My Elves Are Different!

[Vondy]

Re: My Elves Are Different!

 

Most of my games for the last 20 years or so have been human only. I think the only reason I get away with it is the other GMs' games in our group have a lot of non-human races.

 

I tend to run settings that either don't have non-humans, or which are geared to human cultures and PCs as the norm.

[Orion]

Re: My Elves Are Different!

 

Well as long as you make these known before hand I can't see the players really being upset. That said I'd probably decline to play.

 

I really can't see why you would not want this. Why would a player not stay within the guideline for a world? If we give them guidelines for points, DCs, and power levels, why not for character types and background? If the group decision is to run a Marvel Family campaign, and someone shows up with the Punisher or Lobo, I think it would be a Good Thing to require them to make another character.

 

In my view, before any new campaign starts, an entire session or more must be spent discussing the possible campaign flavors. Genre is the easy decision, but after that it gets hard. The level of silliness, how much romance, how much killing, is death permanent, power levels of heroes vs average villains, etc. Once everyone has decided on the type of world, campaign, and story they want, then it's on to developing characters for that combination.

 

I've been a part of campaigns as player and GM where the entire planning process was "bring a new character next week, 250 points". Every time, the characters didn't gel as a group, and the campaign fell apart very quickly. By random luck two would fit the GM's ideas perfectly, another would sort of fit, and the last would require all motivations and characterizations to be ignored to have a chance of fitting it. I won't even begin to create a character these days unless I have a good understanding of the campaign world - it just seems pointless. I can't create a character just to play with the rules any more. As a GM, the fun for me is in having detailed worlds, and playing true to that world. When using Harn, there is one set of expectations. When using Forgotten Realms, there is another. Drizzt is encouraged in one, forbidden in the other. I can't see how this is a bad thing.

[Orion]

Re: My Elves Are Different!

 

Is this just a local thing' date=' or have any of the rest of you noticed a tendency in fantasy games for Human player characters to become an endangered species?[/quote']

 

I have somewhat seen it, but more so with character archetypes. A plain fighter is exceedingly rare, and dressing in anything but full plate and using a bastard sword even more rare. Every system seems to have a favorite archetype, weapon, and armor, and using anything but those penalizes you in some way, so very, very few people are willing to use anything but them. And in the cases where weapons all do about the same damage, they seem to get ignored completely. Since the weapon doesn't matter, there is no need to even declare what type it is.

[Orion]

Re: My Elves Are Different!

 

Well' date=' firstly, 'playing the rules' and 'cooperative storytelling' are not mutually exclusive or inversely proportional. Just because you want a mechanically efficient and useful character doesn't mean you're bad at roleplay, and having a good roleplaying character doesn't mean it has to be weak. Let's get that fallacy out of the way first and foremost.[/quote']

 

I would never suggest they are exclusive, but every set of rules is aimed at a slightly different crowd. And in my experience, every player has a preferred sweet spot they like to be. Gamists tend to love systems like Hero more. Low fantasy simulationists often love Harn. There are rules light systems that stress storytelling. I like Hero because it allows almost anything to be built, but have zero interest in trying to figure out the most efficient way of doing so. When I create a character I rarely put down any points - I have literally no idea how much some of them would cost. I don't think I've tried to balance points on a character sheet in 20 years. It is not until they are used in combat that I bother with the points, as that is not the point of the character.

 

I would never want to limit my PCs that heavily. I'm a big fan of extending as much freedom to my players as possible; if they want to play an offbeat character' date=' that should be inspiring to a GM, not troublesome. I like diversity and individuality in PCs.[/quote']

 

But you still have limits, right? If it is a fantasy campaign and I show up with a 300 point superhero, I bet I get shown the door. The only difference between us is where the limit is drawn. I like diversity and individuality as well as you, but there is a limit. No Lobo in the Marvel Family. No Spiderman in a Punisher campaign. I value the interactive storytelling part of roleplaying far more than anything else. A character has to fit the story. I've been the disruptive player, bringing in characters that did not fit because I wasn't paying attention to the other characters already being played and the style of play the GM preferred. I didn't have fun, and neither did they. I've learned from my mistakes. A player can be a diverse and offbeat as they want. But if they don't want to play something that fits in the campaign world, they should be asking for a new campaign, not trying to force a bad fit onto the rest of the group.

[Lucius]

Re: My Elves Are Different!

 

I really can't see why you would not want this. Why would a player not stay within the guideline for a world? If we give them guidelines for points' date=' DCs, and power levels, why not for character types and background? [/quote']

 

It may not be an objection to guidelines - it may be an objection to your specific guidelines.

 

My orcs are evil. Every last one of them.

 

Some people do have a problem with the concept that an entire race of apparently "natural" (as opposed to undead or demonic etc) human-like apparently free-willed people are universally irredeemably evil.

 

The stereotype cannot be subverted.

 

Some people like subverting stereotypes. For instance, I once played in D&D a Half-Orc Fighter/Cleric who was Lawful Good and was a frustrated would be paladin. In Changeling I played a Pooka with the flaw Truthful and a strong Will.

 

Of course these characters could not, and did not, fundamentally change their world, either in terms of what Orcs, 1/2 Orcs, or Pookas, were usually like, nor in terms of the social expectations of what they would be like. Doesn't mean I didn't enjoy playing them.

 

My superhero world does not allow player characters to have strong codes vs killing or honor complexes.

 

I think for a lot of people, "honor complexes" is the whole point of playing superheroes, much more so than having flashy powers. I'd say in this case, it's you who are playing against stereotype in wanting a world set up that way. Doesn't mean I wouldn't play in it, but I can see why some people wouldn't....and I'll admit to a certain nervous curiosity about why you'd see a need to ban Code vs Killing. Will I be expected to kill on a regular basis or something?

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

This palindromedary decides to buck the stereotype by expressing affection and respect for Mr. Alexander and support for everything he says. No doubt the next palindromedary to come along will spit at him from both mouths....

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: My Elves Are Different!

 

Is this just a local thing' date=' or have any of the rest of you noticed a tendency in fantasy games for Human player characters to become an endangered species?[/quote']

 

I can't say it's a 'tendency', as I've rarely seen humans played in the 25-odd years I've been playing fantasy RPGs.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: My Elves Are Different!

 

But you still have limits' date=' right?[/quote']

 

Yes, but very few of them are hard and fast. If someone were to, say, want to play a Thri-Kreen in my Eberron game, my response would not be 'no'. It would be 'Pitch it to me'. If there's any feasible (not probable, just feasible) way to get the character into the setting, we'll try to find it and put it in. Perhaps the character is a mutation, crafted by some warped flesh-shaper wizard. Perhaps he's from another world, brought through by a portal or accidentally left behind by a Spelljamming vessel. Perhaps we simply find a way to add them into the setting. If someone wanted a superhero, hell, that's easy; supers get thrown into alternate timelines constantly; he'd just have to pull it down to a power level closer to the rest of the characters, or perhaps just get 'XP debt' and only get 1 XP when everybody else gets 3 or 4. I believe being flexible is an important part of being a GM, no matter what the system or setting.

[Lucius]

Re: My Elves Are Different!

 

I'm reminded of a Fantasy Hero game I ran long ago...

 

I had decided that Elves would be extremely rare and exotic, to the point that most educated people thought they were just legendary. In point of fact, none ever put in an appearance. I had no plans for them to, pardon the expresssion, play any role in the campaign. Their day was done, they were relics of prior ages of the world.

 

The players went along with no Elves as player characters, but more than once I was asked "Where are the Elves?" I always responded by asking for a Streetwise roll or an INT roll, and then saying "Your character is too smart to believe in fairy tale creatures like Elves." (If the roll had ever been failed, I'd have said "You don't know.") At least once, I remember a player responding to that with "Okay, but where are the Elves?"

 

I think if I'd thrown out so much as a rumor my player characters would have instantly gone on a quest to find the Elves. In retrospect, I probably should have done that.

 

There WERE Dwarves known to be around (not too many, and the characters never met one) and Goblins, but no one ever wanted to go on a quest to see them.

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

What is your Name? What is your Quest? And where is your Palindromedary?

[Old Man]

Re: My Elves Are Different!

 

That's cause elven chicks are hawt. Dwarven and goblin chicks, not so much.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: My Elves Are Different!

 

That's cause elven chicks are hawt.

 

Now if only you could tell them apart from the elven guys ...

[Escafarc]

Re: My Elves Are Different!

 

Now if only you could tell them apart from the elven guys ...

 

I hate when that happens.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: My Elves Are Different!

 

I hate when that happens.

 

I can't find it now, but I saw a comic someone drew that was 'the FR gods in a bar', with Moradin and someone else at the bar talking. There are three doors visible, one marked 'Men', one marked 'Women', one marked '?'. Elven god Corellon Larethian is reaching for the third door.

 

Moradin: "It is so weird when Corellon goes to the can ..."

[Orion]

Re: My Elves Are Different!

 

It may not be an objection to guidelines - it may be an objection to your specific guidelines.

 

Yep - I thought of that about a half hour after I posted. I know of a couple people that delight in turning stereotypes on their head. Their orcs would be misunderstood, but good, and elves would be vicious forest cannibals.

 

Some people do have a problem with the concept that an entire race of apparently "natural" (as opposed to undead or demonic etc) human-like apparently free-willed people are universally irredeemably evil.

 

I can see this point. But, in my defense, orcs are created beings in the setting (Harn) I use. I would argue they are also created and irredeemably evil in the source material (Tolkien) I use, but maybe not all read it that way.

 

I think for a lot of people' date=' "honor complexes" is the whole[i'] point[/i] of playing superheroes, much more so than having flashy powers. I'd say in this case, it's you who are playing against stereotype in wanting a world set up that way. Doesn't mean I wouldn't play in it, but I can see why some people wouldn't....and I'll admit to a certain nervous curiosity about why you'd see a need to ban Code vs Killing. Will I be expected to kill on a regular basis or something?

 

I think I could play an honor complex in a superhero game....if I had to. It's always seemed one of the silliest and least fun things about the genre, and I admit to not being able to see why you'd want to. To me, playing a superhero is about being more than human, and bringing in the bad guys. Playing an honor complex is just one of many personality quirks that can be chosen, but it certainly isn't the most important. But I have seen exactly 1 honor code character in my gaming career, and even his player thought the honor code was silly. Started as a loaner character from the GM as I remember. I have no doubt many people love honor complexes and play because of them, but I've personally never met a player like that.

 

I don't have a problem with CvK characters in other campaigns, just my current one, and for the simple idea that powers are bestowed upon individuals by universal powers. They are chosen to be the soldiers in the fight against chaos and crime. This is the key - they were chosen, and not always by the squeakly clean powers, either. You don't chose pacificists to be soldiers and cops, and this is what my campaign is about. My campaign is much closer to Dark Champions than straight comic book (though why this makes CvK more palatable to so many, I don't know), and so killing is expected to happen, although that is not the point of the sessions, and not required. Demons get stakes through the heart. Sentient robots get blown up. Alien invaders and Viper agents get shot. Death happens. If they cannot do this, they simply wouldn't get recruited, and someone who could, would be.

 

gah...will add more later...carpool and all that...

 

Okay - edited the above, and will add more now.

 

While I don't buy the idea that most people play superheroes because they want CvK or honor codes, I would agree most want to be heroes. However, what defines a hero is very different between people, and I have no doubt my definition is not agreeable to all. I'll try to start a new thread on this topic some time soon, but for now, I'll just say CvK and being a hero are separate issues that often have no overlap to me.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: My Elves Are Different!

 

We're tangenting, but we do that. My personal view is that any sapient creature can choose its own moral/ethical path, even if it was 'created' to serve a particular purpose. It may be a one in a billion occurance, but even a demon or devil can turn away from the path of evil. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is 'always Chaotic Evil' or 'always Lawful Good' or always anything. I suppose a running theme in my games would be things like personal choice, clinging to tradition is bad, and Screw Destiny.

 

As far as the CvK issue you mention ... having a 20 point CvK doesn't make you a pacifist. having 'Pacifist' as a Psych Lim makes you a pacifist. Having a 20pt CvK means you won't kill, and will do your damnedest not to harm, but you still bring in the bad guys just fine, you just do it nonlethally. And were I a universal power for law, order, and justice, I would most certainly recruit people with Psych Lims like 'Will Not Murder' or 'Honorable' or the like ... otherwise, they're not really that good of a batch of good guys. You don't choose pacifists, no, but neither do you choose people of questionable moral fiber; power corrupts, and all that.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: My Elves Are Different!

 

I

I think for a lot of people' date=' "honor complexes" is the whole[i'] point[/i] of playing superheroes, much more so than having flashy powers. I'd say in this case, it's you who are playing against stereotype in wanting a world set up that way. Doesn't mean I wouldn't play in it, but I can see why some people wouldn't....and I'll admit to a certain nervous curiosity about why you'd see a need to ban Code vs Killing. Will I be expected to kill on a regular basis or something?

 

I think I could play an honor complex in a superhero game....if I had to. It's always seemed one of the silliest and least fun thing about the genre, and I admit to not being able to see why you'd want to. To me, playing a superhero is about being more than human, and bringing in the bad guys. Playing an honor complex is just one of many personality quirks that can be chosen, but it certainly isn't the most important.

 

 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean. What do you mean by "honor complexes". Do you mena an honor code? Do you meant something really inflexible and not useable in a commando style game? I would think a superhero with some code of honor would be way to iron age for me. I have areal trouble playing a character with some code of honor myself.

[Lucius]

Re: My Elves Are Different!

 

My personal view is that any sapient creature can choose its own moral/ethical path' date=' even if it was 'created' to serve a particular purpose. [/quote']

 

To take a mythological example, presumably angels are created to be good....

 

 

Yet Satan Fell.

 

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary decides to try following all paths simultaneously

[Old Man]

Re: My Elves Are Different!

 

Not only are there more alternatives to playing a Human than I can keep track of, "Human" seems to be a downright unpopular choice - to the point I've felt like I get funny looks for playing one.

 

 

Is this just a local thing, or have any of the rest of you noticed a tendency in fantasy games for Human player characters to become an endangered species?

 

I admit I haven't been playing as much as I'd like the past few years, but I've pretty much gone to playing humans only. I find that it's more fun to distinguish my character through roleplaying than by coming up with an off-the-wall quasihuman. If I run a veteran warrior who's really conflicted about his place in the world, it's just easier for me if he's an ordinary man as opposed to a clean-shaven dwarf or the only moral Orc in the entire setting. It's just too easy for the character's identity to get lost in what he is as opposed to who he is. Does that make sense?

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: My Elves Are Different!

 

To take a mythological example, presumably angels are created to be good....

 

 

Yet Satan Fell.

 

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary decides to try following all paths simultaneously

 

That would be an example in the other direction, yes.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: My Elves Are Different!

 

I admit I haven't been playing as much as I'd like the past few years' date=' but I've pretty much gone to playing humans only. I find that it's more fun to distinguish my character through roleplaying than by coming up with an off-the-wall quasihuman. If I run a veteran warrior who's really conflicted about his place in the world, it's just easier for me if he's an ordinary man as opposed to a clean-shaven dwarf or the only moral Orc in the entire setting. It's just too easy for the character's identity to get lost in what he is as opposed to who he is. Does that make sense?[/quote']

 

I suppose. I don't particularly see why you couldn't do both, even if not to the particular extreme of 'clean shaven dwarf'. In this case, a good subversion of the dwarven stereotype would be to not have a perpetual mad-on for orcs, goblins and giants (or whatever critters the dwarves have grudge-matches with), perhaps even wondering if maybe the dwarves aren't to blame for the problems in the first place and the orcs (etc) have a valid grievance.

 

Anyway, here's a personal example of a character I played in a D&D to subvert stereotypes ... a Shifter Druid. As his backstory, during childhood, he would constantly question why his tribe did things, many of which seemed utterly pointless. He would always find the response of 'It is the way of our people' or 'It's tradition' to be a hollow non-answer. When the time came for his coming-of-age ceremony, he realized that it didn't matter what the tribal elders said he needed to do 'to become a man'; to become one in his own eyes, he had to find his own path. The night before, he packed up his portable belongings and left the village for a city. He lived there for several years, getting an education. While there, he learned of the Far Realm(C'thulhu-esque aberrant monsters) and decided they were the ultimate threat to the world, and began to look for ways to defeat them. Since the Far Realm monsters distort reality where they appear, he reasoned that they were the antithesis of nature; as such, he took to learning to command nature to use its power against them.

 

Note the use of the word 'command'; he doesn't commune with nature or spirits, or worship or revere primal forces; his patron diety of choice is Erathis, goddess of cities and civilization. He tells Natural Forces to sit down, shut up, and do what he says.

 

He would later attempt to return to the village to try to bring them into modern (or as modern as it gets) times. He was predictably rebuffed, and left again, pitying them and considering them as good as dead in their stagnation.

 

Now, something tells me that's not a typical druidic, or shifter, outlook, but I can't imagine anybody considering the character 'invalid' for such.

[Old Man]

Re: My Elves Are Different!

 

I suppose. I don't particularly see why you couldn't do both' date=' even if not to the particular extreme of 'clean shaven dwarf'. In this case, a good subversion of the dwarven stereotype would be to not have a perpetual mad-on for orcs, goblins and giants (or whatever critters the dwarves have grudge-matches with), perhaps even wondering if maybe the dwarves aren't to blame for the problems in the first place and the orcs (etc) have a valid grievance.[/quote']

 

Of course I could do it, I just prefer not to. I'm not so good at RPing that my conflicted dwarf would be known for his conflictedness and not for the fact that he was a dwarf. I don't get a kick out of subverting stereotypes* so much as just playing a character with depth. My last few fantasy characters were:

 

- A human necromancer whose fear of death ironically drove him so far down a path of forbidden magic that he now has to risk his life in order to save his soul.

 

- A young human thief who knows stealing is wrong, but whose circumstances have made him so good at it that powerful interests force him to keep at it.

 

- A jaded veteran human knight-turned-mercenary who fervently believes honor is for fools, yet regrets a lifetime of self-interest at the expense of others.

 

Any of these could have been nonhuman and still worked, but in my opinion, the nonhumanness would have distracted from what I view as the central concept of the characters.

[Orion]

Re: My Elves Are Different!

 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean. What do you mean by "honor complexes". Do you mena an honor code? Do you meant something really inflexible and not useable in a commando style game? I would think a superhero with some code of honor would be way to iron age for me. I have areal trouble playing a character with some code of honor myself.

 

To, me, the standard honor complex is that of the stereotypical martial artist. Always wants to fight matches in the open that no one else can interfere in. His honor is more important than law or justice. It may have a code vs killing, but often does not. It always makes things more difficult, which is often part of the fun. It is a personal set of rules that must be followed, no matter what. It does not have to be understood or even followed by teammates, although many with a personal code will try to force it on associates. It would not surprise me at all to find others in this discussions mean something very different.

[Enforcer84]

Re: My Elves Are Different!

 

I really can't see why you would not want this. Why would a player not stay within the guideline for a world? If we give them guidelines for points, DCs, and power levels, why not for character types and background? If the group decision is to run a Marvel Family campaign, and someone shows up with the Punisher or Lobo, I think it would be a Good Thing to require them to make another character.

 

In my view, before any new campaign starts, an entire session or more must be spent discussing the possible campaign flavors. Genre is the easy decision, but after that it gets hard. The level of silliness, how much romance, how much killing, is death permanent, power levels of heroes vs average villains, etc. Once everyone has decided on the type of world, campaign, and story they want, then it's on to developing characters for that combination.

 

I've been a part of campaigns as player and GM where the entire planning process was "bring a new character next week, 250 points". Every time, the characters didn't gel as a group, and the campaign fell apart very quickly. By random luck two would fit the GM's ideas perfectly, another would sort of fit, and the last would require all motivations and characterizations to be ignored to have a chance of fitting it. I won't even begin to create a character these days unless I have a good understanding of the campaign world - it just seems pointless. I can't create a character just to play with the rules any more. As a GM, the fun for me is in having detailed worlds, and playing true to that world. When using Harn, there is one set of expectations. When using Forgotten Realms, there is another. Drizzt is encouraged in one, forbidden in the other. I can't see how this is a bad thing.

 

Sorry, I'm sure your guidelines are great and all but I have no interest in the two examples you gave.

[Enforcer84]

Re: My Elves Are Different!

 

Y'know, there's something I've noticed in my gaming lately and I wanted to know if anyone else was seeing it -

 

Human player characters are becoming downright rare.

 

 

Not only are there more alternatives to playing a Human than I can keep track of, "Human" seems to be a downright unpopular choice - to the point I've felt like I get funny looks for playing one.

 

 

Is this just a local thing, or have any of the rest of you noticed a tendency in fantasy games for Human player characters to become an endangered species?

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary isn't really Human, but plays one in a role playing game

 

Not an issue for us. We have plenty of humans. There was a time when humans were unspecial in any regard. But most of the games I've been in humans are well represented. But there is still the fun of playing an alien. When you play Sci Fi don't people want to play aliens?

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: My Elves Are Different!

 

I think Enforcer hits something there. Humans, have, traditionally, been the 'generic' race, with no particular upside or downside, no real strengths or weaknesses, and no stereotypical personality traits*. This makes them unappealing for a lot of gamers because, well, they dont do anything. No special abilities of any sort, and they're something you can see when you look out your window at the real world, which makes them 'not fantastic' (fantastic meaning 'pertaining to fantasy'). I would be more likely to run a game with no humans than no nonhumans, myself, and I doubt my players would bat an eyelash.

 

As one of them likes to put it, "If I wanted to be a human, I'd go outside."

 

*Outside of the occasional Humans Are Bastards.

[Orion]

Re: My Elves Are Different!

 

As I am much more likely to do low fantasy, or even historical fiction, it would be rare to have anything but humans. The non-humans are there to bring out the little bits of magic and wonder in the world. The people I've played with wouldn't mind, but they also wouldn't mind having a world with lots of non-humans, and having few or no humans in the party.

 

CrosshairCollie is right about the humans being generic, and that seems to have been the key reason they were not chosen by myself and the people I've played with in the past. Being non-human gave bonuses, and at least in the games I've played, never had a downside. If they had been more balanced, a lot more humans would have been played. It was also an easy way to declare differences among characters in groups that were light on roleplaying and characterization. The dwarf was assumed to action like a normal dwarf, the elf like an elf, etc. In one group in particular, the race/class archetype chosen could have been used as the character name, for all the effort that was put into characterization, group interaction, etc.