Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 8154763" data-attributes="member: 87792">Why is it not appropriate? This is where I have a problem with the GM's approach. The GM's pitch, as I have mentioned, does not explicitly say "human only". Indeed it implies it isn't because it's D&D. There are also "everyman" character concepts that fit Game of Thrones and actually work better in a fantasy setting if the character is a non-human even if the setting is human dominated - in particular characters from far away lands who are getting mixed up in this stuff. I've already given the example of ambassador's secretary Vir Koto in Babylon 5 who's a Centauri (which could easily translate to elf with the mix of arrogance and fading empire) - and is one of the two most ordinary characters in the setting (the other being Zack Allen). Being a literal non-human allows an outlander to be a visible outlander while having notable cultural traits that aren't (normally) real world traits that would require research. And outlanders generally aren't less of normal characters than lords or knights.Literally the only reason given in this thread that the character concept was not appropriate has been "Because I am the DM and that is not 100% how I pictured things and I am utterly inflexible on this." Now it doesn't say anything better about the player that they went in with a "the rules say I can because it's core" than that the DM went in with "The rules say I can overrule the rules and because I'm the DM it's my way or the highway regardless of how it works with what I actually pitched." (But only one of them actually has absolute control over the game).On the contrary. The only one expecting other people to be the dancing monkey is the DM.</blockquote>

Verification