General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
This from the game that introduced elves fighting Jello molds to fantasy.
And that is why it is important for the DM to shape his world, if he finds this inconsistent... he can just ban elves... or gelantinous cubes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mallus
Sounds like a D&D party to me. Also, a popular contemporary fantasy series sports characters named Whiskeyjack, Bugg, and Anomander Rake the Lord of Moon's Spawn.
Emphasis mine... and that's great for the type of game you want to run. Again individual tastes vary.
__________________ Nobody built like me, I designed myself ...as an
And that is why it is important for the DM to shape his world, if he finds this inconsistent... he can just ban elves... or gelantinous cubes
If you're going to ban elves and gelatinous cubes you might as well be playing Harn!
Quote:
Again individual tastes vary.
Of course they do. But what does that have to do with D&D's long history of silly names? Some of which can be found in the classic 1e modules and in EGG's original campaigns.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
This from the game that introduced elves fighting Jello molds to fantasy..
Well, the giant amoeba predates DND and, even, the Blob. It goes at least as far back as the pulps and a 1923 issue of Wierd Tales.
As for elves fighting them, that is a campaign design decision. Nothing requires the DM to includes elves and or gelationous cubes.
Quote:
Sounds like a D&D party to me. Also, a popular contemporary fantasy series sports characters named Whiskeyjack, Bugg, and Anomander Rake the Lord of Moon's Spawn.
To you, perhaps. However, that is your decision on how you want to play and run
__________________ "The designers of the newest edition built so much reliance on rules right into the game, to make it easier to play. As one of those designers, I occasionally think to myself, 'What have we wrought?' " -Monte Cook
" If the DM has to make a lot of judgment calls, the game is more difficult to learn. However, it's my belief that it's also more satisfying." -Monte Cook
"Don't let rules replace good DMing skills"- Monte Cook
What the heck? Now he's telling me what I can and can't *name* my characters? It's really frustrating, and it's totally lowering my morale. Ugh. I can't quit over a name, but dang, if it ain't fun to play, why go?
I usually am in the "DMs are Right, now Shut up ! " camp.
However, at this rate, yes, it is going too far.
Tell him bluntly this is too much, and change Dm if he does not get the message.
If you're going to ban elves and gelatinous cubes you might as well be playing Harn!
Soo... unless I include everything, then I'm not playing D&D... well at least certain people from WotC agree with you...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ampersand Article
This is also the year that we bring the Eberron campaign setting into 4th Edition. This summer is all about Eberron, with the release of the Eberron Campaign Guide, Eberron Player’s Guide, and the Seekers of the Ashen Crown adventure. As one of the co-creators of the original Eberron campaign setting, and as one of the key people behind selecting Eberron when we ran the campaign search a few years back, the world of pulp fantasy and adventure is very special to me. It’s an exciting place, full of amazing new ways to look at a D&D campaign. By bringing the setting into 4th Edition, we’re reinvesting in this world that’s caught between the Last War and an uncertain future. If you haven’t checked out Eberron, or if you’ve been away from Eberron for awhile, then this is the summer for you. And like every D&D setting, you can play it as is or you can borrow elements to add to whatever campaign you’re playing in. Warforged and artificers can and should show up in any D&D game.
Too bad I don't believe the hype.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mallus
Of course they do. But what does that have to do with D&D's long history of silly names? Some of which can be found in the classic 1e modules and in EGG's original campaigns.
Again...EGG doesn't run my campaign. I respect him for giving me the tools to play this wonderful game, but the minute I opened the books... it became mine.
__________________ Nobody built like me, I designed myself ...as an
Cool, I get to give out XP to a second person in one day! Great post, S'mon
Quote:
Originally Posted by S'mon
Is handing out pregen PCs abusing the GM's position?
Is running a railroady scenario like Rogue Mistress ( and other Chaosium efforts) abusing the GM's position?
To me, 'abusing the GM's position' would be "Sleep with me for more XP!" or at a milder level "Give me that beer" - using in-game authority to demand out-of-game favours. Blatant favouritism would also qualify - if I let a player play I'm going to treat them equally with the other players; if I can't do that because I don't like them, or because it's my wife and she doesn't like her PC dying*, then I should not GM for that player.
__________________ "The designers of the newest edition built so much reliance on rules right into the game, to make it easier to play. As one of those designers, I occasionally think to myself, 'What have we wrought?' " -Monte Cook
" If the DM has to make a lot of judgment calls, the game is more difficult to learn. However, it's my belief that it's also more satisfying." -Monte Cook
"Don't let rules replace good DMing skills"- Monte Cook
Yep, hype done soley for marketing rather than making a better play experience and interesting campaign settings, imo. Then again, I think the in-house design team and their suits should worry less on cross-marketing and more on being better designers (the opinion of others opinions may vary).
__________________ "The designers of the newest edition built so much reliance on rules right into the game, to make it easier to play. As one of those designers, I occasionally think to myself, 'What have we wrought?' " -Monte Cook
" If the DM has to make a lot of judgment calls, the game is more difficult to learn. However, it's my belief that it's also more satisfying." -Monte Cook
"Don't let rules replace good DMing skills"- Monte Cook
Last edited by Greg K; 30th January 2009 at 09:11 PM..
It is a false dichotomy to say that things are either "silly" or "serious", there is a whole continuum in between. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being "serious as a documentary on effects of small pox on Native American populations" and 10 being "a Looney Toons/Animaniacs marathon weekend", I would rank an otherwise serious character with a silly name about a 2 or 3. A name is just a name, it is the actions of the character that really set the tone.
I agree that it is a sliding scale and not just a black-or-white-silly-or-serious kind of thing. First, where on that scale does a silly name appear? Second, in what context does the name interact with the world? Finally, does using it multiple times diminish its endearing quality?
Let's take your Roosevelt "Rosey" Grier example - Does he have a silly nickname? Yes, but it is not overly silly. Does his name make him endearing? Yes. Does his name defeat the seriousness of the Fearsome Foursome of the L.A. Rams? No, in all likely hood it enhances it. But, I contend, it enhances it because of the existence of Lamar Lundy, Merlin Olsen, and Deacon Jones. Their names allow the name "Rosey" to stand out as enduring.
Compare that to a hypothetical line made up of Rosey Grier, Mashmellow Lundy, Tinkerbell Olsen, and Smiling Deacon Jones. I would have a hard time calling this second group the Fearsome Foursome.
With regards to the OPs original point - I would have no problem with her calling her bear "Marshmellow", however, if that bear was followed by Mittens who was followed by Ruff who was followed by Tinkerbell then I think the DM has a right to say no. Context is important. I would have a hard time calling a game serious if names are consistantly on the lighter side.
Well, congratulations, you've managed to create a definition of "GMing decision" that entitles GMing decisions to absolutely no presumption of respect whatsoever from the players.
See, this is where responding as I'd like to would risk a ban again, *sigh*
Well, the giant amoeba predates DND and, even, the Blob.
Ah, but neither giant amoebae or the Blob can hold a cubic shape. Hence the 'mold' part --that was D&D's innovation.
Quote:
It goes at least as far back as the pulps and a 1923 issue of Wierd Tales.
Ah, but planetary romances didn't have elves.
Quote:
Nothing requires the DM to includes elves and or gelationous cubes.
Which is irrelevant to the point I was making, which was: despite what's written in the 3e DMG, D&D has never been in the forefront of consistent, believable fantasy.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
Soo... unless I include everything, then I'm not playing D&D...
Did I say that? I bet you know the answer...
Quote:
Too bad I don't believe the hype.
For what it's worth, Eberron's a quality product. Not to everyone's taste (naturally), but its more than just marketing.
Quote:
Again...EGG doesn't run my campaign. I respect him for giving me the tools to play this wonderful game, but the minute I opened the books... it became mine.
And what does your game being yours have to do with the fact that D&D has a long history of silly names, despite what's written in the 3e DMG?
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
This is a difficult conflict to resolve because it boils down to taste, expectations and campaign style. Personally I don't have a problem with a player giving his 'pets' silly names, since people have always given them silly names. That said, I did notice that some of you choices are a little anachronistic, which isn't always a problem, but perhaps for your GM it is. A good compromise might be to keep it silly, but avoid modern sounding names or names that have pop culture references (i.e. Tweety). Would he object to a names that just describe the animals in ironic ways but fit within the campaign world setting?
Well, the giant amoeba predates DND and, even, the Blob. It goes at least as far back as the pulps and a 1923 issue of Wierd Tales.
There's a giant flesh-eating amoeba in The Boats of the Glen Carrig by William Hope Hodgson, 1907 I believe. Also features a small monster manual's worth of other horrors, most get hacked to bits by the protagonists. The original monster bash.
Why for the Dragonborn hate? The game is called Dungeons and Dragons. Lizard-y humanoids have been a part of the game for decades. A hugely popular series of novels and gaming tie-ins featured scads of dragon-men. What am I missing about the Dragonborn?
It's not like they're kender or anything...
I'll take kender or lizardmen over Dragonborn. Wait, my campaign actually has a lizardman race. I just don't want a race of fire breathing reptillian humanoids- especially pcs. It's not the style of game that interests me.
It probably doesn't help that between dragon heritage sorcerous feats, half-dragons with breath weapons, dragon shamans etc. the whole thing, imo, has become ridiculous (except if specifically chosen in a toolbox approach or for a dragon themed campaign).
Give me something different like dragons as divine creatures and half dragons, as their offspring, don't have breath weapons. Instead, they are more charismatic in presence, better physical specimens (better con and either str or dex), and have some kind of divine commanding voice with the dragon heritage as requirement for a PrC (or for Epic Destiny)- just not breath weapons.
__________________ "The designers of the newest edition built so much reliance on rules right into the game, to make it easier to play. As one of those designers, I occasionally think to myself, 'What have we wrought?' " -Monte Cook
" If the DM has to make a lot of judgment calls, the game is more difficult to learn. However, it's my belief that it's also more satisfying." -Monte Cook
"Don't let rules replace good DMing skills"- Monte Cook
Last edited by Greg K; 30th January 2009 at 09:38 PM..
Just trying to understand how your statements relate to the bigger issue we are discussing... perhaps you could clarify me since apparently I missed the point about elves and Gelantinous cubes...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mallus
For what it's worth, Eberron's a quality product. Not to everyone's taste (naturally), but its more than just marketing.
Yeah, that's great have plenty of material from 3.5... doesn't mean I agree that warforged and artificers should be in every campaign setting... the bolded part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mallus
And what does your game being yours have to do with the fact that D&D has a long history of silly names, despite what's written in the 3e DMG?
I don't have to allow them in my game, if it doesn't fit is the point. D&D has a multitude of feels and tones as exemplified by the numerous settings of 2e, but I guess for all of them silly names were the norm. Not.
__________________ Nobody built like me, I designed myself ...as an
II just don't want a race of fire breathing reptillian humanoids- especially pcs. It's not the style of game that interests me.
I'm not trying to argue taste, I'm just trying to understand the POV that vehemently objects to fire-breathing dragon-men in a D&D-style fantasy game. What surprises me about Dragonborn is how long it took for them to appear in D&D. They look like a gimme.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
Cadfan,
What if the DM realizes that his dislike for dragonborn will ultimately have a negative effect on the quality of the game he runs? If the presence bothers him, every time the character comes into play, the character is a reminder of how much he dislikes that race. It's reoccurence and having to make accomodations for it when he designs adventures, when the PCs interact with NPCs, etc. results in DMing becoming unfun and a chore. When, DMing becomes unfun, the game as a whole suffers in quality and probably dies often resulting in no game for anyone (if we are to believe the disproportionate number of players to dms).
1. Why is this concern unique to the DM? What if the DM hates dragonborn, but loves tieflings, and one of the players knows that his hatred of tieflings will ultimately have a negative effect on his contributions to the game?
If your argument is that the DM is more important, so he has to be mollycoddled more than the players because his unhappiness will reverberate in a way that a player's will not, are you really happy with that reasoning? With the idea that the DM is essentially a giant baby, and everyone has to be extra nice to him and give him privileges that no one else gets not because he will use them more wisely, but simply because catering to him is the only way that everyone can get along?
2. I question whether this really happens to people. See my earlier post about actually hating something so bad it makes the game suffer, and just being dramatic. IF the DM hates something so bad the game will suffer from his primal revulsion, THEN that something should probably be banned (or the DM replaced with someone a little less emotionally fragile), BUT I think it is very unlikely that most people actually hate something like a player character race quite that much.
I'm amazed how much disagreement my views generate. I just think that the reason that we respect the DM's authority is because he is in a position to best decide whether adding dragonborn to the game will help or hurt the overall game experience. I think the respect that the DM is entitled to is tied to this superior perspective, and is therefore forfeit if the DM abandons that perspective and starts using the authority vested in him by the group to satisfy personal whims unrelated to the quality of the game.
So, I respect the decision of a DM who bans something for a game related reason, and I don't respect the decision of a DM who bans something because he thinks its stupid and he knows he can get away with banning it because the players will let him have what he wants rather than try to find a new DM.
Advice in the DMG pertaining to the creation of believable, consistent fantasy worlds should be treated as ironic. Clearer, yes?
Huh? How is an elf fighting a gelantinous cube inherently not consistent. You're loosing me here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mallus
The silly we have always had with us. Are you honestly disagreeing with that?
I am saying there is a big difference in the inherent silliness found in the FR versus the inherent silliness found in Dark Sun, do you disagree with that?
__________________ Nobody built like me, I designed myself ...as an
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
