Hardcore or Softcore - you guys need to pick

[DarkHin]

And how are those ridiculous?

Half-dragon and undead PCs are higher than high fantasy.

[FoamBats4All]

And how are those ridiculous?

Half-dragon and undead PCs is higher than high fantasy.

I think there's some inappropriate mixing there.

High fantasy can be anything from A Song of Fire and Ice (/Game of Thrones) to The Lord of the Rings to Faerun. "High Fantasy" has nothing to do with the level of magic, there being or not being undead, or dragons. Thus, both dragons and undead are typical racial types in high fantasy works, be they white walkers or liches.

What is an issue, however, is PCs that require a disproportionate amount of DM attention/work for what they provide to the community. These races, typically dubbed "monster races" do not fit into standard persistent world gameplay in a Faerunian setting. Unless you are in a monstrous setting (Underdark campaign, Dragon campaign, evil campaign), they subtract more from the game setting than they provide. For this reason, yeah, Red Dragon Disciple should be cut before the "dragon apotheosis" class feature is granted, Pale Master should similarly end prior to becoming undead and be limited to a (shitty) Necromancy PrC, drow should not be playable outside of the Underdark, etc.

Races such as dragons and undead are native to high fantasy settings. They are not somehow "above". However, you don't see Littlefinger the Lich or Gandalf the Green Dragon as main protagonists in high fantasy. And that's for a reason.

- - - - -

As an aside, the above argument reinforces my proposal that we stop treating all PrCs the same. PrCs, like races and templates, are there to provide variety to the setting, given a limited selection and restrictions of base classes. There are critical differences between Duelist, Dwarven Defender, Harper Agent, and Red Dragon Disciple in both how they should be handled by a DM and how they impact our world (as a setting and as a PW).

[danielmn]

The only true restrictions I've ever run across here is the no lycanthrope/vampire pc (and even that gets tweaked, as seen with Sywyn). We pretty much allow in a wealth of interesting pc starts, as long as it isn't in the above, as Zelk states, ridiculous to the extreme. So, you can't have two extraordinary pc's, you can't have two prc's. I don't find that limiting in the slightest, considering we NEVER HAD TWO PC's in ALFA history till a short time ago. I think people find perma death the most restricting, and if we go changing that, well, shit on this place, I got happy bunny fields where my pc's never die in other mediums. I suppose starting at level 1 decreases the amount of creativity thereby sort of limiting you, but I wince at those whom can't formulate a pc without it being super uber fantastical in the background. I suppose if we gave the option of, Hey start at 1 or 3, if starting at 3, you have to payback the exp, create a cooler background for your pc, then I wouldn't be phased. I'm still scratching my head at the "Our creativity is being oppressed" attitude that some display.

[Rumple C]

The tone of the forums could be a little more civil.

[Veilan]

As an aside, the above argument reinforces my proposal that we stop treating all PrCs the same.

I agree with you, but I would like to point out that the current system is optimal in that regard already - it allows the DM corps to say yay or nay on each individual PrC application. This means that if there is a great concept for a Pale Master that is conducive to the overall campaign and promises to enrich the game world for everyone, the DMs will just say "yes, please" (and ensures they can say "no" where it doesn't).

What bothers me is the thought of taking the ability away from DMs to say "no" if they deem exceptionals, through type or numbers, too disruptive, work-intensive, attention-demanding or otherwise unsuitable.

ALFA supports exceptional PCs, both in race and PrCs (and I agree PrCs could use more fine-tuning, and I remember campaigning, in vain, to make the "faction specific" PrCs more broad and accessible, but that's an aside), to a degree that is more than commendably tolerant in a PW that was founded to cater to the people who actually were not joking about enjoying to play a longer "level 0" background story.

I have seen no convincing argument put forward as to why the current state of affairs is undesirable. I can understand the point how a little more freedom in allowing a PrC for each character, if strictly vetted by the DM corps, could conceivably add a little, but this would seem to be counterbalanced by the lack of P in PrC.

By and large, our system seems to be a very well thought-out compromise (and one, I may add, that is very generous in accommodating more outlying tastes): People get to play exceptional races and PrCs, but DMs get to say nay or yay so they can ensure optimal support, according to their own capabilities and preferences, for every player character, even those not deemed exceptional by ALFA's mechanical definition.

Think about whether you would even make a question of the DM's authority to say "nay" to too many/too weird/too mechanically problematic PCs in PnP. I believe the answer is no.

Cheers,

[Adanu]

And how are those ridiculous?

Half-dragon and undead PCs are higher than high fantasy.

If a player wants to play those, the only limiting factor should be pragmatic in engine concerns, and the quality of roleplayer able to give the concept it's due and able to accept consequences of that choice.

Player choice is why people play concepts. Because they like them. Who are you or anyone to tell a person they can't make their own choices if they can handle the responsibility of it otherwise, if it's available?

[Ithildur]

As an aside, the above argument reinforces my proposal that we stop treating all PrCs the same.

I agree with you, but I would like to point out that the current system is optimal in that regard already - it allows the DM corps to say yay or nay on each individual PrC application. This means that if there is a great concept for a Pale Master that is conducive to the overall campaign and promises to enrich the game world for everyone, the DMs will just say "yes, please" (and ensures they can say "no" where it doesn't).

What bothers me is the thought of taking the ability away from DMs to say "no" if they deem exceptionals, through type or numbers, too disruptive, work-intensive, attention-demanding or otherwise unsuitable.

ALFA supports exceptional PCs, both in race and PrCs (and I agree PrCs could use more fine-tuning, and I remember campaigning, in vain, to make the "faction specific" PrCs more broad and accessible, but that's an aside), to a degree that is more than commendably tolerant in a PW that was founded to cater to the people who actually were not joking about enjoying to play a longer "level 0" background story.

I have seen no convincing argument put forward as to why the current state of affairs is undesirable. I can understand the point how a little more freedom in allowing a PrC for each character, if strictly vetted by the DM corps, could conceivably add a little, but this would seem to be counterbalanced by the lack of P in PrC.

By and large, our system seems to be a very well thought-out compromise (and one, I may add, that is very generous in accommodating more outlying tastes): People get to play exceptional races and PrCs, but DMs get to say nay or yay so they can ensure optimal support, according to their own capabilities and preferences, for every player character, even those not deemed exceptional by ALFA's mechanical definition.

Think about whether you would even make a question of the DM's authority to say "nay" to too many/too weird/too mechanically problematic PCs in PnP. I believe the answer is no.

Cheers,

Well put.

Many (if not most) campaigns start out with an agreed upon premise of certain restrictions, i.e. 'No evil PCs' 'No, we're not allowing Eberron stuff in our FR game', 'Core books only', 'Core books plus FR books only', 'Core, FR, Complete series only' 'No way in hell we're using anything from Tome of Battle' etc. These help both give shape and identity to the campaign as well as save time/energy, so the DM doesn't have to scrutinize/debate every single new rule/race/class/feat/spell for approval/denial.

Similarly, ALFA has had an agreed upon premise for a lot of things that got hashed out over the years on the more broader elements. As a DM I don't want to spend a lot of time discussing what to do about a bunch of drow running around TSM; that's already been discussed largely so that it's 1. not going to happen barring some really exceptional case 2. various criteria are already established so we're not just pulling out of thin air reasons why they can't, while still making allowance for 3. I and others on the DM staff of TSM have the meaningful prerogative of looking at the remote possibility of something like that and going 'huh, this is the one time where this actually might be a good thing because of xyz', and running with it.

That is the only sensible way to approach things here. I've seen my share of PWs where a bunch of half dragon vampire PCs run around everywhere; no thank you. The occasional exceptional PC is fine, can be great at times, and that's what we have.

((btw Sywyn was never a vampire PC; 99% sure he was strictly an NPC while vampired IF he made an appearance ingame during that arc, 99.99% sure if he did log in as a PC he never got any of the benefits/template. The only DM supported vampire-ish PC alfa has ever had that I know of was Misty's back in the day, unless Gabriel counts)

[Swift]

More choice.

[removed by DMA for flameyness]

On the flip side, providing too much choice leaves people feeling overwhelmed and prone to being less satisfied with the choice they do end up making, though I am not sure ALFA is in much danger of reaching that point.

[Veilan]

The tone of the forums could be a little more civil.

It really can't be.

Wait, you're saying Admin decree couldn't make it?

[kmj2587]

That's enough.

[Castano]

I've pruned this thread of unnecessary posts that did not add to the discussion. If your post was removed please accept my apologies.

I will review all of the comments and get back to you with a suggestion to either keep things where they are or a proposal for a modification.

Thank you for your feedback, we need this sort of discussion from time to time.