Quote from: AsenRG;860478Yes, indeed. But there's a Saracen knight. If I wanted to play a Saracen warrior, would you suggest we play Nights of the Crusades instead:p?

No. I'd suggest an Arabian Nights themed game instead.

The concern is that the Saracen knight may be so unusual that the game is focused on his uniqueness so that the other characters end up being sidekicks or bit parts in "The Tale of the Stranger from the East."

Mallory has Saracen knights, but other then the fact that he says Palomides is a Saracen and presumably he may have a different appearance darker skin, curly black hair or something than the other Knights of the Round Table (though I don't think Mallory ever actually tells us what Palomides looks like), Palomides acts exactly the same as every other Knight. And he's mostly a bit player in some other knight's tale, so the story never becomes all about how Palomides isn't like the other reindeer. So either Palomides being Saracen is no more meaningful (and quite possibly less meaningful) than the color of his surcoat or the game ends up unduly focused on Palomides being different.

Again, the issue isn't whether one or both settings are anachronistic. The issue is that Pendragon has a very specific genre with fairly well defined boundaries. Anything that doesn't fit that the genre of Arthurian Knights is going to provoke a mash up. Which I have no interest in doing for Pendragon. Somebody else might be interested. If so, they should not be playing in my game and vice versa.

QuoteYou mean I don't exist, Gronan:D?
Because that was me, when first invited to play, AD&D2e from what I remember. I couldn't reconcile how the system worked, or at least how the would-be DM assumed it worked*, and what he kept repeating the setting was.

I can’t see that this has anything to do with Pendragon nor, so far as I can tell, with the comment that Gronan made.

Let me try putting it a different way. If I tell you I’m running a game of cape & sword swashbuckling adventure where the PCs are King’s Musketeers dueling, intriguing, and seducing like in the stories of Dumas or the Lester films from the 1970s and you say you want to run a Japanese Samurai, then you are not interested in the premise of “the PCs are King’s Musketeers dueling, intriguing, and seducing like in the stories of Dumas or the Lester films from the 1970s." The fact that in fact there (briefly) were Samurai in 17th century France is totally mistaking what the premise actually is.

Note: The premise is not "play anyone who could have been in France in the 17th century." It is "the PCs are King’s Musketeers dueling, intriguing, and seducing like in the stories of Dumas or the Lester films from the 1970s." So if you want a PC who is not a King's Musketeer, than you aren't interested in the premise. Depending on how much what you want to run is not a King's Musketeer I may be interested in stretching the premise to accommodate what you want to run or I may not. But if it ain't a King's Musketeer and if it wouldn't fit in a Dumas story or a Lester film, it ain't part of the premise.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;860504Well, yeah.  Of course I'd expect a player to at least say "I don't know what that means."

Jargon is useful, but obviously only if it's known.

I'm more concerned about them assuming they know what it means when it doesn't. One of my other friends, a guy a couple years older than me, would assume it means the original Batman who carried a gun and used it to kill bad guys.

Quote from: Tod13;860526I'm more concerned about them assuming they know what it means when it doesn't. One of my other friends, a guy a couple years older than me, would assume it means the original Batman who carried a gun and used it to kill bad guys.

I am also aware of that Batman, but he was LONG GONE by the 70s.  At some point you have to stop worrying.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;859971This came up in a thread on another forum when they were discussing players who chafe at character creation restrictions that are put in place for thematic reasons:

This really leaped out at me because I'd noticed something similar. Does this match anyone else's experiences?

Nope.

Each game is different, it doesn't matter if you play the same type of character, they'll come out in a unique way each time.

I've had players who play nothing but human thieves, others Paladins, and every campaign/adventure I'd run, the character was different.

Quote from: Bren;860521No. I'd suggest an Arabian Nights themed game instead.

That's what Nights of the Crusades is.

QuoteThe concern is that the Saracen knight may be so unusual that the game is focused on his uniqueness so that the other characters end up being sidekicks or bit parts in "The Tale of the Stranger from the East."

Or, you know, you can end up with a knight that's Saracen, maybe has a different Virtue set needed to get Religious bonuses, and that would be it.
I suspect that would be it. Clearly this must be tested, so I'm going to notify you when we next play Pendragon, in case anyone makes a Saracen knight. I'm not going to hold my breath, though.

QuoteI can't see that this has anything to do with Pendragon nor, so far as I can tell, with the comment that Gronan made.

It's not meant to have anything to do with the conversation about Pendragon.
Since Gronan replied, I assume he sees what it has to do with his comment.

QuoteLet me try putting it a different way. If I tell you I'm running a game of cape & sword swashbuckling adventure where the PCs are King's Musketeers dueling, intriguing, and seducing like in the stories of Dumas or the Lester films from the 1970s and you say you want to run a Japanese Samurai, then you are not interested in the premise of "the PCs are King's Musketeers dueling, intriguing, and seducing like in the stories of Dumas or the Lester films from the 1970s."

And that's not a good example of what I'm talking about. Or rather, it's got nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

If you told me that we need to play the game above, but only some characters, ever, would be able to do intrigue unless they pick a class that instead sucks at duelling?
That would be the example you're looking for.
Samurai need not apply. I'm not talking about "the exotic option", that was a separate conversation.

Instead, imagine that you're* offering me to play a character from the court, except the system prevents him from meaningfully engaging with at least one of the three components you mentioned would be part of the game, maybe two out of three.
My response? "Give me more options to see if we can get him to be at least decent in all the components you mentioned. Maybe if he had a priestly background, he could be at least decent in intrigue without being on almost on a non-combatant's level in a duel? You know, closer to the young Aramis? Is there a Players' Options book or something?"
That's "asking more options because I like the setting, like the premise, but don't see how to play it with the mechanics you're offering". Again, samurai have nothing to do. The Pendragon tangent was a different tangent.

Granted, I don't think that could really happen if you** were GMing. For a start, I don't think you'd pick a system that does what I described, or would know to include it in the campaign's concept.
But I mentioned it's happened. And Gronan answered that he'd need to be persuaded it could happen.
Well, I've been in said position personally. Obviously it can happen. Now I have to think of a way to persuade him;).

*Generic you, as in "you, the guy who offers me to play", not "You, Bren".

**This time used as in "you, Bren".

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;860487But a Doc Strange character IS part of the "comic book superhero" concept, so if the rules can't handle it then the rules are flawed.

For a time it was debatable if Doctor Strange was a part of the mainstream Marvel. He existed mostly in his own setting for quite a while. By the 70s though I'd guess he was.

As for a magician in a comic book setting being a must have. Some comics havent ever had a mystical side. So you could have a game with no magic rules. Though in most comics with magic. It tends to function alot like superpowers and so is fairly easy to re-create.

So if somehow your 70s supers is based on something with no magic. Then asking to play a mage would be possibly outside the realm. Then its up to you to decide if this player wanting to play a mage in a supers game is kosher or not.

IE: There is no magic in Aberrant and so you arent going to ever have a magician in that setting. you can have a Nova who thinks they are casting spells. But its all the MR node powered. Or for example you for some god unknown reason based your campaign off New Universe. Which has no magic. Same factors there to consider.

At some point this ALL comes down to "be as explicit as you can when pitching the game, and be clear what points are negotiable and which aren't."

Quote from: Sommerjon;860143This, to me, is far more common.  Perhaps not the this extreme, but playing a particular concept over and over again.

This I have seen too often.  They even managed to make it into a class for D&D!  The Monk!  The one note song that gets repeated over and over and over again!  It's like that 14 year old kid who always wants to play 'The Ninja', no matter what setting!  It has to have the pajamas, the sword (and it MUST be a Katana, no refluffing anything else!) and he (it's always male too) must be Japanese, as in from 'real world' (Note the quotes) Japan.

I don't mind playing the same archetype (whether in a Class based game, or otherwise) but it has to be able to fit the setting.

Quote from: Kiero;860269Here's what I wrote for my Mass Effect character before the game started:

[snip]

QuoteOne or two sentences isn't worth the paper it's written on, something that brief is little better than noting the basic concept verbalised when someone asked you what your idea for a character was.

I have different preferences. These two sentences do more for me:

Decorated combat vet, PTSD, desperately wants to redeem himself in the eyes of his estranged wife and daughter. His sometimes-uncontrollable anger is his worst enemy; second place would be the family of an incompetent former commander that wants to ruin him.

Your profile lists a bunch of biographical information, but having read it, I don't know who he is, what he wants, who he cares about (or hates), what his flaws or personal challenges are. It may be awesome for you: writing it, or reading over it, this guy might flare to life in your imagination. That's great -- I'd never suggest that it isn't worth the paper it's printed on just because it doesn't do anything for me.

And hell, in some games, I might decide the two sentences is too much. I mean, it's more than a little clichéd after all (isn't it funny how so many of our PCs can be described by tropes like "Badass Normal Guy"?). Maybe instead I just start with "decorated combat vet" and see what emerges in play. Riffing off the GM, the other characters, the choices I make for the character in the first couple sessions, maybe this guy becomes a lot more interesting than whatever I'd come up with in the pre-campaign vacuum. Or maybe he gets capped in the first firefight.

I'll go even further: In some campaigns, I don't even need a whole lot of development from my develop-in-play. Some games are pretty goofy with all the literary merit of a fart joke, but still a lot of fun. I can explore dungeons, brave savage wilderlands, battle monsters and rob tombs with my elf wizard and have a grand ol' time without ever thinking about how he feels about his momma. It doesn't always have to be such serious business.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;860552At some point this ALL comes down to "be as explicit as you can when pitching the game, and be clear what points are negotiable and which aren't."

Verily.

I try to emphasize that "this is the setting. There are some things that are not negotiable at all because of the setting. And there are things that can be bent or at least emulated within the setting.

Back on topic.

Sometimes the request for some tweak to a class is essentially cosmetic and can be waived. Or has no major impact on gameplay. Like allowing demi-humans to advance in levels further in AD&D. Or opening up a class that isn't normally open to a race.

All I can think of is a reason in principle: The character is less interesting because it doesn't fit the game.

I've had players who ALWAYS wanted to play something 'exotic', but they were if anything more engaged in the games.

Of course, they weren't jerks about it either. If someone's going to be a jerk, then that's the real problem, and lucky for all if they get bored and bail before we get fed up and toss them out.

Quote from: Omega;860565Sometimes the request for some tweak to a class is essentially cosmetic and can be waived. Or has no major impact on gameplay. Like allowing demi-humans to advance in levels further in AD&D. Or opening up a class that isn't normally open to a race.

I wouldn't say that either of those examples (but especially the first) is necessarily or even usually of no major impact. Without something given up in trade, the result too often is that Elves (or simply "anything but human") are just unequivocally better than the rest. Unless there's an element of luck in getting to be one of those, they come to dominate.

Note that I said "sometimes".

And not everyone plays for the bestest mostest class+race+weapon combo.

Quote from: Greg Benage;860563I have different preferences. These two sentences do more for me:

Decorated combat vet, PTSD, desperately wants to redeem himself in the eyes of his estranged wife and daughter. His sometimes-uncontrollable anger is his worst enemy; second place would be the family of an incompetent former commander that wants to ruin him.

Why do we even need to write it down? Those couple of sentences are simple enough to be able to parrot any time someone asks you "what's your concept?". I'm seeing no value being added by writing them down, unless you have the memory of a goldfish.

Quote from: Greg Benage;860563Your profile lists a bunch of biographical information, but having read it, I don't know who he is, what he wants, who he cares about (or hates), what his flaws or personal challenges are. It may be awesome for you: writing it, or reading over it, this guy might flare to life in your imagination. That's great -- I'd never suggest that it isn't worth the paper it's printed on just because it doesn't do anything for me.

And hell, in some games, I might decide the two sentences is too much. I mean, it's more than a little clichéd after all (isn't it funny how so many of our PCs can be described by tropes like "Badass Normal Guy"?). Maybe instead I just start with "decorated combat vet" and see what emerges in play. Riffing off the GM, the other characters, the choices I make for the character in the first couple sessions, maybe this guy becomes a lot more interesting than whatever I'd come up with in the pre-campaign vacuum. Or maybe he gets capped in the first firefight.

Point is for me it's nailing down details that I don't think have to dream up in-game. It already starts pushing me down certain directions in how I play that character. It makes conjuring details go smoother if I already have a foundation as a starting point.

As I said, the way my group does things, pre-game isn't an (individual) vacuum. It's a (shared) discussion in which all of these things are discussed and defined.

Furthermore, we don't have disposable characters who might be offed in the first session, not how we roll. So there isn't any value in not investing in your character at the start, because they may be immediately replaced.

Quote from: Greg Benage;860563I'll go even further: In some campaigns, I don't even need a whole lot of development from my develop-in-play. Some games are pretty goofy with all the literary merit of a fart joke, but still a lot of fun. I can explore dungeons, brave savage wilderlands, battle monsters and rob tombs with my elf wizard and have a grand ol' time without ever thinking about how he feels about his momma. It doesn't always have to be such serious business.

Different preferences and all. I have better things to do with my valuable game time than play silly games, it's not my idea of fun. For me, getting together to game isn't my socialising time, it's my gaming time. Same as when I go to do martial arts, I'm there to train, not stand around chatting.

Trivia: Though unfortunately a villain and not exactly 'super', there was an Elf With a Gun in The Defenders back in 1975-77.