just adds a couple elves to the world? It's not such a big deal to add a single elven homeland. It does not ''ruin the poor setting'' to add something to it.

And what is wrong with the character being ''the only one around''? After all that is very common in fiction.

Here's the problem with your argument. What is an "elf", except what any given setting says they are? They are something different from lotr to forgotten realms to shannara to any random home made world. So how can you have envisioned this hypothetical elf character without knowing the setting you will be in first?

With such a specific character, you are assuming a specific setting, and then insisting that the DM use your setting instead of the one they have prepared.

Collaborative world building is a thing that can happen, but that needs to be discussed beforehand, before the DM has done a lot of preparation. The approach of expecting or insisting a DM to make such changes after the game is largely prepared is unreasonable (depending on the game). Also, as strongly as people feel about their pet characters, a DM pours far more work into a home made setting and prepping a game. Yes, the DM should consider the players tastes when they prepare their game, but sometimes the tastes of the majority outweigh that of a single person. If everyone wants to play kitchen sink weirdness, then fine. But if only one wants that, and everyone else wants different, it seems kind of selfish and petulant to insist that your weird character always be accommodated.

Note that I come from a world of in-person gaming, largely with friends and acquaintances, once a week game-night style.
PBP is a whole other experience, with different set of expectations and behavior. In that world, it might be reasonable to only accept games that will accommodate your specific character and only ever play a single type of game, because there's an unending stream of games and players that you have little or no personal interaction with that you can wait for that perfect match.

Karl Aegis
2015-03-21, 11:03 PM
Is werecat even a race? Which setting treats diseased individuals as a separate species from their parent species?

hiryuu
2015-03-21, 11:15 PM
Sure, if they want too. Say a player makes up a cool elf character and puts a lot of work into it. Then they go find a DM that climbs up on his high horse and points to his setting up on the pedestal and says ''I decree that there are no elves in my setting...because no reason". So, ok, the player then just makes another character to make the DM happy. The player makes an ''outdoorsly'' human, and has little fun playing something they don't want to play....but at least the DM is happy right?

One ought not to accuse the GM of having a high horse without getting one's own mount checked for stature.

GMs always put in more work than players. To be frank, you do about three hours of prep work for every half hour that's shown off in game (minimum ratio - real ratio is about six hours to ten minutes, shorter if you use a random name generator, but good luck finding one that spits out Mississippian names. FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF).

I have several settings that don't have elves sitting on my hard drive, either because they're extinct or because there's no Germanic influence in them at all.

I honestly can't think of any story (other than maybe "I am old and therefore so saaaad")you could tell with an elf that you couldn't also tell with a human.


Or....ok, how about the DM just adds a couple elves to the world? It's not such a big deal to add a single elven homeland. It does not ''ruin the poor setting'' to add something to it.

Yeah, except. What if the setting's got nothing even vaguely resembling the Germanic less-than-10%-of-the-world that has elf myths from which things could be cribbed? What if the GM wants to call a giant bdelloid rotifer an "elf?" Not saying these are guarantees an elf can't be fiddled into something, but really. Sometimes it does ruin a setting - the appearance of Theldrith, the elven ranger, while a welcome sight in the mystic mountains of Skyrim, is a complete joy-ending moment if he pops up in Avatar: the Last Airbender, and both of those are high fantasy. In fact, it'd be a broad disservice to just assume elves can be plopped into any setting easy-peasy.


And what is wrong with the character being ''the only one around''? After all that is very common in fiction.

And it's awful when fiction does it, too. "I'm the only one" isn't a character trait and it's a bad habit that needs to be snapped in half, allowed to bleed out, and thrown down a ravine.


Sure, all the DM's out there make 500,000 word essays about everything in their special setting...and then keep it all top secret so on one knows about it. So it might as well not exist.

Not all of them - but I do. I have three filing cabinets of one setting that is essentially my baby and I've had people playing in it happily for years, and there's pretty much just one race in that, unless you count that it had playable golems in it from the get-go (they look like big 1950s robots <_<). Though. In my experience players don't want to read those essays. They'd rather get into game and load up a pickup truck and go blow some dinosaur heads off. Which is cool, they're PCs. Tell them there's a pack of psychic T-rexes off so-and-so direction and away they goooooo.

And as long as we're al greasing up this slippery slope, let's talk about all the classes and supplementary materials nobody at the table is using, those might as well not exist, too, huh? I guess these trolls are just here for no reason. No one knows why the goblins are attacking the village now so I guess investigation into the issue is pointless, the necromancer working for the noble to use the goblins to kill villagers as part of a sacrificial ritual to keep a demon from waking, that may as well not exist, either, in fact, do the PCs -really- need to engage with a world at all? What if we put them all in a white room and let them awkwardly talk to one another while the GM just sits here and eats pizza.

Really. Just because the comedians don't know what all these switches behind the stage do does not, in fact, obligate the stage manager to tell the cast of the improv show what they all do, nor does it obligate the improv show to tell the stage manager how to do his job.

Also, if you just asked the GM, I bet they'd talk your head off as to why "no elves" would be allowed. Or even allow one. Most GMs are pretty cool like that.

Anyway, bear in mind you're taking this from the guy whose players came to the table a year ago with a half-highway/half-human, a dinosaur riding ex-Nazi, a street thug with a symbiotic worm in her chest, and a robot mage that spoke in the third person. My response to this was "ROLL FOR INITIATIVE AGAINST THE PTERODACTYL DEMONS."

We're still playing it. It's awesome.

Mr.Moron
2015-03-21, 11:20 PM
Sure, all the DM's out there make 500,000 word essays about everything in their special setting...and then keep it all top secret so on one knows about it. So it might as well not exist.


And why can't a DM ''just drop'' any race into a setting again? It's not really that big a deal. A player says ''I want to be a urd''. So the DM says ''ok'' and adds a small urd homeland. And as we are talking about fantasy.....you can do anything. Like take the ''dropping of the elves into the Imperium''. The fey forest has an elf kingdom....that is only in phase with the world on nights of the full moon. So people can come and go then, and the rest of the time the kingdom is not there. So that adds elves to the setting, but dose not make them a massive elven empire or anything.

Just as the player has a right to play the game they want to play, the GM has the right to run the game they want to run. If the player doesn't want to play in the game the GM wants to run the player is free to walk away. I'm not going to put gun to anyone's head and force them to be in my campaign. So if you want to be a Klingon* and I'm running vanilla D&D, go find another game I'm not going to entertain the idea. I'm not going to feel guilty for not entertaining the idea.

You're acting like "The GM doesn't want too..."is somehow insufficient reasoning for anything. Putting aside the merit of things like setting to cohesion, The GM simply not wanting something is more than enough justification for them to exclude it.

*this is an actual request that someone made in an actual game, and were quite serious about.

YossarianLives
2015-03-21, 11:22 PM
Snop
Amen! Preach it brother!

No but seriously many GMs really do spend a lot of time writing their settings. Pouring their heart and soul into the setting to make it better. The least you can do is appreciate it instead of complaining about the lack of elves.

goto124
2015-03-22, 12:52 AM
I honestly can't think of any story (other than maybe "I am old and therefore so saaaad")you could tell with an elf that you couldn't also tell with a human.

May I play a Human with Elf racial attributes and abilites? Which is Elf race template refluffed to Human?

If I can't have the fluffy bits of Elf, may I have the crunchy part?


So if you want to be a Klingon* and I'm running vanilla D&D, go find another game I'm not going to entertain the idea.

Klingoff.

Milo v3
2015-03-22, 01:56 AM
Well, I know it's false. The typical DM that makes a setting does not make much. Your lucky if they write out a couple paragraphs. So it's not like they are making settings with 500,000 words per race. And most settings are small, like LotR small. So they are a couple of miles at best, it's not like they are making continents or planets. So adding something should not be a big deal.

And why can't elves just appear out of nowhere....sounds like a fine plot to me.

Not in my experience... I don't think I've Ever done a game like that except for games set in the real-world or a pokemon game which was constrained to a single region for obvious reasons. I try to think out how all the races work, what different cultures they have specific to the setting, their religions, trades, views on different classes and races, how their physiology affects their behaviours, what the origin of the race was, the different variations on the species, if they can breed with other species at all, etc.

For every allowed race, and many races are on different continents or planes (or sometimes planets), each with information detailing the cultures, terrain, monsters that live in the area, the stuff they export and import, magical resources they might have access to, how non-playable races are in the area, etc.

So, no. That argument doesn't hold up. Some settings are detailed. Some aren't just kitchen sinks that all take place on a single patch of soil.


And why can't a DM ''just drop'' any race into a setting again? It's not really that big a deal. A player says ''I want to be a urd''. So the DM says ''ok'' and adds a small urd homeland. And as we are talking about fantasy.....you can do anything. Like take the ''dropping of the elves into the Imperium''. The fey forest has an elf kingdom....that is only in phase with the world on nights of the full moon. So people can come and go then, and the rest of the time the kingdom is not there. So that adds elves to the setting, but dose not make them a massive elven empire or anything.
But maybe there is no fey forest, there is no fey. The setting doesn't have nature bound creatures aside from elementals. If you want to shove in some elves and fey, I'm going to ask you to explain how they fit into the cosmology of the setting.

Lord Raziere
2015-03-22, 02:46 AM
I honestly can't think of any story (other than maybe "I am old and therefore so saaaad")you could tell with an elf that you couldn't also tell with a human.


I'm starting to think that all the people who say this sort of thing don't get the design of fantasy races.

I mean, people keep saying this, but fantasy races keep popping up, they stick in one form or another. so some level, they must be working for some reason, and must be therefore be useful for something. I mean...there must be some reason why they keep coming back up as playable races in many rpgs no matter how many people think they're cliched.

maybe its not that there is no story you couldn't tell with an elf that you couldn't also tell with a human- but rather that an elf is a good shortcut to telling certain stories you want to tell without having to go through a bunch of set-up because humans are so blank. I mean sure you can tell the story of Drizz't with a human who broke the taboos of his native culture got exiled for it, but that gets lumped in with all the other stories you can tell with humans and therefore isn't symbolic of that story, which without the symbolic association, doesn't get one inspired to make one to tell that story.

however, if you want play a social outcast who doesn't feel like anyone around him really understands what they're all about and thinks different from the rest of society, and you don't have the time to create all the details of the culture your exiled from- which is harder than it seems- and perhaps maybe want a little mysticism to it to make it feel more fantastical, some magic to give it some style while the race looks cool on top of all that, without having to invent a lot of things yourself? a drow is a pretty good choice. could explain why so many nerds choose him: guess what nerds feel like because of their lack of social skills and interests that not very many people around them share, guess what character in DnD sounds a lot like what they're going through, guess how many people are going to symbolically associate that character with their own struggle, and what they might feel like playing, and now you know why the Drizz't Clone is a thing.

and sure, you could say I should just use humans for all the stories I want to tell....or, I could just create specific races for all the stories I want to tell, because they have a better association in my mind to those stories, and therefore creates better shortcuts to those stories, whereas if I play human, I have to go the long way around and create something from scratch every time, because I don't associate human with anything, meaning making a human character is actually harder, at least for me. and often attempts at making different human cultures as replacements for races are too abstract for me, and often makes cultures I don't really want to play anyways. and no culture is a symbol for anything. they're too wide, abstract and nebulous- making a fantasy race is actually a good way to capture it all in a single memorable visual, otherwise you just have a bunch of scattered pictures of humans in the trappings of the culture, but no complete picture because humans are humans and are not really representative of any culture, even their own. (I may be American, but I'd hardly consider myself representative of the US)

giving humanity endless options to tell any story they want, just makes me want to endlessly keep my options open and thus never decide, because they have so many options that they might as well have none. they are too wide to have anything particularly notable about them, and thus no foundation to really build anything from, because you have to build the foundation as well, its more work for equal gain an elf gives you. now I know what your thinking right now: but doesn't creating your own fantasy race and such be just as much work as making a human culture? technically yes, but its more fun for me to make the fantasy race. I already have humans all around me in real life, they're as notable as rocks (not in a personal sense, a general "I see them everyday in their mundanity" sense, overexposure to something really ruins any romantic notions you might have about a thing-this includes humans).

and why is it more fun to make and play a fantasy race? well, when I make a fantasy race, I feel like I'm making art, I feel inspired and such and so on.

when I try to make a human culture, I feel like I'm working on a dull history/sociology/anthropology project. and yes I took both sociology and anthropology intro classes, but neither felt like art.

and really thats what it all comes down to: for some reason catfolk, dragonborn and genasi inspire me more than some human with tattoos or something. and I'm sure you could find a way to be inspired by that by talking about what the tattoo means or something, but I'm personally not interested.

Gritmonger
2015-03-22, 03:07 AM
when I try to make a human culture, I feel like I'm working on a dull history/sociology/anthropology project. and yes I took both sociology and anthropology intro classes, but neither felt like art.

Well, this explains some of it - intro classes are some of the dullest drudgework on the planet, partly (poorly) designed to weed out people who aren't actually interested in pursuing the degree. Not a good way to get really, really interested students - just to get bullheaded students that are sure the subject is fun despite the teacher's attempts to kill it dead, dead dead.

I took intro archeology courses, and they couldn't have been duller and drier than a mummy's colon - but then I nervously signed up for anthropology of australia and the pacific islands - 300 level courses, the teachers apparently no longer get the instruction that students are to be bored out of their skulls and loaded with make-work. It was startlingly fascinating, and I looked forward to every day of classes.

If you have a hard time coming up with a human culture, don't. Start with the player's family, and where they lived - one of my favorite characters was an Inquisitor who grew up on the edge of contested land between elvish and human lands. Most of her story wasn't so much cultural as her seeking a purpose, and finding one in administering justice. Justice like injuring any elf that harmed her brothers, or eventually maiming the entire pack of dogs that had lead to her mother's death, and terrorizing their owner. All of this before she was level 1. And it started with picking a place where she lived, looking at the local environment and conflict, and picking a personality for the character, sometimes based on just a few words. Fearless. Determined. I didn't have to make much of the culture, other than to say she was probably initially looked upon as an oddity being a female inquisitor, but she turned all of the nicknames and mocking into eventual awe and whispers - it was the character, she could have been anything; she was an outcast because she was a mannish woman who had a very strict interpretation of law and a no-nonsense attitude, but accepted herself rather than seeking approval.

hiryuu
2015-03-22, 03:26 AM
May I play a Human with Elf racial attributes and abilites? Which is Elf race template refluffed to Human?

If I can't have the fluffy bits of Elf, may I have the crunchy part?

Almost always.

But what I was trying to say is that the nougat bits of the elf are just nougat; we could apply that to a human culture without particularly needing stats for that. Avatar: the Last Airbender. Kyoshi warriors. They're mysterious, they live in harmony with their nature island, and they have a strange way of fighting. Their history seems literally immortal and frozen in time. They're elves, by any other name.


I'm starting to think that all the people who say this sort of thing don't get the design of fantasy races.

*snip*

No. Not at all - I understand the point just fine - they exist to create a stereotypical racist shorthand to make it easier getting character traits fired off rapidly so that the plot of the game gets up and going without being muddied down by things like trying to get the PCs used to each others' quirks. Don't get lose the message in the example. And that's really the thing. Here's an exercise - replace all instances of "halfling" in the halfling entry with "Irishman," then read it again and ask yourself how you feel. If you're not sure, do it again and replaced "dwarf" with "Asians." Replace "elf" with your ethnicity of choice. Do you still feel comfortable with the humanoid races? Do you feel like further exploring the implications of your results? Do you understand why a writer or player might need a stereotyping device like that? What happens when they no longer need the device? Are now they now boring, since they're then capable of constructing devices on their own? Remember, it's just an exercise, and like the trolley problem, I like to think there's no right answer.

I lost the need for other humanoid races a long time ago - clipping them free felt like I was cutting off the Dimorphodon's tail and I was flying faster. The moment you actually start constructing "races" to make the setting make sense in its own context you start spitting out ones that aren't likely usable by PCs, simply because their mindsets start rolling off down the hill of orange and blue morality, but that doesn't mean there's no place for those humanoids in the core book. As I said before - running a campaign where one of the characters is freakin' half-highway, for crying out loud.

Anyway. Tread very carefully here on out, that post comes very close to accusing people who can make engaging settings using just humans as uncreative, dull, and boring. Or that the very principes upon which the hobby itself is based are boring. I could make the same sort of accusation - that if you find humans "plain," you probably just haven't been exposed to enough of the cool ones. I suggest a Coen Brothers movie marathon, any of Terry Jones' documentaries, or Badass of the Week.

A final note: restrictions are there to make you more creative. If you show up to basketball with a lead ball, a pack of magic cards, football pads, and golf cleats, then declare yourself master of Pennant #6, you can call yourself a free thinker and a maverick all you like, you're still just a jerk. And you won't score any points.

themaque
2015-03-22, 04:04 AM
"I have this really cool idea for a tibit bard."
"Yeah, I don't allow Tibits. Can you make it a halfling?"
"hrmmm no, not really. the Tibit part is core to the concept"
"Yeah, I'm just not comfortable with adding them to my game"
"okay, dang. I will come up with something else."

Just my experience. I've got so many character and story ideas floating around, even if I'm set on one I can generally get another one going.

To answer a previous poster, Elves came up because it was a specific example from my own home brewed world of a common race that I have disallowed.

Kender are another good example. They have been described as a "high performance vehicle" race. Dangerous in the wrong hands and easily prone to abuse. If a GM bans kender, well that may be for the best. Lord Raziere may be an amazing actor and really able to bring a kender to life in a unique and entertaining way, but If the GM doesn't yet trust her (maybe she's new to the group) than it's fair to say "not right now".

Lord Raziere
2015-03-22, 04:23 AM
A final note: restrictions are there to make you more creative. If you show up to basketball with a lead ball, a pack of magic cards, football pads, and golf cleats, then declare yourself master of Pennant #6, you can call yourself a free thinker and a maverick all you like, you're still just a jerk. And you won't score any points.

Dude.

I wasn't trying to insult you or anything.

there was absolutely no offense intended in that.

what the hell? :smallyuk:

Edit: I'm honestly confused as to how one could interpret my post there to be offensive ok? I have no idea what I said wrong, if anything. this truly blind-sides me.

goto124
2015-03-22, 04:23 AM
A final note: restrictions are there to make you more creative. If you show up to basketball with a lead ball, a pack of magic cards, football pads, and golf cleats, then declare yourself master of Pennant #6, you can call yourself a free thinker and a maverick all you like, you're still just a jerk. And you won't score any points.

I don't agree with the first sentence - I personally think restrictions are to make the game playable. Which ties in with the last statement (which I agree with).


they exist to create a stereotypical racist shorthand to make it easier getting character traits fired off rapidly so that the plot of the game gets up and going without being muddied down by things like trying to get the PCs used to each others' quirks. Don't get lose the message in the example. And that's really the thing. Here's an exercise - replace all instances of "halfling" in the halfling entry with "Irishman," then read it again and ask yourself how you feel. If you're not sure, do it again and replaced "dwarf" with "Asians." Replace "elf" with your ethnicity of choice. Do you still feel comfortable with the humanoid races? Do you feel like further exploring the implications of your results? Do you understand why a writer or player might need a stereotyping device like that? What happens when they no longer need the device? Are now they now boring, since they're then capable of constructing devices on their own? Remember, it's just an exercise, and like the trolley problem, I like to think there's no right answer..

So... fantasy races make it easier to establish a set of traits without having to explain everything from the start, and avoid the baggage of RL races?

Boring is subjective.

Forrestfire
2015-03-22, 09:07 AM
Edit: I'm honestly confused as to how one could interpret my post there to be offensive ok? I have no idea what I said wrong, if anything. this truly blind-sides me.

The main thing is that you have an opinion that significantly differs from others, and you're stating yours as fact and saying their isn't valid (through the whole thread, really). So, I guess, in your own words:

Good for you, but not everyone is you.

LooseCannoneer
2015-03-22, 09:27 AM
My players get access to basically the full spectrum of normal races, plus around a half-dozen setting-specific ones. It blocks the weirdness, but they get what they want.

Phoenixguard09
2015-03-22, 09:27 AM
I honestly think it comes down to respect.

Personally, I know what it is like to have a unique setting with places, races and cultures which I have come up with over years and thoroughly documented. I'd want anyone looking to join a game I was running to at least have enough courtesy to read through what choices are available to them based upon the work I have done. I intend to be putting in the effort to run the event for their enjoyment, it is simply a matter of courtesy that they work within the framework I have set out and respect my work.

"I'm interested in joining your game." - Prospective new player.
"Cool. Any thoughts on what you want to play?" - Me.
"Yes, I'd like to play a-" - Prospective new player.

There are two ways this can go. The potential new player might have read through the information I have made available and say:
"Yes, I'd like to play a Selkye bard who focusses on battlefield control and plays a mandolin." - Prospective new player.

Or he might disregard my years of work:
"Yes, I was thinking I'd go a half-elf psion who rides an eldritch motorcycle." - Prospective new player.

My response to the latter would be:
"I do not have any elves, psions or motorcycles in my setting. Please go back through all that info I sent you and get back to me if you still want to play." - Me.

If that makes me a harsh GM, so be it. I've put in a lot of time and effort to create my setting.

Thrudd
2015-03-22, 09:56 AM
All these arguments for multiple races/player choosing anything they want seem to be saying "why can't you just..." Or "it's not that hard to do this".

This was never the issue. Of course you could make a world that is fantasy kitchen sink. Of course there are ways to explain why a party of misfit races is together and create a game around them. We do it all the time.

The issue is, having a game that is about a bunch of misfits, or even one misfit, or having a game that takes place in a mos eisely cantina world, is not always the game everyone wants to play or run.

Sometimes, sure, it's no big deal to add a new race to a setting, but it entirely depends on the setting and the theme of the game that is planned. It might be possible, but it is not always desired or appropriate for the game that is planned.
Maybe I don't want a playable race in my world that gets +4 to an ability score, or gets free weapon proficiencies or enhanced senses, or whatever, so if you want them for mechanical reasons rather than character/personality reasons, the answer still might be "no".

It is fine if a person has decided that they only like playing in very specific types of settings with certain kinds of characters. But it is silly to insist that any and every DM can or should accomodate that specific taste in any given game.

themaque
2015-03-22, 10:01 AM
"Yes, I was thinking I'd go a half-elf psion who rides an eldritch motorcycle." - Prospective new player.

I get your point. I don't think your wrong. But I kinda wanna play this character now.

I've asked for weird stuff before. I asked the GM to play an Undead Paladin using an advanced skeleton template.

The GM immediately said "NO".

a few months latter, he said he regretted the decision, and it would have made for an interesting story in his campaign.

Was he wrong for saying no? Of course not. It was an outlandish idea. I made another character and still had a lot of fun.

Would he have been wrong to say yes? Of course not, It was fairly balanced and it would have been fun for everyone.

There is no wrong answer, except for telling anyone else their way is wrong for everyone, not just you.

EDIT: I read Lord R's response again, and I understand her point. She wasn't saying "Humans are bad" She was saying that SHE PERSONALLY finds greater inspiration in the bizard. The more outlandish actually helps her find the humanity in the story.

Lord Raziere
2015-03-22, 01:02 PM
The main thing is that you have an opinion that significantly differs from others, and you're stating yours as fact and saying their isn't valid (through the whole thread, really). So, I guess, in your own words:

I wasn't stating it as fact? Sorry if I gave you that impression? :smallconfused:



EDIT: I read Lord R's response again, and I understand her point. She wasn't saying "Humans are bad" She was saying that SHE PERSONALLY finds greater inspiration in the bizard. The more outlandish actually helps her find the humanity in the story.

yes! and humanity is often more outlandish and strange than it likes to think it is-pretty sure thats the entire premise of comedy. I'm no exception- I am weird, I used to think I was normal and everyone else was weird, but now I'm aware I'm weird as well, and that everyone that thinks they're normal are not aware of their own weirdness enough.

themaque
2015-03-22, 01:13 PM
If I was going to play in my friend Mark's game, I know what races he normally allow in his world. If I come up with something weird, I would assume the answer is NO until he approves it.

Now some players play in specific ways. If I was to ask Luke to play in my game, I KNOW he is going to play a fighter. It's what makes him happy. If I'm going to ask Lord Raziera to play in my games, I know she's gonna wanna play something off the wall but with a good story behind it. If I wanted to play a straight laced game set in Rome with no weirdness, she probably wouldn't be interested. My Buddy Hobart would be all over it, and ask what political agendas he could manipulate.

It's a balance of the Players AND the GM. Open communication with what everyone enjoys.

Phoenixguard09
2015-03-22, 07:09 PM
I get your point. I don't think your wrong. But I kinda wanna play this character now.

I've asked for weird stuff before. I asked the GM to play an Undead Paladin using an advanced skeleton template.

The GM immediately said "NO".

a few months latter, he said he regretted the decision, and it would have made for an interesting story in his campaign.

Absolutely. And you had the respect for that GM and altered your choices. I'm glad you still had fun. :)

The half elf psion on the bike was just the first random thing to come to mind at midnight. If I were running a less serious game, I'd allow it. But in my example, this prospective player is looking at joining the game I am currently running, in which that character would not fit in the slightest.

Essentially, that character would not fit the game I want to run. And I think that in the end, it is the GM's right, particularly if playing an extensive homebrew setting, to choose what characters are not acceptable.

That being said, as a poster above me stated, it is a balancing act that comes down to knowing your players.
EDIT* Sorry Themaque, that was the second half of your post. Cheers mate,

If you have a player who is only interested in playing awakened dire badgers, and they don't fit your game, maybe you need to alter your setting, or failing that, explain to that player that you're concerned they will not engage with the setting you intend to use.

As always I guess, two way communication is key.

Gritmonger
2015-03-22, 07:14 PM
But I think to the point above, it is often more than Players-Versus-GM in some settings.

If everyone has been playing for a while, a new player has the opportunity to disrupt the play of all at the table, not just the GM - at which point it really is more than the players and GM negotiating with each-other - it's everyone at the table with the previous contract looking at the new guy, and all of them at one side of the table with some investment.

Collaborating with players to decide on a setting and what kind of game and system and all that, it's the perfect time to get as wacky as you want, and realize it might not be just the GM who discusses your choice, but other players as well.

If you are the lone new guy showing up, you've got an entire table that is pretty set on how the setting goes, so the obligation is more on the player to fit, since everyone else at the table is already in tacit agreement.

Knaight
2015-03-23, 09:57 AM
no, fantasy is magic, wizards and dragons. history is just the background at best, if you want a historical game, don't making including fantasy stuff in it, just make a historical game.
Your fantasy definition excludes a great deal of fantasy novels. I mean, if you want to claim that just about the entire output of Guy Gavriel Kay isn't fantasy that's your prerogative, but it's also ridiculous. There's a huge amount of fiction in the genre that is closely historically based, and a huge amount more that has no wizards or dragons.


Well, I know it's false. The typical DM that makes a setting does not make much. Your lucky if they write out a couple paragraphs. So it's not like they are making settings with 500,000 words per race. And most settings are small, like LotR small. So they are a couple of miles at best, it's not like they are making continents or planets. So adding something should not be a big deal.

And why can't elves just appear out of nowhere....sounds like a fine plot to me.
Even if the setting is pretty small, it's entirely possible that something like elves are inappropriate for it. The designers of one game putting elves in it does not make them a mandated point of inclusion for all settings.

themaque
2015-03-23, 10:26 AM
Anyone else having flashback to Gamers 2: Dorkness (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7k5Fa5m4UQ) rising with this conversation?

Karl Aegis
2015-03-23, 01:26 PM
Anyone else having flashback to Gamers 2: Dorkness Rising (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7k5Fa5m4UQ) with this conversation?

I'm looking at the finale of George Orwell's Animal Farm when the pigs start playing cards with humans. The pigs' peers couldn't tell the difference between the pigs and the humans. Combined with what was said earlier about races meaning absolutely nothing for a character, there shouldn't any reason why a Samurai couldn't be in the same setting as a Valkyrie. They're all essentially the same, after all.

Lord Raziere
2015-03-23, 01:54 PM
Your fantasy definition excludes a great deal of fantasy novels. I mean, if you want to claim that just about the entire output of Guy Gavriel Kay isn't fantasy that's your prerogative, but it's also ridiculous. There's a huge amount of fiction in the genre that is closely historically based, and a huge amount more that has no wizards or dragons.


can you please not do the "I'm going to take what you say completely literally" thing? its disingenuous and annoying.

what I'm saying is: A Song of Ice and Fire. why even make it fantasy even if your going to make the magic so low and hidden and focus on something so mundane as the politics of a bunch of pseudo-european nobles? what does that give you that a historical game won't do, but without the little magic things people who like to play low-magic things want incredibly restricted and mostly left out of having any effect at all on anything anyways? I mean sure its well written but if your so shunning of fantasy elements to the point where it might as well just be a historical thing, why include it all? it only adds inconsistency and an unexplained element, giving you nothing but confusion and no answers. meanwhile your actual setting is little more than a rehashed Europe, offering nothing that stands out from the rest of fantasy, except without the magic that opens up a lot of possibilities that many other settings have. in short at that point, whats the point of using magic at all? just make it historical and it will work fine for what you really want: endless nobility politics. because there is really nothing else you can do with such settings.

really, all A Song of Ice and Fire did was replace Tolkienian hackneyed "we must save the world!" plot with a Martinian hackneyed "political bull screws everything up!" plot. and then strip out all the stuff I come to fantasy for.

Knaight
2015-03-23, 02:23 PM
Your example of barely even fantasy has dragons, several year long seasons, characters coming back from the dead, and an incredibly powerful blood mage. How much stuff does one need before they're allowed to deviate from a historical setting? I don't see a "you need this much magic to enter" sign being helpful at all.

Lord Raziere
2015-03-23, 02:33 PM
Your example of barely even fantasy has dragons, several year long seasons, characters coming back from the dead, and an incredibly powerful blood mage. How much stuff does one need before they're allowed to deviate from a historical setting? I don't see a "you need this much magic to enter" sign being helpful at all.

dragons that barely have a role, seasons that so far has only had negligible impact on the plot, characters coming back from the dead hardly affecting anything, and the "incredibly powerful blood mage"? you call that powerful? she can only do her magic with restrictions that make it so unusable and horrible that I'm pretty sure if she wasn't there, all the people who died because of her could've just as easily gone down to a really good assassin and it would basically have the same effect. whats the point of Melisandre aside from being a crazy person who claims that there is a chosen one when clearly there doesn't seem to be one at all? which could be just as easily accomplished with her just plain being crazy?

veti
2015-03-23, 03:12 PM
Just a suggestion?

Let's not get hung up on what is or isn't "fantasy". Can't we agree that there exists a spectrum of settings, ranging from "full kitchen sink featuring every creature and spell ever published for any D&D edition plus probably several hundred more homebrewed because the DM just enjoys doing that", to "humans with your choice of hats and no detectably working magic at all". Where on this spectrum the line between "fantasy" and "not-fantasy" should be drawn - does it really matter?

As I see it, the only question that's really relevant to any of us is "what setting is this DM offering? And do I, personally, want to play in it?"

Lord Raziere
2015-03-23, 03:23 PM
Just a suggestion?

Let's not get hung up on what is or isn't "fantasy". Can't we agree that there exists a spectrum of settings, ranging from "full kitchen sink featuring every creature and spell ever published for any D&D edition plus probably several hundred more homebrewed because the DM just enjoys doing that", to "humans with your choice of hats and no detectably working magic at all". Where on this spectrum the line between "fantasy" and "not-fantasy" should be drawn - does it really matter?

As I see it, the only question that's really relevant to any of us is "what setting is this DM offering? And do I, personally, want to play in it?"

I agree with your sentiment, but y'know what I'd call "humans with your choice of hats and no detectably working magic at all"? Real Life. and since when did I get into roleplaying to play real life? or if your not doing the real life thing in an abstract sense, why not just call it Medieval Pulp or something? the fantasy genre really needs better classification and delineation of what to expect, because the current terms are too broad to really tell what stories are being told here.

themaque
2015-03-23, 03:30 PM
I agree with your sentiment, but y'know what I'd call "humans with your choice of hats and no detectably working magic at all"? Real Life. and since when did I get into roleplaying to play real life? or if your not doing the real life thing in an abstract sense, why not just call it Medieval Pulp or something? the fantasy genre really needs better classification and delineation of what to expect, because the current terms are too broad to really tell what stories are being told here.

I could honestly agree to this request. It get's even worse now that many "Fantasy" books are going mainstream, but it's still not popular to be CALLED Fantasy.

Example: Outlander.

It's a story about a woman who goes into a magic portal back in time. Is this fantasy? Yes, with magic portals and whatnot. Is this Science Fiction? Well technically it could be that as well, being speculative fiction. I've seen them stored in the Fantasy/sci-fi section, Romance section, AND Fiction section depending on the store.

Fantasy can mean High Fantasy to Low Fantasy to Semi-Fantasy. But even if i like four armed genie fantasy It's still rude to say GoT isn't REAL Fantasy because it doesn't mach MY definitions.

Lord Raziere
2015-03-23, 03:42 PM
Fantasy can mean High Fantasy to Low Fantasy to Semi-Fantasy. But even if i like four armed genie fantasy It's still rude to say GoT isn't REAL Fantasy because it doesn't mach MY definitions.

I'm not saying its not real fantasy, I'm just confused why if your going so low, why make it fantasy at all?

Lost in Hyrule
2015-03-23, 03:47 PM
It's just the google definition, so take that for what it's worth, but what it said about 'fantasy', in this context, is a genre of fiction characterized by magic and adventure. Basically, anything from Indiana Jones to Star Wars to Wheel of Time would count. And there is obviously fun to be had in each of those types of settings! A game with no magic whatsoever, such as Indiana Jones before the Ark of the Covenant came into play, wouldn't count as Fantasy, but it would still probably be a fun setting for a PnP RPG.

More specific labels within the very broad scope of 'Fantasy' would be quite helpful. In the 5e DMG, they try classifying things as High Fantasy, Low Fantasy, Sword and Sorcery, etc. The issue is that, while those terms may mean one thing to you, someone else may have different benchmarks for those categories.

To the point of the thread, I'd say players definitely get a choice, but the options they get to choose are made available by the GM. In my example, we're going to be humans from a small town. I pitched that to my players, they all are on board, and we're ready to go! If they largely disliked this pitch, I could come up with a new one. If one or two came up with it, they could choose to not participate or work with me to find a work-around. Most here seem to agree: The player's should get choices, but the GM's choices also matter. It isn't my job to accommodate anything the players might want. Instead, I am meant to run a world in which they can have adventure!

Forrestfire
2015-03-23, 03:47 PM
:smallconfused: Because it's still fantasy, and presumably the author wants to write fantasy. That's the only reason you need.

Kiero
2015-03-23, 04:31 PM
By writing fantasy, even low fantasy, the author (and by extension the GM) is spared from having to do a lot of research to get themselves familiar with a historical time and place.

Lord Raziere
2015-03-23, 04:34 PM
:smallconfused: Because it's still fantasy, and presumably the author wants to write fantasy. That's the only reason you need.

....that checks out.


By writing fantasy, even low fantasy, the author (and by extension the GM) is spared from having to do a lot of research to get themselves familiar with a historical time and place.

....but wouldn't you have to do that research anyways to get a good portrayal of their counterpart cultures that low fantasy is often going for?

themaque
2015-03-23, 04:36 PM
Why not? I like things to have some magic, a twist, but to be recognizable. The level of GoT works for me.

Higher levels often require more suspension of disbelief or some hand waving to buy for the more practicality minded.

Example: Drizt. You could say his magic is integral to the story. He NEEDS to be a Drow. Some could argue the essence of his story is still very human. Rebelling from the society that raised you and living as an outsider in another culture.

Lord Raziere
2015-03-23, 04:44 PM
Why not? I like things to have some magic, a twist, but to be recognizable. The level of GoT works for me.

Higher levels often require more suspension of disbelief or some hand waving to buy for the more practicality minded.


huh. guess I'm weird. I can pretty much suspend my disbelief for almost anything.

themaque
2015-03-23, 04:46 PM
huh. guess I'm weird.

Yeah, but we already new that. ;-)

Solaris
2015-03-24, 08:57 AM
....but wouldn't you have to do that research anyways to get a good portrayal of their counterpart cultures that low fantasy is often going for?

That assumes the low fantasy is making those counterpart cultures, instead of inventing their cultures.

hiryuu
2015-03-24, 10:06 AM
I'm not saying its not real fantasy, I'm just confused why if your going so low, why make it fantasy at all?

I want to open by saying that reality is more tightly laced and that we know more about it than people like to believe - often times I find myself labeling something I'm working on "fantasy" because it requires a set of particular rules no longer function the same way they do in reality. Phosphate cascades, as one example, and memetics as possessing a biological metaphor series as another (iimagine if you could "catch" cultural information the same way you can catch a cold).

But in the Game of Thrones series, it's because part of the major conflict is that there's an imminent super-powered zombie apocalypse and nobody is focusing on that so they can play their not-magic political games. Magic is the goddamn specter of a real looming threat and the nobility is downplaying or ignoring it so they can keep throttling power out of each other. But yes, we could make it be about fat white guys throttling power out of each other while the planet slowly heats up...

But then it's not a cool metaphor anymore.

______________________

Back on main topic. Yes, players totes get a choice. Sometimes the GM makes some changes to jostle up the setting, and the players have to live with it - but, the whole thing is give and take anyway. Sometimes the GM doesn't want to run crazy high fantasy because there's implications on the setting outside the box of the PCs actions that will make the PCs feel -less- awesome. I know that's my only reason for building low magic settings: so PCs who make just a human sorcerer feel like they're the weirdo.

Talakeal
2015-03-24, 05:01 PM
You know, just once I would like to play in a moderate campaign. Every game I have ever played in has been a kitchen soup game where the party was a group of circus freaks or a game where the DM reflexively shot down anything outside of core and banned most of the options in it.

Thrudd
2015-03-24, 05:12 PM
You know, just once I would like to play in a moderate campaign. Every game I have ever played in has been a kitchen soup game where the party was a group of circus freaks or a game where the DM reflexively shot down anything outside of core and banned most of the options in it.

You just need a custom setting where it is still restricted to a small "core" group of races, but those races are different/more interesting than standard elves and dwarves etc.

Kiero
2015-03-24, 06:46 PM
You just need a custom setting where it is still restricted to a small "core" group of races, but those races are different/more interesting than standard elves and dwarves etc.

We have that with our custom setting for 13th Age, Acrozatarim (http://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/Acrozatarim). One of the early design decisions was no elves, dwarves, halflings, orcs, goblins and so on. It's an elemental-themed setting, besides humans there are Planetouched and gnolls for playable races. The PCs are two humans, one genasi and one aasimar.

King of Casuals
2015-04-20, 11:44 AM
{{Scrubbed}} As a DM, it's your responsibility to make sure that the rest of the party has a challenging and entertaining adventure. Unless something in a character's backstory directly contradicts something in your lore, character creation is almost as sacred as that one unicorn from Legend, if you touch it, you just piss everyone off. Even if you like the idea of the standard goody-two shoes party with Elven rangers and Dwarf fighters, if your PCs dont want to go down that path, then trying to control them will really only make them resent you. And if there's anything that can kill a campaign, then it's resentment for the GM.

Mr.Moron
2015-04-20, 12:12 PM
{{Scrubbed}} As a DM, it's your responsibility to make sure that the rest of the party has a challenging and entertaining adventure. Unless something in a character's backstory directly contradicts something in your lore, character creation is almost as sacred as that one unicorn from Legend, if you touch it, you just piss everyone off. Even if you like the idea of the standard goody-two shoes party with Elven rangers and Dwarf fighters, if your PCs dont want to go down that path, then trying to control them will really only make them resent you. And if there's anything that can kill a campaign, then it's resentment for the GM.


You know or they could just read the character creation guidelines I send out ahead of the game, and choose not to play if they're not digging what I'm digging. No GM is going around putting guns to people heads to join campaigns (I hope).

If I want to run a game where "All characters should be human, exactly 6'2" tall, with black hair, hate music, enjoy Ice Cream and be named "George"", I've the right. Anyone who wants to get "Pissed off" at me for it is out of bounds. Just don't play in my game.

Talakeal
2015-04-20, 12:49 PM
{{Scrubbed}}As a DM, it's your responsibility to make sure that the rest of the party has a challenging and entertaining adventure. Unless something in a character's backstory directly contradicts something in your lore, character creation is almost as sacred as that one unicorn from Legend, if you touch it, you just piss everyone off. Even if you like the idea of the standard goody-two shoes party with Elven rangers and Dwarf fighters, if your PCs dont want to go down that path, then trying to control them will really only make them resent you. And if there's anything that can kill a campaign, then it's resentment for the GM.


You know or they could just read the character creation guidelines I send out ahead of the game, and choose not to play if they're not digging what I'm digging. No GM is going around putting guns to people heads to join campaigns (I hope).

If I want to run a game where "All characters should be human, exactly 6'2" tall, with black hair, hate music, enjoy Ice Cream and be named "George"", I've the right. Anyone who wants to get "Pissed off" at me for it is out of bounds. Just don't play in my game.

Both these ideas work out fine in a theoretical world where anyone can game as much or as little as they like with whoever they like.

I have never been in such an environment.

Normally it is part of a small gaming group who meets regularly. In such a situation someone choosing not to play will both wreck they schedule (and leave their need for gaming unfulfilled) and often kill the game from a lack of players.

Thus compromise is usually the order of the day. You need to find a middle ground where both sides are having fun at the group. I don't think anyone is having fun in the "Everyone is George" game, but on the other hand if someone is player as a three headed radioactive were-dragon super hero half angel then the DM (and probably the other players) aren't having fun either unless they all came to the game expecting over the top gonzo PCs.

Mr.Moron
2015-04-20, 12:53 PM
Both these ideas work out fine in a theoretical world where anyone can game as much or as little as they like with whoever they like.

I have never been in such an environment.

Normally it is part of a small gaming group who meets regularly. In such a situation someone choosing not to play will both wreck they schedule (and leave their need for gaming unfulfilled) and often kill the game from a lack of players.


Nobody needs games and I don'towe anyone games either. If you don't like my offerings then counter-offer your own game. If people like yours more than mine, they can go join that. If nobody likes the games anyone is offering then maybe folks are better off not playing.

Maglubiyet
2015-04-20, 02:00 PM
{{Scrubbed}} As a DM, it's your responsibility to make sure that the rest of the party has a challenging and entertaining adventure. Unless something in a character's backstory directly contradicts something in your lore, character creation is almost as sacred as that one unicorn from Legend, if you touch it, you just piss everyone off. Even if you like the idea of the standard goody-two shoes party with Elven rangers and Dwarf fighters, if your PCs dont want to go down that path, then trying to control them will really only make them resent you. And if there's anything that can kill a campaign, then it's resentment for the GM.

So basically, anything goes? The DM is obliged to run whatever collection of characters show up at his/her table on game night?

kyoryu
2015-04-20, 02:05 PM
Nobody needs games and I don'towe anyone games either. If you don't like my offerings then counter-offer your own game. If people like yours more than mine, they can go join that. If nobody likes the games anyone is offering then maybe folks are better off not playing.

Exactly.

The GM wants players, but nobody is obligated to play in his game. Players want GMs, but nobody is obligated to run.

If you can find some happy compromise where everyone enjoys themselves, great! If not, that's fine too.

If enough people don't want to live with the restrictions of a GM, then there won't be a game, and the GM won't get to GM. So he's got an incentive to be accommodating. If the demands of the players are too crazy, and they're unwilling to budge, then the GM can say "no, I'm not doing that," and the players don't get to play. So they also have an incentive to be accommodating. Between the two, you should be able to figure something out if people are halfway reasonable.

The idea that somebody should be able to "make" a GM run a game they don't want to run is very odd to me, and would be just as odd as the idea that a GM can "make" someone play in their game.

kyoryu
2015-04-20, 02:12 PM
To repost my response from Lord Raziere's nearly identical thread on rpg.net:

A lot of this is just negotiation.

A good conversation might look like:

Player: "I wanna play an orc!"
GM: "Okay, but know that orcs are hated in this world, so there will be prejudice."
Player: "Okay, I'll play something else"

or

Player: "I wanna play an orc!"
GM: "Okay, but know that orcs are hated in this world, so there will be prejudice."
Player: "I'd really like to play an orc character I have in mind, but I don't want to deal with prejudice, think you can turn that off or dial it down?"
GM: "Okay, sure."

or

Player: "I wanna play an orc!"
GM: "Okay, but know that orcs are hated in this world, so there will be prejudice."
Player: "I'd really like to play an orc character I have in mind, but I don't want to deal with prejudice, think you can turn that off or dial it down?"
GM: "You know, it's really kind of important to this game world. I don't think I can really modify that much."
Player: "Um, okay, I guess I can deal with that."

or

Player: "I wanna play an orc!"
GM: "Okay, but know that orcs are hated in this world, so there will be prejudice."
Player: "I'd really like to play an orc character I have in mind, but I don't want to deal with prejudice, think you can turn that off or dial it down?"
GM: "You know, it's really kind of important to this game world. I don't think I can really modify that much."
Player: "I'll play an elf then."

or

Player: "I wanna play an orc!"
GM: "Okay, but know that orcs are hated in this world, so there will be prejudice."
Player: "I'd really like to play an orc character I have in mind, but I don't want to deal with prejudice, think you can turn that off or dial it down?"
GM: "You know, it's really kind of important to this game world. I don't think I can really modify that much."
Player: "You know, I really want to play this character, and I don't have the time to invest in a game where I can't. So I'm going to bow out. Best of luck to you!"


Bad conversations look like:

Player: "I wanna play an orc!"
GM: "Okay, but know that orcs are hated in this world, so there will be prejudice."
Player: "Screw you, you racist jerk!" / "You're obligated to run the game I want!" / "Here's why you're objectively wrong!"

or

Player: "I wanna play an orc!"
GM: "Okay, but know that orcs are hated in this world, so there will be prejudice."
Player: "I'd really like to play an orc character I have in mind, but I don't want to deal with prejudice, think you can turn that off or dial it down?"
GM: "Screw you, snowflake!" / "You'll play the game the way I want!" / "I don't care what you want!"

DixieDevil
2015-04-20, 02:19 PM
For me, it's all about setting. When we're in Faerun, sure you can be a half-drow pscionic bard, but that won't fly in Ravenloft.

For instance, in the campaign I'm running right now, I gave my players choices of Humans, Fey, and Kobolds. Because that's the only races that fit in the setting.

goto124
2015-04-21, 06:56 PM
Both these ideas work out fine in a theoretical world where anyone can game as much or as little as they like with whoever they like.

I have never been in such an environment.

Normally it is part of a small gaming group who meets regularly. In such a situation someone choosing not to play will both wreck they schedule (and leave their need for gaming unfulfilled) and often kill the game from a lack of players.

Thus compromise is usually the order of the day. You need to find a middle ground where both sides are having fun at the group. I don't think anyone is having fun in the "Everyone is George" game, but on the other hand if someone is player as a three headed radioactive were-dragon super hero half angel then the DM (and probably the other players) aren't having fun either unless they all came to the game expecting over the top gonzo PCs.

*hugs Talakeal*

Broken Twin
2015-04-21, 09:49 PM
Both these ideas work out fine in a theoretical world where anyone can game as much or as little as they like with whoever they like.

I have never been in such an environment.

Normally it is part of a small gaming group who meets regularly. In such a situation someone choosing not to play will both wreck they schedule (and leave their need for gaming unfulfilled) and often kill the game from a lack of players.

Thus compromise is usually the order of the day. You need to find a middle ground where both sides are having fun at the group. I don't think anyone is having fun in the "Everyone is George" game, but on the other hand if someone is player as a three headed radioactive were-dragon super hero half angel then the DM (and probably the other players) aren't having fun either unless they all came to the game expecting over the top gonzo PCs.

Yeah, my gaming prospects mostly consist of my immediate friends (with frequently erratic work schedules), or taking a chance with some of the guys from one of the FLGSs. One of which could actually be called friendly, and it's clientèle is almost entirely MtG players. I'd much rather compromise with the people I've got than hardline a stance that's likely to leave me with no game time whatsoever. No game may be better than a bad game, but a decent game is better than no game.

I also just realised the absurdity of the fact that a town as small as mine has three FLGSs within a twenty minute drive of each other. Two are comic book and MtG focused, the third is X-Wing and MtG focused.

kyoryu
2015-04-21, 11:03 PM
I think most people are advocating compromise here.

"I have to be able to be any single race I want, no matter how it contradicts the established world, and if you won't let me, SCREW YOU!" isn't compromise.