Beating a Genre/RP convention to death

[proditor]

What conventions of the genre or roleplaying in general are you tired of seeing beat to death in most games as well as that games support material (including computer games, books, etc.)?

I'll kick it off with my two pet peeves:

1) The fallen paladin. ENOUGH already! You want to show me some serious stellar roleplaying? How about trying to play a real Paladin for once? Klytus pretty much summed up how I think a Paladin should be RPed and I'll repost that here. It was originally about "our" Superman, but he said and I agree that it males a pretty good guide for Paladin RP.


He firmly believes in Truth, Justice and the American Way, and not because he is a rabid patriot, but because he honestly believes in those ideals. He does not support the U.S. Government, right or wrong. He also doesn't believe in breaking the law to make sure justice is done the way Batman does. He believes in the traditional family values (he never had sex before he was married, he has always been faithful to his love interests, etc.), but he is not preachy enough to insist that everyone else should live by them.

Just play the darn good guy. Follow the precepts of your god and order and quit trying to become a fallen paladin for pete's sake! Play one of those to the hilt and you'll impress me a heck of a lot more than "Fallen Paladin of the month" syndrome ever will.

2) "But I'm a good drow!" Enough. Please, just stop. Like most other gamers I had my good drow, but that was back in 1e, before Bob Salvatore got the Driz'zt itch. I stopped playing him after I watched the horde of good drow that apparently quit the Underdark en masse after Bob's books came out. I swear, if fantasy populations are based in any way, shape or form on PC populations, then there must be more drow than every other race on the freakin' planet combined. Here's a "challenge" for all of you who insist that that is the sole reason you play the outcast: How about a dwarf that's NOT an angry raging alchoholic but just quietly competant, or even gregarious and friendly? There's a stretch from the norm for you that won't trigger most people's "twink" reflex.

Chime in with any others, and I kid in most of my harshness. If you played this concept, well I probably did too at some point, so be venomous, but do it with love. ;)

[CrosshairCollie]

1. While I don't, personally, believe this, I know someone whose response to your 'why not just be a good guy' question would be 'because good guys are boring and stupid'. That's the opinion of lots of gamers nowadays (I blame Vampire, myself).

2. The thing is, a dwarf who isn't a raging alkie is unusual, but he isn't an outcast. If you walk into a town, the guards aren't going to accost you, people aren't going to hide their children, and fifty crossbowmen aren't going to level aim at you just for being a sober dwarf. Now, if you're a drow, they will. And if you're a good Drow, you're an outcast from THAT society as well.

I haven't read the FR books, I don't play in the FR world (EVER), and I really don't care who Drizz't is. If it weren't for my time on the D&D Forums, I'd never have heard of him. Perhaps it's just me, but I've always liked the 'reformed villain' character. It gives you a big motivation for being good (guilt/redemption), PLUS makes you more likely to try to talk baddies into redemption before killing them (since, you know, YOU did that ... voice of experience).

I think my next D&D character will be a non-fallen Drow Paladin. :D
...
Of a sun god. :D :D

[nexus]

1. While I don't, personally, believe this, I know someone whose response to your 'why not just be a good guy' question would be 'because good guys are boring and stupid'. That's the opinion of lots of gamers nowadays (I blame Vampire, myself).


Oh yeah, tell me about it. I ask people to play superheroes that aren't Wolverine/Authority clones and I get looked at like I asked them to put on a tinfoil hat to block out the mind control rays.

My personal things I'd like to never see again:

The Moody Loner/Professional killer. He's a fighter. He has no emotions, no family, no connections. Often wears a trenchcoat and carries a katana. Why is he with the group? Why does he adventure? Who knows as he doesn't actually care about anything. He is good at kicking butt though. Usually played by an angry teen. :)

The hot lesbian ninja chick. She's beautiful, she knows martial arts. She's gay, flamboyantly aggressively gay so much so that the idea of herteosexual relationships almost makes her violent. She is played by a male.

[GamePhil]

I don't disagree with the original peeves posted, but I have provisos:

1. If a player wants to go through the process of Falling so that he can seek Redemption, I have no problem with that. This has never happened to me, however. If the player wants to play a Fallen Paladin that is like Athos, I have no problem with that.

2. As long as the Dark Elf is interesting in some way and unique to the group, I wouldn't have a problem with it. The Dark Elf Paladin of the Sun God, with an appropriate and engaging backstory, I'd probably allow into the game.

My main peeve for, like, ever:

The arrogant elf/fey. We're better than you, prettier than you, you are like mayflies to us, we deserve all the magic items and we have an older civilization. Yeah, well what good have you done, lately? I especially detest it when the in-character response to this attitude is annoyance and reprisal, and the player takes offense, as though he somehow has the right to play an arrogant schmuck without facing the consequenses. Because he's playing an elf.

[Lord Mhoram]

1. If a player wants to go through the process of Falling so that he can seek Redemption, I have no problem with that. This has never happened to me, however.

My wife and I have always run solo games for each other, in addition to the weekly games. In an older game I was running her in 1st ed, and she played a character that hit both of the original peeves. Da Wife, after playing this character as a perfect paladin for about 20 levels, said "I want to run a fallen paladin plot". At this point I boggled, trying to come up with one. I ended up doing one, and ran a redemption scenerio afterwords. It ended up being one of the best scenerios I ever ran.


My pet peeves:
The loner & lethal superhero (unless being played for the specific story arc of fixing that attitude)
Dumb Bricks (and I'm talking more the Hulk than the Thing here).

[Rapier]

Flog away.

I'll, gladly, let them all in. Yes, good drow, alcoholic dwarves, Wolverine clones, busty-naked-lesbian-ninja-chicks are a dime a dozen. You can't swing a cat without hitting one. So? What of it? Other than their populousness, are they really any different than the big dumb barbarian, the squirlly little sneaky thief, the bumbling apprentice mage, the peg-legged pirate, the asian martial artist or anything else? The value in a character isn't in its classification into an archetype; it's in the depth and breadth of the character itself.

My problem comes when we enter the realm of derivative works. I don't let players play clones. It doesn't end well...for anyone. When someone comes to you with a Wolverine clone ("No, dude, see, that's just it, his name's not Wolvereeeen, its WolverINE...long I, so he's different. Or maybe I'll call him Badger!") there is an implicit request to reproduce the medium. The player doesn't want to just play a character LIKE Wolverine, they want to BE Wolverine.

A comic book, a TV show, movie or novel are very, very different from an RPG (even if we ignore the insanity that is retconning, bad writing, bad editing that has plagued comics). An author can very easily split up a party, he doesn't have to worry about half the characters going to play Rock-Em, Sock-Em Robots in the other room.

Wolverine has his own title. The entire comic is ALL ABOUT HIM. That doesn't play well in a group RPG (it rocks pretty solid for a solo game though). The player will also expect his character to act like, have the same powers/abilities, encounter the same kinds of plots and have the same opportunity to shine/show off that his counterpart has. All in all, everyone is sold short and noone is very happy.

I don't much care if you are a stereotype or not. You want to play a good drow, an alkie dwarf or wolverine clone? You go right ahead, but I'll tell you right now, I'm going to expect from that character the same thing I expect from every character -- depth, personality, imagination and three-dimensions.

[Trencher]

Dwarves.
Bob King made me hate dwarves.
Are not dwarf actually meant to be stern and silent types?
Why is every dwarf I read about such whiners? This stool is not made by dwarfs, dwarf make much better stools than this! If this was a dwarf made stool it would be of mithril and fly around. This is worthless man made socks! Dwarf made socks can resist dragon fire and makes their wearer immortal. And gives them the ability to shoot laserbolts from their eyes!
Necromancer. Boring. This character concept is dead to me.

And the "misunderstood" race, culture or whatever. Sure the twoheaded spiderlings eat human babies for breakfast, worship the demonic-utterdark lord of rape, and their preferred mode of communication is to ooze nauseous slime but they can not help it! Bleh.

[proditor]

I did want to clarify one thing. If one of my players comes to me and says "I want to play a drow" my reaction is based on exactly two things. 1) Does the player generally RP pretty much everything they've ever played to the hilt, regardless of the origin of the concept? 2) Is there a story involved? If I answer yes to those questions, I just sit down and listen.

My disenchantment on my two pet peeves come mainly from online shared worlds or pick-up games I've run. Even the silliest concept in my normal groups have been played well and consistently and heck, I have a half-drow cleric of Ellistrae in my "All-elf" campaign. ;)

I guess I'm just asking what tends to set off your initial knee jerk internal sigh of forebearance when a player runs up to you all exicted and proceeds to tell you about their new idea?

[nexus]

Flog away.

I'll, gladly, let them all in. Yes, good drow, alcoholic dwarves, Wolverine clones, busty-naked-lesbian-ninja-chicks are a dime a dozen. You can't swing a cat without hitting one. So? What of it? Other than their populousness, are they really any different than the big dumb barbarian, the squirlly little sneaky thief, the bumbling apprentice mage, the peg-legged pirate, the asian martial artist or anything else? The value in a character isn't in its classification into an archetype; it's in the depth and breadth of the character itself.

My problem comes when we enter the realm of derivative works. I don't let players play clones. It doesn't end well...for anyone. When someone comes to you with a Wolverine clone ("No, dude, see, that's just it, his name's not Wolvereeeen, its WolverINE...long I, so he's different. Or maybe I'll call him Badger!") there is an implicit request to reproduce the medium. The player doesn't want to just play a character LIKE Wolverine, they want to BE Wolverine.

A comic book, a TV show, movie or novel are very, very different from an RPG (even if we ignore the insanity that is retconning, bad writing, bad editing that has plagued comics). An author can very easily split up a party, he doesn't have to worry about half the characters going to play Rock-Em, Sock-Em Robots in the other room.

Wolverine has his own title. The entire comic is ALL ABOUT HIM. That doesn't play well in a group RPG (it rocks pretty solid for a solo game though). The player will also expect his character to act like, have the same powers/abilities, encounter the same kinds of plots and have the same opportunity to shine/show off that his counterpart has. All in all, everyone is sold short and noone is very happy.

I don't much care if you are a stereotype or not. You want to play a good drow, an alkie dwarf or wolverine clone? You go right ahead, but I'll tell you right now, I'm going to expect from that character the same thing I expect from every character -- depth, personality, imagination and three-dimensions.

I see what you are saying, but in my case at least its the popularity of the stereotype its the lack of, well, character in it. The Hot Lesbian Ninja Chixxor rarely has a personality beyond being a hot lesbian for example. Why does she seemingly hate the idea of herteosexuality? Some sort of trauma? Some interesting reason in her background? No, because the idea makes her player feel dangerously close to being gay if she shows an interest in men. If someone came to me with a interesting and well thought out Lesbian Ninja Chick, I'd be fine with it. As it is, I don't -stop- people from playing them if they want to I just mentally roll my eyes since, IME, the characters aren't really very interesting.

[OddHat]

I dislike Snake Pliskin anti-authority nitwits at this point. I've had three or four in my campaigns over the years, all of them disruptive, all but one of them just pathetic when it came to actual problem solving and role playing. I also deeply distrust character concepts that can't work in a group ("I'm an autistic twelve year old in the body of a forty year old man; I alternately sulk and blow things up"). I'm sure that there are players out there who can manage to make these characters fun for the whole group, but they have not shown up in my campaigns.

[TheEmerged]

Really, the "Good Drow" is just the flip side of the "Fallen Paladin". People want to play the exception, and as such the exception has become the cliche.

[proditor]

Really, the "Good Drow" is just the flip side of the "Fallen Paladin". People want to play the exception, and as such the exception has become the cliche.Ooooo! Well said. :thumbup:

[Chris Goodwin]

On the one hand, you have a valid complaint. It's your right to insist that players play characters who are appropriate for the game.

On the other hand, I'm wondering why the insistence on playing to stereotype? All Drow are evil, etc.? Are there no individuals among the drow, the dwarves, the elves, etc.?

(And I'm wondering what would happen if someone brought you a good drow fallen paladin?)

My own contribution to the thread: all dwarves are blacksmiths and miners. All elves are woodcrafters, woodsmen, and archers. All halflings live in burrows and farm. By extension and implication, humans do none of these things. Ummm.... hello?! In the real world, humans have been doing these things for thousands of years. (Edit: Except maybe living in burrows.)

[proditor]

(And I'm wondering what would happen if someone brought you a good drow fallen paladin?)
Exactly what I said up above in post 8. ;)

[bblackmoor]

I freely admit a dark elf is just inherently cooler than a normal elf. My favorite EverQuest character was a dark elf (before I regained my senses and stopped playing EQ).

The thing that bugs me about Drow is that, back when they first appeared in AD&D, Drow were rare. Almost mythical. Most non-elves had never even heard of them, and to elves they were like bogeymen. I could use them in a game and it had impact. Within months, it seemed, they were freaking everywhere. Gnomes were more unusual.

I fully admit this is an irrational, and somewhat hypocritical, atttude. "I liked this band before anybody." I can't really help that.

[bblackmoor]

The best paladin I ever saw had a dry, self-deprecating, almost acerbic sense of humor. It really made the character distinctive. In all other ways he was a classic, good-guy, defend-the-weak paladin.

[gewing]

I think I have only ever seen ONE gnome PC in 25 years or so of gaming. He popularized the phrase "Color spray, run away!" around here.

back to generalities...

Yes, I rather like to see people play races and characters against typecasting. I like campaigns where some things at least do NOT match the D&D rulebooks.

I'll never forget the characters one friend played in a campaign.

an Elf who on every new years would come out of his shop (bakery?) and say "Tik Tok. Tik TOk" to all the humans who were another year closer to death...

a dwarf who ran a brewery. Not an alcoholic, just a brewmeister.



I freely admit a dark elf is just inherently cooler than a normal elf. My favorite EverQuest character was a dark elf (before I regained my senses and stopped playing EQ).

The thing that bugs me about Drow is that, back when they first appeared in AD&D, Drow were rare. Almost mythical. Most non-elves had never even heard of them, and to elves they were like bogeymen. I could use them in a game and it had impact. Within months, it seemed, they were freaking everywhere. Gnomes were more unusual.

I fully admit this is an irrational, and somewhat hypocritical, atttude. "I liked this band before anybody." I can't really help that.

[proditor]

I think I have only ever seen ONE gnome PC in 25 years or so of gaming. He popularized the phrase "Color spray, run away!" around here.You'd have loved our group...All gnomes. We got the issue of Dragon that added some subraces and had one of each subrace. We drove the DM nuts because after every planning session (And we had many) we'd each call out our subrace in turn (Forest! Rock! River! Deep!) and then all join hands and say in Unison, "Gnome force GO!"

Heh heh....I loved that game.... ;)

[Worldmaker]

My own contribution to the thread: all dwarves are blacksmiths and miners. All elves are woodcrafters, woodsmen, and archers. All halflings live in burrows and farm. By extension and implication, humans do none of these things. Ummm.... hello?! In the real world, humans have been doing these things for thousands of years. (Edit: Except maybe living in burrows.)

My peeve: players who expect the same old same old.

The first time my players encountered my tundra-living, wolf-riding, Mongol hordelike Halfling warrior race, they giggled. And then one these barbarian halflings carved up the party's hardcase warrior like a Christmas ham and nobody was laughing any longer... but everybody thought I was a freaking genius for kicking the "halfling = hobbits with the serial numbers filed off" cliche to the curb.

[bblackmoor]

The first time my players encountered my tundra-living, wolf-riding, Mongol hordelike Halfling warrior race, they giggled. And then one these barbarian halflings carved up the party's hardcase warrior like a Christmas ham and nobody was laughing any longer...

Nothing like getting your ass handed to you to spoil the joke. :)

[Agent X]

The best paladin I ever saw had a dry, self-deprecating, almost acerbic sense of humor. It really made the character distinctive. In all other ways he was a classic, good-guy, defend-the-weak paladin. I ran a 16 year old Paladin with a slightly different take on the Paladin than the usual. I played him as a young man from the upper class who generally took anything anyone said at its worst possible meaning so he could upbraid them for their dark thoughts. He also patted 80 year old peasants on the head and referred to them as "son" or "boy." He was wonderfully obnoxious for a Paladin and got into quite a few jams due to his snobbery and his irritating talent for offending others with his snide assumptions about their character.

[Agemegos]

In the real world, humans have been doing these things for thousands of years. (Edit: Except maybe living in burrows.)

Even that. Well, not in every community, and not perhaps for thousands of years. But people live in burrows at Coober Pedy (http://www.opalcapitaloftheworld.com.au/), and in those underground houses in North Africa where they filmed the opening scenes of Star Wars.

[keithcurtis]

I just recently took a spin at playing a fallen character. However, he was designed from conception to be fallen, and in fact fell in his history. This worked out nicely for the GM, who wanted to let the other PCs know what the bad guys had been up to. Breaking away from the ranks of evil and pledging himself to the service of good was the first in a long series of atonements.
Fallen might be a misnomer in his case actually. He was a barbarian warlord before switching sides. Here's a <a href="http://home.comcast.net/%7eKeithCurtisDesign/KurtakFinal.jpg">portrait</a>.

I have also played one drow. This was actually an old elf character I had played many years earlier that we dusted off and put into an ongoing campaign. He was cursed to be a drow until he could get his true love to profess her love for him. There were a couple of difficulties. He couldn't let her know his true identity or the curse would never be broken. And he was truly evil while under the curse. Although he loved the girl madly, he was cruel and snide to those around him, frequently turning their actions around to present them in the worst possible light. Extremely difficult to role-play, but very satisfying. Once he had succeeded in his quest and had been restored to elf-hood, the character was retired.

Keith "two anti-heroes in a field of boy scouts" Curtis

[WhammeWhamme]

I always wanted to share my take on a Paladin... so I will. :)

Sworn to justive, goodness, and nobility... he takes these concepts in a very classic sense. He upholds the ideals now only espoused in legend.

Where this made people go "eh?":
-Legitimate Spoils of Victory (He lost in single combat - of _course_ I can take his stuff!)

-uhm... memory hazy. 8-brain says ask again later.

[Agent X]

I always wanted to share my take on a Paladin... so I will. :)

Sworn to justive, goodness, and nobility... he takes these concepts in a very classic sense. He upholds the ideals now only espoused in legend.

Where this made people go "eh?":
-Legitimate Spoils of Victory (He lost in single combat - of _course_ I can take his stuff!)

-uhm... memory hazy. 8-brain says ask again later. My guy did that too. :) (Great minds sometimes think alike.) The other thing I remember is the joy of his certainty that humanoids were beyond redemption and slaughtering the buggers. I get really tired of games where folks act as if orcs, elves, and humans are some sort of metaphor for real-world ethnicities and that it's nurture not nature; that flies in the face of the vast bulk of the fantasy I read. Orcs are EVIL! Die Orc Die!

[sinanju]

Really, the "Good Drow" is just the flip side of the "Fallen Paladin". People want to play the exception, and as such the exception has become the cliche.

I had a "good" elf become the leader of the Dark Elves in a campaign I ran.

Actually, he was a good elf in someone else's campaign set on Yrth. But the NPC villagers our PCs had been sent (by our employers) to protect from raiders were so utterly, consistently, mulishly unhelpful* that by the end of that campaign, the elf character had decided that the dark elves were right after all and he was going to go join them in their pogrom against the humans.

So when I started a campaign in which the PCs (newcomers to Yrth) had to deal with a Dark Elf pogrom that was well underway, they found out that the leader of the Dark Elves was that old PC from the other campaign, now calling himself Yade (Yet Another Dark Elf).

*The GM of that other campaign was definitely of the "GM vs the Players) school. Every NPC in that village went out of his way to be troublesome, quarrelsome and unhelpful despite the fact that we were there to save their asses. All the PCs (and the players ) began to get fed up with it after a few sessions. My sahudese "samurai" found out that the miners had gone on strike despite our desperate need for iron to make weapons; he went to the mine and accosted the foreman, demanding that they go back to work.

"Obey or die!" were my exact words. The guy refused! CHOP! His head rolled.

I turned to the next guy. "Obey or die!" He refused!!! SLICE! His head rolled.

I turned to the third guy. "Obey or die!" The third guy finally got the message and the miners went back to work. Just as well, as I was prepared to kill every last stinking one of them by then if they didn't. ...and the other PCs would have been glad to help. The campaign folded up shortly thereafter.

[Trencher]

"Obey or die!" were my exact words. The guy refused! CHOP! His head rolled.

Extra xp for good roleplaying.

[Susano]

Let's seen... in turn, I have played and/or run (as an NPC), a: Drow, Paladin, Lesbian "Ninja" Chick.

The Drow came about as a result of something I saw... I'm not sure what. A picture maybe, that said to me "make this into a character." He had fled the Underdark because his house had been on the loosing side of a clan war. I dressed him like a Bedouin (all clock, hood, and robes), and he was the bodyguard for another PC -- an elf mage (actually, I think we had something like 5-6 elf PCs in the party). He was a cold, calculating warrior, and perefctly neutral. He had his job and he was going to do it.

The Paladin was a warrior, plain and simple. Her mentality was taken from some of the original Ranger creeds (as in the one from the American Revolution). Her job was to protect the defenseless, stand up for the little guy, to see justice done. She swore allegence to her goddess and that was about it. Her sole purpose was to defeat and put down evil, in all its forms. Of course, this was to be tempered with mercy, as unlimited smiting could turn into out-and-out genocide and the like if one isn't careful.

Her picture: http://surbrook.devermore.net/gallery/galleryother/merriya.jpg

The lesbian ninja chick is Marta Nys from "Kazei 5." Back when she was young (i.e. 15-16) she started to experiment with girls and ended up dating girls almost exclusively over guys (it also annoyed her sister in a small way, and annoying her sister [Shion Nys] = the win for Marta). She will still look at a guy, especially buff, long-haired martial artists types. On the other hand, she is in a very close relation ship with one Ling Ling Li, and they were to be married in the PBEM (which just closed down).

Marta: http://surbrook.devermore.net/gallery/galleryk5/marta01.jpg

Ling Ling: http://surbrook.devermore.net/gallery/galleryk5/ling01.jpg

[Lord Mhoram]

As long as wer are doing the "12 step thing"
Hi I'm Lord Mhoram and I've played a Paladin and a Drow.

The drow I played I did so because I wanted a very specific kind of roleplaying experience. I wanted the outsider. So was born Obsidian. Drow by genetics, but raised by Dwarves. He was the child at a small drow exploration community (an opening move to reclaim the topworld) that the Dwarves killed to a person - and then heard the crying of the child. That background challenged the whole "Nits make lice" convention that ran/runs through D&D, so he would never allow that.
Basic Fighter.
Thought of himself as a tall Dwarf - the first time he got a Wish/Limited wish he wished for a beard (as Elves in that world had no facial hair).
Very nice time playing him.

The Paladin was an attempt to break the D&D 3rd rules - and she did, up until they got the whole Level adjustment/monster character rules fixed. Then she was fairly accurate. Played in a solo game (I'd never run something that completely minmaxed in a group unless that was the idea)
Half Gold Dragon, Half Celestial Paladin. Minmaxed.
The idea is that with that genetics, she is the perfect paladin - never had a doubt about good or evil, what the right thing to do is, almost a unsulled lancelot. The idea behind her was that as she adventured, she began to realize not everyone was that way, and to have her grow up from her isolated childhood (an "aunt" raised her in a small village with lots of non humans).
The greatest thing about her is the character growth. I still remember with chills the first time while player her, she actually had doubt about things she always knew to be certain. Great roleplaying - and of course after having doubts, and trials of faith, she is now moving back into her total certianty, but not from innocence but by understanding.

[Trencher]

Offcourse if you count in npc's then I have roleplayed fallen and unfallen paladins, drow and the ocasional baby eating spiderling.
My favorite "bad" Paladin was a arrogant, sour faced noble type who did constantly put down the player characters. Yeah I know what you are thinking but he was no supercharacter he was pretty dumb and not much of a fighter to tell the truth. However he was born under the blue star on the eve of the blah-blah-blah-blah. All the ancient prophecies said that he was going to be the chosen one. Offcourse everybody is wrong sometime.
Anyway, when the players managed to stop him from burning down a town without killing (giving in to temptation) him and solve some other problems he had created. He (the paladin) was ordered by church and king to assist them on their next adventure and they called the shots. He did not like that :rofl:
As for Drow? Never used them. When I played dnd I played dnd not "wuss heaven" adnd2ed.
And in dnd there was something called shadow elves. And they had pale skin and big eyes and ears. Perfectly adapted to their underground dark environment. Should not black elves live at equator or something? Thankfully none of my players have ever been interested in the "you should be thankful because I am not as evil as my brethren" type of character.

[bblackmoor]

Should not black elves live at equator or something?

That depends on whether you are working from a western fantasy mindset or a western science mindset. In the western fantasy mindset, black is evil, and underworld strongly implies evil.

By the by, you are in Olso? I spent a week in Oslo last year, working at Akershus. What a clean city! Some great museums, too. Vigelundpark was amazing.

[Trencher]

I moved here a couple of months ago, I don't think it is very clean though. But then again I live in the crummiest part of town.
What did you work as?

[Jinx999]

As an idea, I once tried to create a group of five paladins who were radically different, but were all the living embodiment of what a good paladin should be (some cliche, some not). The character concepts were:
1) Female Knight in shining armour. White steed, holy sword. Friendly, charming and helpful. Not remotely haughty. Her kingdom's greast hero.
2) The Paladin with no name. A grim warrior from a barbarian tribe. All grey armour and bad attitude. Famous for slaying an old red dragon single handed, which so impressed the orc tribe enslaved by that dragon that they converted to his god. Strides out of the wilderness and rescuses those threatened by evil. The evil doesn't usually survive this process.
3) A supergenius and bored younger son of a wealthy family from a corrupt merchant city. He tried theft, studied magic, but they bored him too. He finally found meaning for his life in helping others. A mysteroius and flashy masked swordsman with a ready rapier who helps the poor of the city.
4) An escaped slave gladiator of very mixed humanoid herritige (orc, hobgoblin, human) who is working to free her fellow slaves and build a new just society from them. An student of politics. George Washington type. Knows it's not enough to just break a corrupt society. Wants to build something better. Not a communist though.

I forget the fifth.

[Supreme Serpent]

My peeve: players who expect the same old same old.

The first time my players encountered my tundra-living, wolf-riding, Mongol hordelike Halfling warrior race, they giggled. And then one these barbarian halflings carved up the party's hardcase warrior like a Christmas ham and nobody was laughing any longer... but everybody thought I was a freaking genius for kicking the "halfling = hobbits with the serial numbers filed off" cliche to the curb.

Heh. In an old world I designed but never ran, the old collapsed empire was "The Ling Dynasty" - Empire of Halflings and their servants/subjects. When they rose to power, it was hard to stop an army of sneaky slingers who can use cover well. :) Later, they became decadent and relied on their mercenaries too much, and the empire fell apart. They kept the decadent part, though in a more pastoral sense.

I was looking forward to running players through ruins/dungeons built for 3' tall folks. :)

I may break that out again someday...

[proditor]

SNIPPED
I was looking forward to running players through ruins/dungeons built for 3' tall folks. :)

I may break that out again someday...Gnome Force GO!!!! ;)

[Supreme Serpent]

Contrary to my last post (and some other worlds I've halfway built), I have another pet peeve in fantasy games.

Namely, "the past was so much cooler than now". The past was when the big god-kings, super-wizards who made tons of magic items, big impressive empires, etc. were around. In the present you're looking for their stuff and scavenging off of their greatness.

Now, I can enjoy these games and settings, but from time to time I would like to play in the time of the big happenings. Get to be the characters who make the big changes, be the wizards who create the great magics / magic items, etc.

[RDU Neil]

Contrary to my last post (and some other worlds I've halfway built), I have another pet peeve in fantasy games.

Namely, "the past was so much cooler than now". The past was when the big god-kings, super-wizards who made tons of magic items, big impressive empires, etc. were around. In the present you're looking for their stuff and scavenging off of their greatness.

Now, I can enjoy these games and settings, but from time to time I would like to play in the time of the big happenings. Get to be the characters who make the big changes, be the wizards who create the great magics / magic items, etc.

This has been the focus of Storn Cook's long running fantasy game. It is still running ( though I don't play in it any more) but one character I ran was a dwarven warrior mage who was sent from the south to reconnect with the northern tribes as a resurgence in magic and the gods had the dwarves and other races actually surging in population and power. Azon Kor, as he was named, was recovering old ruins and lost clans, but with new magic and was known for forging powerful magic items. His sword was destined to become a major artifact in the future.

Just remember that fantasy as we know it, as it came from Tolkien, was defined by J.R.R.'s fixation on a past that was pre-industrial, pure and unsullied by modern concepts and civilization. His whole point was that the past was better than the present and that concept runs deep through out the genre. In fact, I think this is core to that genre. If you change it, you have really created a different genre. Actually existing in the times of greatness, being people who would eventually be legends... that is like "social fantasy fiction" in a way. Fantasy superheroes in some sense. Can be cool, but really has a very different flavor and concept than normal fantasy. Normal is about facing the unknown and unexplainable... but if you are truly legend, then it is about ruling the world, learning an categorizing the unknown and making it normal. The legendary types not only know what the great evil is... but have an idea how to fight it. Again, pretty cool idea, but it is not fantasy as normally defined.

[CrosshairCollie]

Many of the things in this thread remind me of why I do two things in fantasy gaming. I either ...
1. Play an 'off-race' like a kobold or something furry from a non-PHB source (the Laika (dogmen) in the Savage Species Web Enhancement or the Catfolk in the Miniatures Handbook, or the Nezumi or Hengeyokai from Oriental ADventures) or 3rd party book, or if I can't do that,

2. Play as 'against type' as possible. Dwarven wizards, Elven barbarians, Gnome Druids, Halfling 'Tank' Fighters, Half-Orc Bards, whatever seems like the least likely thing that such a character should be. Especially if I take a hit in that class's 'best' attribute (see: Half-Orc Bard).

My preference for off-races is twofold. As many of you who are on the NGD forum know, I'm no fan of Tolkien. So, when possible, I avoid playing a Tolkien race. This is why I was so happy when they finally made a typical Halfing not-a-Hobbit in 3rd Edition; they're slender and adventurous. However, nobody I know has grasped that, and can't play a halfling without making them hungry cowards (and thinking that's a 'typical' halfling). You have a +2 racial bonus on saves against fear effects, people!

Secondly, I really really REALLY hate it when someone tells me I'm 'playing my character wrong'. "What do you mean, you're not drinking? You're a dwarf! And why are you getting along with that orc?!" "You're not looking down your nose enough, y'know, to be an elf." "Half-Orcs don't use words with that many syllables!" When I bring in something that people aren't familiar with, they can't tell me that I'm doing it 'wrong'.

I had an elf who thought the dwarves were the smart ones. Why? His tree-city was burned during an invastion. CAVES DON'T BURN, therefore Caves > Trees. He used an axe and a crossbow, and spat whenever someone said the name of Corellan Lorethian ("Let me get this straight ... some of his followers start turning evil, so instead of simply smushing them, he sends them underground where they can thrive unsupervised, create a hidden culture that enslaves innocent beings and develop greater powers than the surface elves. WHAT A MORON.").

For those of you familiar with Oriental Adventures, I once played a Nezumi Diplomat. Nezumi are traditionally scroungers, thieves, and filthy scavengers, with no concept of social graces ... mine was refined, clean, and could sell a ketchup popsicle to a woman in her wedding dress. ;) He still had a bit of a greedy streak, but it was generally subsumed.

And then there's my personal favorite character. He's a necromancer. A Lawful Good Necromancer. An EXALTED Lawful Good Necromancer, which means he has to keep himself to Paladinly standards, if not even a bit higher. How's THAT for against type? ;)

I never pay heed to racial stereotypes when deciding how to play my characters. NEVER. Personality is completely independent of species, except in cases like angels/demons/devils, and even then, they can change (it's just not as easy or anywhere near as likely), and in most games I've been in, the GMs feel the same way. It's not 'good' to whack an orc on sight, unless it's actually up to something, and it's far better to redeem it than slay it.

My two copper pieces. ;)

[bblackmoor]

Just remember that fantasy as we know it, as it came from Tolkien, was defined by J.R.R.'s fixation on a past that was pre-industrial, pure and unsullied by modern concepts and civilization. His whole point was that the past was better than the present and that concept runs deep through out the genre.

This predates Tolkien by quite a bit. One way of looking at it is that there are two competing myths: the myth of ancient knowledge, and the myth of new discoveries. If the ancient Eqyptians believed it, it must be true. If it's a new drug, it must be better.

For most of human existence, the myth of ancient knowledge was dominant. We do it this way because our ancestors did. We are looking for the secrets of the ancient Greeks. We tell stories of a thousand years ago, when the Monkey King could transform himself into seventy-two different images and had a huge iron bar that could expand or shrink at its owner's command. And so on.

In the Victorian era, a new myth started to make itself known: the myth of new discoveries. Since then, the two have gone in and out of fashion several times. But the fantasy genre as we know it, with its roots in myth, folklore, and fairy stories, is pretty solidly attached to the myth of ancient knowledge.

On the other hand, a game where the PCs are the movers and shakers, eventually to become the stuff of later legends, has a very strong tradition in role-play gaming. From the campaigns of Arneson and Gygax until the present day, it's not at all unusual for PCs (often without realizing it) to play out the lives and advetures that will be known and retold to later generations just as the Monkey King did.

Personally, I'm fine with all of that.

[bblackmoor]

I moved here a couple of months ago, I don't think it is very clean though. But then again I live in the crummiest part of town.
What did you work as?

I was visiting the Norwegian Defence Advanced Distributed Learning Centre (it's much shorter in Norwegian) to advise them on what learning management system to set up for their distance learning centers. I was amazed at how clean everything was. We'd been in Prague and Brno the week before, and Brno in particular had grafitti everywhere (although I love the Czech Republic, and I'd move there if I had a good job offer).

If you are into castles, you should take a tour of Akershus. It's really neat.

[RDU Neil]

This predates Tolkien by quite a bit. One way of looking at it is that there are two competing myths: the myth of ancient knowledge, and the myth of new discoveries. If the ancient Eqyptians believed it, it must be true. If it's a new drug, it must be better.

For most of human existence, the myth of ancient knowledge was dominant. We do it this way because our ancestors did. We are looking for the secrets of the ancient Greeks. We tell stories of a thousand years ago, when the Monkey King could transform himself into seventy-two different images and had a huge iron bar that could expand or shrink at its owner's command. And so on.

In the Victorian era, a new myth started to make itself known: the myth of new discoveries. Since then, the two have gone in and out of fashion several times. But the fantasy genre as we know it, with its roots in myth, folklore, and fairy stories, is pretty solidly attached to the myth of ancient knowledge.

On the other hand, a game where the PCs are the movers and shakers, eventually to become the stuff of later legends, has a very strong tradition in role-play gaming. From the campaigns of Arneson and Gygax until the present day, it's not at all unusual for PCs (often without realizing it) to play out the lives and advetures that will be known and retold to later generations just as the Monkey King did.

Personally, I'm fine with all of that.

The general concept is old... but the modern fantasy genre as defined by so many bad novels and D&Disms started with Tolkien. His myth of the old was about it all being a veil of tears. The good has passed, and no matter what, the future will not be as bright. The concept has been around since caveman days... but Tolkien defined it as a genre (or rather all his pale imitators did so).

Thing is... myth of the old... that is fantasy. Myth of the new... that is science fiction. That was what I was getting at. If your focus is on the "new" no matter what the trappings (swords, magic, elves, whatever) you have moved away from the genre of fantasy. Now exploration isn't about gaining unknowable power that is unique and irreplacable... no, now it is about discovering new ideas and technologies and societies etc., and building from there... innovating and creating and advancing. That is science fiction, not fantasy. Even if it is an elf with sword. If he is pursuing change and advancement and refinement... that is a very different genre than protecting the last great artifact, or remaining inscrutable and solitary in your power, or whatever.

Fantasy is not the trappings... not magic and elves and such... it is a focus on the past as the time of greatness and the present, at best, a struggle to reclaim such greatness. Without that focus on the past, you are in a different genre. YMMV.

[bblackmoor]

The general concept is old... but the modern fantasy genre as defined by so many bad novels and D&Disms started with Tolkien.

Well, yeah: he popularized it more than anyone else other than possibly Gary Gygax. No argument there.


That is science fiction, not fantasy.

I would not make that distinction in that way. Science fiction is a subset of fantasy. Science fiction is fantasy which appeals to the authority of science to explain its magic. That's the definition that fits the observable phenomena best, in my opinion. That being said, we could fill six thousand threads with this one tiny subject: there are as many definitions for SF and Fantasy as there are people who read it. :)

[sinanju]

This predates Tolkien by quite a bit. One way of looking at it is that there are two competing myths: the myth of ancient knowledge, and the myth of new discoveries. If the ancient Eqyptians believed it, it must be true. If it's a new drug, it must be better.

For most of human existence, the myth of ancient knowledge was dominant. We do it this way because our ancestors did. We are looking for the secrets of the ancient Greeks. We tell stories of a thousand years ago, when the Monkey King could transform himself into seventy-two different images and had a huge iron bar that could expand or shrink at its owner's command. And so on.

In the Victorian era, a new myth started to make itself known: the myth of new discoveries. Since then, the two have gone in and out of fashion several times. But the fantasy genre as we know it, with its roots in myth, folklore, and fairy stories, is pretty solidly attached to the myth of ancient knowledge.

I think the myth of ancient greatness is no big surprise. For most of history, technological change was glacial. It's only in the last few centuries that people have come to expect change as the _norm_. And aside from technological change, most change was at best neutral (meet the new king, same as the old king) or came at great cost (it's gonna cost HOW MUCH in taxes to build a new castle/church/bridge?). And destruction has always been easier than creation.

Plus, throw in Christian theology and then it's ALL downhill. We started out in paradise and promptly screwed it up! And after the fall, men lived hundreds of years according to the Bible. Now you're lucky if you eke out a few decades. Of course things were better long ago!

[Rapier]

Contrary to my last post (and some other worlds I've halfway built), I have another pet peeve in fantasy games.

Namely, "the past was so much cooler than now". The past was when the big god-kings, super-wizards who made tons of magic items, big impressive empires, etc. were around. In the present you're looking for their stuff and scavenging off of their greatness.

Now, I can enjoy these games and settings, but from time to time I would like to play in the time of the big happenings. Get to be the characters who make the big changes, be the wizards who create the great magics / magic items, etc.

Back in my day, we didn't have fancy spells that turned people into toads. No siree! We wielded pure unadulterated magic. It would burn the top 32 layers of skin off your hands just to levitate a poodle. BUT WE LIKED IT! And to get to mage school, we had to walk up hill, both ways, while fighting demons that wanted to steal our lunch cheese. You don't know how lucky you have it!

[Rapier]

Contrary to my last post (and some other worlds I've halfway built), I have another pet peeve in fantasy games.

Namely, "the past was so much cooler than now". The past was when the big god-kings, super-wizards who made tons of magic items, big impressive empires, etc. were around. In the present you're looking for their stuff and scavenging off of their greatness.

Now, I can enjoy these games and settings, but from time to time I would like to play in the time of the big happenings. Get to be the characters who make the big changes, be the wizards who create the great magics / magic items, etc.
I guess I've looked at it in another light. Fantasy isn't fantasy without heroes. Heroes can't be heroic without overcoming heroeic level obstacles.

By throwing down a better civilization (the previous empire, Ansalon pre-Cataclysm etc) you are invariably setting the stage that bad things happen. This is the same impetus that causes Batman's new neighbour to get flayed and covered in powder sugar and then drowned in buttermilk. It's a way to show that the villain is a real threat and bad things can happen. If Batman then defeats the villain he is very heroic. If Batman just beats up some guy because he was stalking his neighbour (or maybe writing threatening letters) it isn't quite so impressive...and some would even think it a little over the top ("Gee, isn't that the Batman? Yeah, I heard he beat up this guy...because he was sending nasty letters to his neighbour. Way to have a proportional response, Bats!")

So now that bad things can happen, striving to stop the bad things, protect people from bad things or destroy bad things has that extra hightened bit of heroism to it. Would LoTR be as enchanting a tale if the One True Ring just caused some indigestion or caused cheese to go bad? Nope. It's got to have the proven potential to cause great pain and suffering.

Back in high school we did some writing exercises where each person would write a paragraph and hand it to the person behind them for the next paragraph. Everyone called me demented and sick because my paragraph would invariably give the family dog rabies, turn the fluffy rabbit into a demonspawned hell monster, make the mother a vampire slowing drinking the blood from her newborn child etc. Every single one of their stores had no conflict. It was a few paragraphs about someone laying in a field and looking at clouds. NOONE could read more than a page of that crap before throwing it into a wall out of sheer boredom. If there is no conflict, there is no story. If there is no story, there is no point.

There is, also, the proportional response. I am in a race with four of my mates. I run 100m and come in first. Woopdedo. Same race, same distance, except now all the participants are double amputees (both legs). NOW we have something to cheer about. The farther you travel and the harder the road, the more satisying the destination.

All of these aspects roll together to create a world rich with history, strife and struggle. None of us would like to live in such a place -- food is scarce, the emperor is evil, poverty and poor health are rampant, people have no rights and can be butchered at the whim of a passing noble. Not a life you would wish on anyone...but it certainly would make a good story wouldn't it?

[bblackmoor]

food is scarce, the emperor is evil, poverty and poor health are rampant, people have no rights and can be butchered at the whim of a passing noble. Not a life you would wish on anyone...but it certainly would make a good story wouldn't it?

Sounds like Flesh + Blood (1985). I think about buying the DVD every time I see it at Wal-Mart.

[RDU Neil]

Sounds like Flesh + Blood (1985). I think about buying the DVD every time I see it at Wal-Mart.

Yeah... nothing like a good sword/action flick about the PLAGUE! WHEEE!

Really like that movie. Thanks for reminding me about it.

[bblackmoor]

Yeah... nothing like a good sword/action flick about the PLAGUE! WHEEE!

I broke down and bought it today for Susan. It's wrapped in a bundle with Man Of La Mancha and Killer Clowns From Outer Space. (sigh) I love Christmas.

[Myrmidon]

I don't disagree with the original peeves posted, but I have provisos:

My main peeve for, like, ever:

The arrogant elf/fey. We're better than you, prettier than you, you are like mayflies to us, we deserve all the magic items and we have an older civilization. Yeah, well what good have you done, lately? I especially detest it when the in-character response to this attitude is annoyance and reprisal, and the player takes offense, as though he somehow has the right to play an arrogant schmuck without facing the consequenses. Because he's playing an elf.


Which is why I like the one TSR setting that actually explained why the elves have a right to be so darned arrogent www.spelljammer.org The elves simply had the most powerful fleet, were corrodinated and had managed to put some major smackdown on the orcs a few centuries ago.

When your race/nation/etc. won a major war, still have power forces that are greatly respected and your rivals are all disorganized of course you can get a little snotty.

Cheers, David

[nexus]

The lesbian ninja chick is Marta Nys from "Kazei 5." Back when she was young (i.e. 15-16) she started to experiment with girls and ended up dating girls almost exclusively over guys (it also annoyed her sister in a small way, and annoying her sister [Shion Nys] = the win for Marta). She will still look at a guy, especially buff, long-haired martial artists types. On the other hand, she is in a very close relation ship with one Ling Ling Li, and they were to be married in the PBEM (which just closed down).

Marta: http://surbrook.devermore.net/gallery/galleryk5/marta01.jpg

Ling Ling: http://surbrook.devermore.net/gallery/galleryk5/ling01.jpg

This is a great example, IMO, of the difference. The above character is, well, a character. She has a background, personality, martial arts skills and happens to be bisexual. Its an an aspect of her, not the sole defining thing about her. I would have no problem seeing this a player character.

[Trencher]

advise them on what learning management system to set up for their distance learning centers..
Oh, So like you did some eh... stuff?


If you are into castles, you should take a tour of Akershus. It's really neat.
I plan on moving there when the zombie plague breaks out.

[RDU Neil]

I broke down and bought it today for Susan. It's wrapped in a bundle with Man Of La Mancha and Killer Clowns From Outer Space. (sigh) I love Christmas.

You bought this for my S.O.? I should be jealous, but I happen to know that Susan's tastes just don't run to violent medieval plague movies. Sorry bud, you'll have to try harder.

(Just kidding... my long term "wife in all but name" significant other is named Susan... so this was a very strange reply when I first read it. :) )

[bblackmoor]

I plan on moving there [Akershus] when the zombie plague breaks out.

Exactly. :)

[Susano]

This is a great example, IMO, of the difference. The above character is, well, a character. She has a background, personality, martial arts skills and happens to be bisexual. Its an an aspect of her, not the sole defining thing about her. I would have no problem seeing this a player character.

Marta has grown and matured as a character over time. A friend told me that his friend (who is female) stated they (Marta & Ling Ling) were two of the most beleivable lesbians she'd read (both in the K5 game and out). This made me rather happy. The secret is to treat them as people first, with all the cares and concerns of a person. It just so happens Marta's SO is female, other than that, there's not much to make a fuss over.

[BlackSword]

Many of the things in this thread remind me of why I do two things in fantasy gaming. I either ...
1. Play an 'off-race' like a kobold or something furry from a non-PHB source (the Laika (dogmen) in the Savage Species Web Enhancement or the Catfolk in the Miniatures Handbook, or the Nezumi or Hengeyokai from Oriental ADventures) or 3rd party book, or if I can't do that,

2. Play as 'against type' as possible. Dwarven wizards, Elven barbarians, Gnome Druids, Halfling 'Tank' Fighters, Half-Orc Bards, whatever seems like the least likely thing that such a character should be. Especially if I take a hit in that class's 'best' attribute (see: Half-Orc Bard).

Heh, my pet peeve is characters that are different for no other reason than to be different. As mentioned previously, that's not to say there are no good characters that are outside the norm, in fact it is almost a neccessity as a reason why a PC would join a diverse party to wander around the land as opposed to settle down, get a 9-5 job and raise a brood. If the character is well thought out great, but my first response is, "*sigh*, why?" A character doesn't have to be 180 degrees out of sync to break a stereotype.

Also find it odd that many of the Genre conventions people are annoyed at are fantasy, probably because it is the most prevalent RPG genre.

Finally thought of one for Sci Fi. An Empire or Star Kingdom. It seems that for some reason a parliamentary monarchy is the most prevalent form of government in the far future.

[RDU Neil]

If you get into SF genre issues... I really hate "Humanoid" races. Most alien races should be insanely hard to recognize an communicate with... unless you have a "seeded by Progenitors" type meta-plots. I hate the "everyone speaks english" and most of the Space Opera (Star Wars) style tropes. I like hard SF with considerations of time dialation, real physics, resource scarcity, lack of FTL or FTL communication, etc.

You can still have heroic style adventures, but I'm more along the lines of C.J. Cherryh and her Merchanter/Alliance universe than Star Wars or Star Drek.

[bblackmoor]

I like hard SF with considerations of time dialation, real physics, resource scarcity, lack of FTL or FTL communication, etc.

Wouldn't that make the game unplayable? It seems to me that would be like wanting a medieval-style fantasy game where all of the creatures adhere to the known principles of biology, and where magic is limited to what is scientifically possible.

Come to think of it, that is playable. It's just not what I would call fantasy.

[RDU Neil]

Wouldn't that make the game unplayable? It seems to me that would be like wanting a medieval-style fantasy game where all of the creatures adhere to the known principles of biology, and where magic is limited to what is scientifically possible.

Come to think of it, that is playable. It's just not what I would call fantasy.

I didn't say "adhere to" I said "considered." Again, I refer to the novels of C.J. Cherryh as a great example. Eminently playable... we've done it. This means, of course, there are some fantastic elements... but some of the bigees are gone. Artificial gravity, energy weapons, FTL, alien biology, future societies, long distance communication, etc. All of these I want to be at least addressed in some form... rather than glossed over. To me, SF is about correctly calculating re-entry vectors in order to avoid burning up in the atmosphere... not just shooting it out with alien-species-that-is-nothing-more-than-anthropormorphized-earth-animal of the week. It is about exploring what it would be like to live in space and alien planets and encounter truly alien life... not just a star-filled backdrop to a cliche adventure that could have taken place in a western, or a pirate ship, or a modern day city, or whatever.

Even if you come up with something like Stargate... where you address inter-stellar travel through basically magical tech that is beyond the understanding of humanity... that at least addresses the issue, rather than ignoring it.

I also tend to avoid the psychic/acension/quasi-mystical stuff that so many SF shows fall into when the writers put themselves into a bind where even the vaguest "science" can't explain it and they have to make up metaphysical crap.

And read Robinson's Mars trilogy, or Ben Bova or Arthur C. Clarke or Greg Bear or Stephen Baxter. All eminintly playable stories with a hard SF bent. It isn't easy... but it can be worth it.

[bblackmoor]

I think you are mixing up a lot of isolated and unrelated things, Neil. You are entitled to like what you like (or dislike), of course. I do not mean to imply that you aren't. But you are saying you dislike X and then giving W, Y, and Z as examples. I think you have more on the table than how much treknobabble the characters must indulge in prior to breaking the laws of physics.

[WhammeWhamme]

If you get into SF genre issues... I really hate "Humanoid" races. Most alien races should be insanely hard to recognize an communicate with... unless you have a "seeded by Progenitors" type meta-plots. I hate the "everyone speaks english" and most of the Space Opera (Star Wars) style tropes. I like hard SF with considerations of time dialation, real physics, resource scarcity, lack of FTL or FTL communication, etc.

You can still have heroic style adventures, but I'm more along the lines of C.J. Cherryh and her Merchanter/Alliance universe than Star Wars or Star Drek.

Actually, parallel evolution indicates that "other" humanoid sentient species would probably be more likely than the truly bizarre. Now, the differences could be interesting to work with...

I think that could be _harder_ to come to terms with than somethign truly alien - an alien ecosystem and species that looks and acts a lot like people... but there are some behaviours/modifications that we picked up that they just don't have. Like maybe not being able to choke because their throats aren't for eating, drinking, talking AND breathing.

[RDU Neil]

Actually, parallel evolution indicates that "other" humanoid sentient species would probably be more likely than the truly bizarre. Now, the differences could be interesting to work with...

I think that could be _harder_ to come to terms with than somethign truly alien - an alien ecosystem and species that looks and acts a lot like people... but there are some behaviours/modifications that we picked up that they just don't have. Like maybe not being able to choke because their throats aren't for eating, drinking, talking AND breathing.

Actually, this is exactly what C.J. Cherry's "Foreigner" series addresses, in a social science fiction way. Human's crash onto planet populated by humanoid, neo-industrial (trains and iron manufacturing level) culture. Surprisingly human like... and this gets everyone into LOADS of trouble, as the biological/emotional responses are very different. (The way they feel affection, or don't, sets off wars, and makes for social contact to be very dangerous.) Really great stuff. (She also addresses the truly alien in her Chanur series, where there is trade with species that are methane breathers and silicon life forms which can do things and act in ways incomprehensible to the more humanoid carbon based life forms.)

And to bblackmoor... yeah, I'm probably layering on a number of genre conventions that I don't like. To simplify it I would say, "I don't like SF that isn't about science, in some way. If you are telling stories that just use laserguns instead of flintlocks, but otherwise the story is the same (Star Wars) then I'm not interested. SF is about ideas and thinking and rational explanations... not just adventure dressed up with sparkly props.

[Trencher]

Having a fantasy campainworld who is realistic might not be possible, but it should be plausible.

[bblackmoor]

I really liked the first of the Faded Sun series, but I think Cherryh made one of the Anne Rice mistakes (*), and fell in love her creations a little too much. There's only so long that I am willing to listen to how beautiful the mri and Lestat are.

On the other hand, Cherryh wrote one of my all-time favorite fantasy novels, The Dreamstone.

(*) The other Anne Rice mistake is to get so popular that you can bully the publisher into printing your books unedited.

[nexus]

re:Sci fi

I enjoy most kinds of sci fi. Hard Sci fi is interesting (though when it goes overboard it can be very dry/depressing/complicated), but I enjoy more fanciful stuff as well. Sometimes a good story is a good story and when it comes to gaming I generally prefer a less technically heavy approach. I really don't care about the rentry vectors or precisely how the ship to to its destination and how many milliliters of fuel it burned doing it. I don't know if that makes an exception to most sci fi fans or not.

A few things do bug me though.

Monolithic alien societies. There are hundreds if not thousands of different types of humans, why are all the members of alien races the same except for some minor variations? Or one major one that serves as the plot focus?

Mindless stupid aggression. Races that wage interstellar wars for no real reason and when there are much easier ways to meet their requirements (ID4 where the aliens cruised right be vast resouces in the rest of the solar system to attack earth, f'er instance).

This is mostly from Star Trek. Humans are the only race capable of understanding that another species might have different costumes and react differently. Every other race is so short tempered that, upon meeting a new race for the first time, if ettiquette is breached in the slightest it sparks, at best, an enimity that lasts for generations if not an all out war.

[WhammeWhamme]

Actually, this is exactly what C.J. Cherry's "Foreigner" series addresses, in a social science fiction way. Human's crash onto planet populated by humanoid, neo-industrial (trains and iron manufacturing level) culture. Surprisingly human like... and this gets everyone into LOADS of trouble, as the biological/emotional responses are very different. (The way they feel affection, or don't, sets off wars, and makes for social contact to be very dangerous.) Really great stuff. (She also addresses the truly alien in her Chanur series, where there is trade with species that are methane breathers and silicon life forms which can do things and act in ways incomprehensible to the more humanoid carbon based life forms.)

And to bblackmoor... yeah, I'm probably layering on a number of genre conventions that I don't like. To simplify it I would say, "I don't like SF that isn't about science, in some way. If you are telling stories that just use laserguns instead of flintlocks, but otherwise the story is the same (Star Wars) then I'm not interested. SF is about ideas and thinking and rational explanations... not just adventure dressed up with sparkly props.

I'm not surprised it exists. But to handle it accurately would, imo, be a tremendous challenge. You'd have to start with a shrub of life that got pruned and imagine how they could become a human-like species.

At a guess, a lot of responses _would_ be the same. A smile is the reaction to 'the threat that is not a threat because I know it is safe', and the baring of teeth is the appropriate reaction there for any toothed sentient, for example. (Perhaps not; damn the nature of science and it's sheer amount of theories...)

Or - Monogamy is probably essential for a sentient species, so there would be a love analogue. Of course, it could easily be a different kind of pleasurable sensation derived from biochemistry - imagine a species that an adrenaline rush when in love, becoming sharper, edgier, and violent. - Congrats, Captain, the 8 foot giantess is in love with you. Now, about those broken bones...

But looking over what I've written, I'm not happy with that. It feels like it has sacrificed accuracy for story potential, in the same manner Star X does... just less so.

Dunno... bit of a dilemma I think. Hard Sci Fi requires a scientist, but good fiction requires a novelist. I don't know many people who combine the two... (I make a better critic than author, like so many other people...)

[RDU Neil]

At a guess, a lot of responses _would_ be the same. A smile is the reaction to 'the threat that is not a threat because I know it is safe', and the baring of teeth is the appropriate reaction there for any toothed sentient, for example. (Perhaps not; damn the nature of science and it's sheer amount of theories...)

This actually came up in the Chanur series. The Chanur are basically "cat people" and when Tully, the lone human, gets to know them, and finally relaxes enough to smile... they think it is a threat, because baring teeth is an aggressive move to them. (They are a female dominated culture as well, with the males being considered too aggressive, lazy and unfocused to do serious work. This whole level of sexism is challenged in the books as well, within that culture.)



But looking over what I've written, I'm not happy with that. It feels like it has sacrificed accuracy for story potential, in the same manner Star X does... just less so.

Dunno... bit of a dilemma I think. Hard Sci Fi requires a scientist, but good fiction requires a novelist. I don't know many people who combine the two... (I make a better critic than author, like so many other people...)

Actually, it is the fact that it is sacrificed "less so" that I'm looking for. I'm not saying you have to be a particle physics PhD... just that you should consider theories out there... play with ideas and ramifications and explore them (novelist fashion) rather than ignore them. Just because it is hard doesn't mean it's not worth trying. Don't just have a story element because it is "kewl" but explore the ramifications of that element. Have a cat race, ok, how would what we know about cat behavior change the way that society functions? Come across another culture, why assume monogamy is standard? It doesn't have to be, as biology would drastically change approaches to relationships (Left Hand of Darkness by LeGuin).

The point is to ask questions and explore the possibilities, not just hand wave thigns. If you have anti-grav tech... explore what that means about the level of technology, how that would shape society and people's perspectives, etc. Actual anti-grav means exploration of black holes is possible!

You don't have to be perfect, or even correct in your explorations and assumptions... SF is about the ATTEMPT to understand and explore... not necessarily about having an absolute answer.

[RDU Neil]

Actually heading back to the original bent of this topic... there are certain gaming tropes (not always found in the literary genre it is based on) that drive me crazy.

Primarily it is the "Undead are just another monster" concept. This is the D&Dism that reduces animated corpses filled with necromantic hunger for life into "oh... bladed weapons don't work vs. skeletons, so use a mace" kind of rule playing. Where is the horror, the gut wrenching, piss down your leg terror that would ensue for encountering this. If you want to play "Army of Darkness" where it is all a running joke, fine... but if you want some pathos and emotion and drama in your games, then monsters and undead and the truly alien should provoke some visceral, passionate reactions in characters that should affect behaviors and plots and the game overall.

Drives me CRAZY when this doesn't happen.

[BlackSword]

The undead as truely creepy never got to me until I played Neverwinter Nights. We were in a graveyard that was covered in fog as we approached a crypt. I shout out to my brother, "look out" as my ranger draws a bead a looses an arrow. The zombie continues to lumber forward with the arrow sticking out of him. They did a good job with the visual effects and having a zombie turn into a pin cushion and continue to march forward creeped me out. I do agree though, in Table-top fighting undead should have a more dramatic reaction than, "time to use a blunt weapon."

[bblackmoor]

Primarily it is the "Undead are just another monster" concept.

Horror in general is difficult to pull off in gaming. It's possible, but it requires a great deal of set-up, and generally you have to find something that will evoke some personal feelings in the players. Whether it's a Lovecraftian demon, a walking corpse, or anything else, there's really just not any visceral terror involved because the players aren't there.

In my Scooby Cthulhu game from a few years backs, I was able to evoke actual feelings of, if not fear, at least uneasiness, but it took a lot of work to accomplish. One thing it took was surprise: the players had to not expect that anything genuinely horrible was going to happen. That was hard to do, because one of the guys in the at game group was absolutely brilliant at figuring out the whole plot from the very first clue his character would find.

The best example that comes to mind was the Phantom Of Cedar Point. The gang was visiting one of their uncles, who worked security for the amusement park. He was worried about losing his job because there had been a number of accidents and unexplained events in the park, all of which seemed to be the result of sabotage. The owner of the park, grumpy old Mr. Thomas, was threatening to fire the uncle and even close the park if the attacks weren't stopped.

The worst case of sabotage was also the most puzzling: a phantom roller coaster car would zoom around the Blue Streak, terrifying park guests and slamming into other cars. When the gang rode the Blue Streak to see for themselves, the phantom car appeared, and they noticed that it had one passenger: a wild-eyed, screaming ghost!

While sleuthing for clues, the gang split up to cover more ground. One of the characters got shoved into a dark storage room, and the door was slammed closed and locked behind her. Fumbling for her lighter, she discovered she was in a room for storage of roller coaster parts. However, at the far end of the room was a large, complicated chalk circle drawn around a roller coaster car. Chained to the car was the corpse of a 12-year-old boy with strange symbols drawn on his forehead, and his eyes and mouth sewn shut.

That got a reaction.

Long story short, they eventually figured out that grumpy old Mr. Thomas' assistant, Mr. Ash, had been bribed by a Japanese amusement park company to get Mr. Thomas to sell the park to them. The cheaper they got the park, the more the Japanese company would pay Mr. Ash.

So, yeah. Horror is hard.

[teh bunneh]

One of the unintended beneficial side-effects of moving my campaign from D&D to HERO: Skeletons and zombies are no longer low-powered, easy-kill monsters! My players used to wade through a room full of skeletons. These days the look of fear in their eyes when I say "Undead" is gratifying.

Bill.
"They! Just! Won't! Frickin'! DIE!"
-- Hathym, the White Elf ranger in my last campaign :D
"Oh, crap... let's get the hell out of here!"
-- Radley, priest of the god of laughter in my last campaign :D

[RDU Neil]

Horror in general is difficult to pull off in gaming. It's possible, but it requires a great deal of set-up, and generally you have to find something that will evoke some personal feelings in the players. Whether it's a Lovecraftian demon, a walking corpse, or anything else, there's really just not any visceral terror involved because the players aren't there.

In my Scooby Cthulhu game from a few years backs, I was able to evoke actual feelings of, if not fear, at least uneasiness, but it took a lot of work to accomplish. One thing it took was surprise: the players had to not expect that anything genuinely horrible was going to happen. That was hard to do, because one of the guys in the at game group was absolutely brilliant at figuring out the whole plot from the very first clue his character would find.

The best example that comes to mind was the Phantom Of Cedar Point. The gang was visiting one of their uncles, who worked security for the amusement park. He was worried about losing his job because there had been a number of accidents and unexplained events in the park, all of which seemed to be the result of sabotage. The owner of the park, grumpy old Mr. Thomas, was threatening to fire the uncle and even close the park if the attacks weren't stopped.

The worst case of sabotage was also the most puzzling: a phantom roller coaster car would zoom around the Blue Streak, terrifying park guests and slamming into other cars. When the gang rode the Blue Streak to see for themselves, the phantom car appeared, and they noticed that it had one passenger: a wild-eyed, screaming ghost!

While sleuthing for clues, the gang split up to cover more ground. One of the characters got shoved into a dark storage room, and the door was slammed closed and locked behind her. Fumbling for her lighter, she discovered she was in a room for storage of roller coaster parts. However, at the far end of the room was a large, complicated chalk circle drawn around a roller coaster car. Chained to the car was the corpse of a 12-year-old boy with strange symbols drawn on his forehead, and his eyes and mouth sewn shut.

That got a reaction.

Long story short, they eventually figured out that grumpy old Mr. Thomas' assistant, Mr. Ash, had been bribed by a Japanese amusement park company to get Mr. Thomas to sell the park to them. The cheaper they got the park, the more the Japanese company would pay Mr. Ash.

So, yeah. Horror is hard.

Good story. Good creeps... though the idea that someone would play "Scooby" just boggles my mind.

I guess, in the end, I'm asking for role playing. Even if the player doesn't FEEL afraid, they can have their character act as if they are afraid. I don't necessarily want to terrify the players... but I want the characters to act as they would if afraid, when appropriate.

As Bill Keyes pointed out... Hero is a lot better for this, as there is no defined "Skeleton is X stats" in Hero. You describe an undead shambling corpse, it could be just about anything... and that makes a game more interesting. One more reason we abandoned D&D for Hero at least twenty years ago.

[bblackmoor]

Good creeps... though the idea that someone would play "Scooby" just boggles my mind.

Thanks. FYI, they were original characters (not Fred, Daphne, Shaggy, etc.), and the dog's name was Rex. Ziggy did hear Rex talk once, but he was pretty high at the time. The premise was that they were on summer break from university, and were driving around the USA in a Durango, visiting their relatives.


I guess, in the end, I'm asking for role playing. Even if the player doesn't FEEL afraid, they can have their character act as if they are afraid.

Ah, I see. Yeah, a player who doesn't at least try to have their character react appropriately is annoying. It's pretty rude too, because that can diminish how much fun the other players are having, as well. It can really spoil the mood.

[nexus]

Horror in general is difficult to pull off in gaming. It's possible, but it requires a great deal of set-up, and generally you have to find something that will evoke some personal feelings in the players. Whether it's a Lovecraftian demon, a walking corpse, or anything else, there's really just not any visceral terror involved because the players aren't there.


Very true words. Horror is damanbly hard to pull off. I would add to the list you need players who are willing to "buy into" the idea of horror. Many players just don't want to get that emotionally into the storyline and the character's heads. They don't want to role play fear or panic and will run their characters are Fearless Monster Stompers or utterly blase. When kills any air of horror pretty quickly.

[sinanju]

Good story. Good creeps... though the idea that someone would play "Scooby" just boggles my mind.

I had the Scooby Doo gang as NPCs once in my "World of Darkness"-esque Santa Carla game. There was a crabby old bald man in a wheelchair who lived in a run-down mansion which contained a stuffed great dane (Shaggy and Scooby). Then there was the George Hamilton-esque 60 year-old man in an ascot (Freddy), also weathy. And 60 year-old, chain-smoking, hard drinking, leathery skinned monster slayer Velma. Daphne, alas, had died decades ago. Well, actually she'd been turned into a vampire and was living in the basement of Freddy's mansion, and they were planning on her turning him soon as he was getting old. Shaggy had figured it out long ago but didn't care, they deserved to be happy; Velma didn't know, and if she found out she'd do her damnedest to kill "the monster that murdered Daphne and stole her body."

Needless to say, the plot involved Velma finding out.


I guess, in the end, I'm asking for role playing. Even if the player doesn't FEEL afraid, they can have their character act as if they are afraid. I don't necessarily want to terrify the players... but I want the characters to act as they would if afraid, when appropriate.

And that's not too much to ask. I agree that actually scaring your players is very difficult, but if they're good roleplayers, they'll play their characters as shocked and horrified when walking corpses start showing up.

[gewing]

The last character I got a chance to play was a half ogre who was reasonably bright (12-13) and whose primary focus was on ranged combat. He threw javelins or his favorites, his Harpoon. Of course, as a 1/2 ogre, he was pretty good up close and personal too. ;) He wore the best light armor he could get, a chain shirt. Yeah, it was D20, so sue me. I didn't get to choose the game system.



Many of the things in this thread remind me of why I do two things in fantasy gaming. I either ...
1. Play an 'off-race' like a kobold or something furry from a non-PHB source (the Laika (dogmen) in the Savage Species Web Enhancement or the Catfolk in the Miniatures Handbook, or the Nezumi or Hengeyokai from Oriental ADventures) or 3rd party book, or if I can't do that,

2. Play as 'against type' as possible. Dwarven wizards, Elven barbarians, Gnome Druids, Halfling 'Tank' Fighters, Half-Orc Bards, whatever seems like the least likely thing that such a character should be. Especially if I take a hit in that class's 'best' attribute (see: Half-Orc Bard).

My preference for off-races is twofold. As many of you who are on the NGD forum know, I'm no fan of Tolkien. So, when possible, I avoid playing a Tolkien race. This is why I was so happy when they finally made a typical Halfing not-a-Hobbit in 3rd Edition; they're slender and adventurous. However, nobody I know has grasped that, and can't play a halfling without making them hungry cowards (and thinking that's a 'typical' halfling). You have a +2 racial bonus on saves against fear effects, people!

Secondly, I really really REALLY hate it when someone tells me I'm 'playing my character wrong'. "What do you mean, you're not drinking? You're a dwarf! And why are you getting along with that orc?!" "You're not looking down your nose enough, y'know, to be an elf." "Half-Orcs don't use words with that many syllables!" When I bring in something that people aren't familiar with, they can't tell me that I'm doing it 'wrong'.

I had an elf who thought the dwarves were the smart ones. Why? His tree-city was burned during an invastion. CAVES DON'T BURN, therefore Caves > Trees. He used an axe and a crossbow, and spat whenever someone said the name of Corellan Lorethian ("Let me get this straight ... some of his followers start turning evil, so instead of simply smushing them, he sends them underground where they can thrive unsupervised, create a hidden culture that enslaves innocent beings and develop greater powers than the surface elves. WHAT A MORON.").

For those of you familiar with Oriental Adventures, I once played a Nezumi Diplomat. Nezumi are traditionally scroungers, thieves, and filthy scavengers, with no concept of social graces ... mine was refined, clean, and could sell a ketchup popsicle to a woman in her wedding dress. ;) He still had a bit of a greedy streak, but it was generally subsumed.

And then there's my personal favorite character. He's a necromancer. A Lawful Good Necromancer. An EXALTED Lawful Good Necromancer, which means he has to keep himself to Paladinly standards, if not even a bit higher. How's THAT for against type? ;)

I never pay heed to racial stereotypes when deciding how to play my characters. NEVER. Personality is completely independent of species, except in cases like angels/demons/devils, and even then, they can change (it's just not as easy or anywhere near as likely), and in most games I've been in, the GMs feel the same way. It's not 'good' to whack an orc on sight, unless it's actually up to something, and it's far better to redeem it than slay it.

My two copper pieces. ;)

[CrosshairCollie]

If you don't want undead to just-be-another-monster, don't use undead that are just-another-monster like Skeletons and Zombies. Use ones with odd powers (Vampiric mind control, Ghoulish paralysis), and use the intelligent ones who can make plans and contingencies rather than ones that are just dumb shambling things.

Admittedly, to my perception, 'fear' and 'horror' are two different things. You get Fear in D&D; the party should be careful and concerned, but not timid; if they have the capacity to fight the opponents, then they should; if they have no chance, then they should run because it's tactically sound, not because their courage is draining down their pants leg. Unless they're facing a foe that blatantly and ridiculously overpowers them (2nd level vs Vampire Lord), they shouldn't flatly panic. (Special monster powers aside, of course.) The PCs are heroes, and you're dealing with people who have seen and been around magic and monsters before. It's something they're at least familiar with, if not used to.

In something like Call of C'thulhu, where you just flat-out don't have a chance, EVERYTHING is out of your league, and even *seeing* the thing that wants to strangle you with your own intestines affects your Sanity, then yes, the PCs should panic and flee, staining themselves with their excretory fluids as they run, going 'wee wee wee' all the way home (so to speak). Magic and monsters aren't supposed to exist, and you obviously can't acclimate yourself to seeing horrid things.

I guess it's a genre thing to me.

[OddHat]

There is, also, the proportional response. I am in a race with four of my mates. I run 100m and come in first. Woopdedo. Same race, same distance, except now all the participants are double amputees (both legs). NOW we have something to cheer about. The farther you travel and the harder the road, the more satisying the destination.

And thus, Amputee Champions was born!

:D

[Whitewings]

In D&D, in specific, there is no particular reason for the PCs to be terrified by zombies, skeletons and other mindless undead. Mindless undead are created by the use of spells, they're a normal (unusual, evil and disgusting, but normal) part of the world, and frankly not all that tough. Now intelligent undead, that's another matter. Intelligent undead are different, they're smart, powerful, and often very hard to hurt, plus if they kill you, you come back as one of them! That's scary! Now, most PCs aren't going to go running home to mama, but if their players aren't utter morons they're going to be scared, and they're going to do some serious planning.

[starblaze]

Back in my day, we didn't have fancy spells that turned people into toads. No siree! We wielded pure unadulterated magic. It would burn the top 32 layers of skin off your hands just to levitate a poodle. BUT WE LIKED IT! And to get to mage school, we had to walk up hill, both ways, while fighting demons that wanted to steal our lunch cheese. You don't know how lucky you have it!

LOL :lol: :lol: :lol: