|
2 years ago ::
Nov 14, 2011 - 12:23PM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2005
|
Masculinity is inherent to the satyr concept...
1) That's not true. Rather, it's that certain things that we associate with masculinity are inherent to the satyr concept. These things are not necessarily associated with masculinity in all cultures, and they certainly don't need to be associated with masculinity in the culture of a fantasy race like the Satyr.
B) Even if that were true, what's wrong with women being masculine? Or acting in ways that we normally associate with masculinity? This is a game where female barbarians can be exactly as strong and tough and fearsome as male barbarians, so I'm going to go with the answer of "Nothing".
#) PCs are special. They don't have to do a single thing supposedly inherent to their race's concept, at least certainly not when it comes to behavioral expectations. As it stands, I could play a very, very feminine Satyr that's biologically male and would not violate the rules at all despite being counter to the fluff.
Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TMSpeaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 14, 2011 - 3:23PM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2008
|
Just use the mechanics and call yourself a faun. Male or female, and they fill the same role.
My colors and decks
Show
Where's the fun in that?
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 16, 2011 - 12:19AM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2008
|
I don't think I'd allow this if I were your DM. Because you already said the DM decided satyrs are all male, so this seems like you just trying to go around or ignore him. I mean, I'm not sure I'd rule it that way myself, but if I did make a ruling and you tried to do this I wouldn't let you. But whatever.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 16, 2011 - 2:09AM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Jan 28, 2004
|
I don't think I'd allow this if I were your DM. Because you already said the DM decided satyrs are all male, so this seems like you just trying to go around or ignore him. I mean, I'm not sure I'd rule it that way myself, but if I did make a ruling and you tried to do this I wouldn't let you. But whatever.
I agree partially with Salla and pals, but also this.
Players should respect campaign settings, their fluff and rules.
ALBEIT ALSO, a good dm shouldn't balk at allowing stuff that may work if thought well, around the box and all.
What if she was THE lone satyress, born of some.. fated reason, bye xample?
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 16, 2011 - 2:28AM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2005
|
Players should respect campaign settings, their fluff and rules.
There is no good reason for a player to respect a campaign setting or a campaign setting feature that the player did not agree to prior, at least certainly not when the feature in question has absolutely no bearing on the plot or tone of the campaign but gets in the way of characters anyway.
If I'm playing in your campaign, and I want to play a female satyr, and the campaign setting isn't strictly based on greek mythology, and the campaign's plot has absolutely nothing to do with Satyrs being a single-sex race, and you have no good reason to believe that my character would disrupt a single thing about the game's plot or tone, and you disallow it anyway just because you don't like it... Then no, I will not respect your decision or your campaign setting. Why should I?
Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TMSpeaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 16, 2011 - 2:32AM
#36
|
Date Joined:
May 13, 2009
|
Generally speaking, players should respect campaign setting restrictions, and campaign setting restrictions should only exist when they're really important to the campaign.
"There are no Paladins because the main point of this whole setting is 'no deities'" is perfectly fine.
But I disagree with "You can't play an Elf because I've never imagined Elves in this world". So you haven't, who cares? Start doing it. Grab a random piece of unexplored wilderness, put a small tribe of Elves that don't venture out of there woods, and then play the one guy that left his tribal Elven village.
It's not going to destroy anything about the setting. He'll just be an oddity wherever he goes.
It's the same with Satyr. Unless it's a real key issue that there are no female Satyr, let the player have his female Satyr. You have an entire world you can mess around with as DM, let the player have his one little piece of input.
Epic Dungeon Master Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen! Your Kingdom awaits!Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 16, 2011 - 3:40AM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2008
|
Players should respect campaign settings, their fluff and rules.
There is no good reason for a player to respect a campaign setting or a campaign setting feature that the player did not agree to prior, at least certainly not when the feature in question has absolutely no bearing on the plot or tone of the campaign but gets in the way of characters anyway.
If I'm playing in your campaign, and I want to play a female satyr, and the campaign setting isn't strictly based on greek mythology, and the campaign's plot has absolutely nothing to do with Satyrs being a single-sex race, and you have no good reason to believe that my character would disrupt a single thing about the game's plot or tone, and you disallow it anyway just because you don't like it... Then no, I will not respect your decision or your campaign setting. Why should I?
Because otherwise you can't play in my game. If the DM won't budge, you can't just... play anyway. If the DM said "no elves", you wouldn't just show up to play your elf anyway, would you? I don't even care about the satyr thing. Screw that. The real point is the idea of just ignoring the DM and trying to play something he said not to. At this point, you should just find another game, because I have no clue why why you'd want to be in his or why he'd let you.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 16, 2011 - 4:26AM
#38
|
Date Joined:
May 13, 2009
|
The "I rule this game and I'm allowing you to play" is a very specific subset of DMs. It's also, from my experience, one mostly held by entitled DMs who think they own the game and are the Supreme Ruler of it.
It's slowly becoming a more and more outdated way of looking at the DM role. Most modern games assume that you're playing with friends, and that the DM is just another player at the table, not someone atop an ivory tower sending down divine decrees to the plebs.
If the DM says "no Elves" then players will most likely respond with "why not" and if the DM doesn't have a good reason (and a thematic one, at that. not a "don't like them"), then the DM should just allow Elves and stop feeling superior to the rest of the table by enforcing his rules upon people who are just there to have a bit of fun.
Unless you want to be an old-school DM, in which case you really shouldn't be surprised if you end up with people who fit the exact same criteria you do; "guys that are looking for players outside of their group of friends, because their friends don't want to play in their games anymore".
Epic Dungeon Master Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen! Your Kingdom awaits!Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 16, 2011 - 6:03AM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2008
|
I don't DM at all, or want to. I also wouldn't likely make any of these rulings. That's the not the POINT. From the OP's post, the DM did make such a ruling. The books say satyrs are male, so he can't play a girl. I don't understand why someone would try and just... ignore that. Surely nobody thinks a DM would just shrug and move on? As a player, I would never try that, and as a DM I would never allow that. I don't get all these posts that boil down to "Screw what the DM said you couldn't play, just show up with one anyway".
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 16, 2011 - 6:26AM
#40
|
Date Joined:
May 13, 2009
|
Because apparently, the player wishes to play such a character. My point was that the DM doesn't get to set all the rules on his own. It's a group activitity, and if the players wish to play a certain kind of character then the DM shouldn't disallow it unless he has a very good reason (such as "no female satyr") being crucial to the campaign setting.
Nobody's suggesting a player should "just ignore it", but people are suggesting the DM shouldn't "just say no" either. If the player really wants to play a female Satyr because he has that kind of character, the DM shouldn't block him "just because".
Epic Dungeon Master Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen! Your Kingdom awaits!Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.
|
|
|
