How bothered would you be if you arrived at a new game, and the GM informed you that you would be able to choose one of a certain set of race/class combinations?
Let me make myself make sense:
You show up at a new game, ready with some character concepts floating around in your head. The GM says, “Okay, we need an Elf Wizard, a Human Fighter, and at least one Dwarf Paladin.” Would you feel like you could sit down with a certain level of restriction and design a character that was wholly your own? I think I could.
I bring this up, because, in the past, I have suggested this idea to my players. It usually begins with everyone thinking up ideas for a new game (we’ll use Star Wars as an example, since I’m on a Star Wars kick at the moment). Every single one of them is looking through the Ultimate Alien Anthology, trying to find the weirdest thing to play. I get a little irritated (I’m slightly Xenophobic when I play. I like to play humans, and get irritated when people think humans are “boring” [NO I'M NOT!]). I know that in the Star Wars films and books, humans are the most prevalent race, and a ship full of aliens isn’t all that common, and would be more realistic with more humans on board. I state, “I want at least half the crew to be human”. That goes down like a lead balloon.
This also happened, because I noticed that there wasn’t anyone to take the piloting role. I arbitrarily chose someone and told them that they were going to be the pilot, and should probably take the Skill Emphasis: Pilot feat. Luckily, they liked that idea.
Hmm…
Last big Star Wars game I ran, I added about three NPCs to the ship’s crew to add more humans to the mix (OK, one was a Zeltron, but they’re near-humans, so they’re human enough).
I’m normally not very controlling in my games. I let whatever happens, happen, and simply roll with the punches, letting the players direct the story.
Should I let my xenophobia go and just roll with the fact that the players are going to try to be a Hutt?
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 4, 2008 at 11:47 am
Joshua
Is there a reason you want to control their choices? Adventurers are unusual by definition, so I’m not sure representativeness of the galaxy at large (or even the dominant species of either the Republic or Empire) is that good a reason. But if you think it is, then why not make them roll to see if they are non-human? If, say, you think 50% of the party ought by rights to be human, at least you can let them flip a coin…then if they all wind up non-human you can at least be reassured this is a statistically atypical crew.
You might also consider whether there is a reason in the setting that humans do most of the flying about and fighting. If, for instance, the only affordable (non-custom-made) equipment for pilots and gunner stations come from factories that mass-produce them for humaniform species then you could say that it’s fine if they want to be a Hutt, but they have to live with the drawbacks of being a Hutt in a Human-centric world….
November 4, 2008 at 1:35 pm
bonemaster
I understand your issues. I think players trying to find the weirdest thing to play is very common. In many DnD games I played, my character was the only human (and there by the only weird thing)
I’m not sure how your players are going to react, but you need to set some ground rules. The pilot debate is one that is common in many space based RPGs. Take Traveller, most games assume that there will at least be one person who can pilot and one person who can be an engineer in a group. The group makes sure they have the skills cover somehow or else they don’t get to go anywhere. Is this heavy handed, maybe, but the players need to know that for them to have FUN, a little give needs to be in order.
Roll with the odd races does have some issues of course, but you should role play up the issues with having an completely Alien group. My Star Wars information is failing me, but I’d assume some humans may have certain prejudices that might make it hard on an all Alien party.
November 4, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Brent P. Newhall
The question is, what’s the reason for these particular roles?
I have no problem choosing a particular role and having fun with it, as long as the GM’s made it clear why these roles are important to this game. If it’s just because the GM likes a particular race, I’d be less happy.
November 5, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Swordgleam
In my current game, my only rule was this: Absolutely no dragonborn. I hate them for personal reasons, and more importantly, they don’t fit with the setting. No dragonborn, period (unless you have a really, really good reason and decent puppydog eyes).
Unsurprisingly, my initial group of four included two dragonborn. The first dragonborn was easy – he liked the idea of dragonborns being an outcast race, and playing a character trying to redeem them. Explaining away the second one without interfering with the first was substantially harder, but I worked with the player and we ended up with a great concept that has already led to some fun intra-party conflict.
Since there’s two dragonborn in the party, diplomacy is a lot harder. Also, armor sized for them is not going to fit the elf or the tiny asian paladin, so swapping equipment around is a no. The players get to do their thing and be the race they wanted, but as a result, they have to worry about some things normal parties take for granted. On the other hand, the story is much cooler as a result of the challenges they now have to deal with.
November 5, 2008 at 10:21 pm
dicemonkey
I also ban Cereans in my Star Wars games. The idea of Dan Akroyd the Jedi is just ridiculous to me.
November 8, 2008 at 10:01 am
Human? Who the HELL wants to be Human? « Dice Monkey
[...] so I have two cents to put in on the subject of role players and being human characters. I have a response, but I think people in general may agree. Here’s the short and [...]