PDA

View Full Version : [Fantasy] How do you like your clichés?



Kiero
2007-07-16, 09:43 AM
NB: This isn't a system or mechanics thread, but one about settings and genre conventions.

Fantasy is a pretty broad brush when it comes to genre, it incorporates a hell of a lot under it's banner. Invariably playing in a fantasy setting involves some consideration of what familiar elements you use, and which you reject. Thus the question of clichés.

There's multiple parts to this mini-survey. First question, what clichés do you like, and which do you dislike? Second, which do you consider necessary, and which unnecessary to evoke a fantasy feel? I'm particularly interested in those people might dislike, yet consider necessary anyway, the interaction between the two questions.

Examples of clichés so we're on the same page: dragons hoard gold in caves, callow youths with great destinies become great heroes, wizards live in remote towers away from all civilisation, "a wizard did it" - magic as justification for bizarre elements of setting.

Go.

Tengu
2007-07-16, 09:50 AM
I like those (http://project-apollo.net/text/rpg.html).

Saph
2007-07-16, 10:20 AM
I like those (http://project-apollo.net/text/rpg.html).

I contributed to that list. ;)

I find fantasy games work best when the players and DM don't particularly care about clichés one way or the other - they don't try to break them, and they don't try to follow them.

Trying to avoid clichés is generally a bad idea. Everyone has a different idea of what counts as a cliché (and which clichés are bad), so going out of your way to avoid clichés usually doesn't impress anyone except the person who's doing it. You're better off spending your time on other things, like developing your characters or coming up with a more detailed story.

- Saph

nerulean
2007-07-16, 10:23 AM
I fiercely dislike Mary-Sue, the young, butt-kicking female prodigy whose parents/loved ones/kitty-cat were brutally slaughtered when she was young and now she's out for revenge/to prove herself/trying to find the mystical artefact that'll make it all better. She's got a horrendously traumatic past which, despite her loner-ific ways, she ends up sharing with everyone she meets, and she's somehow, inexplicably, universally loved. She has odd-coloured hair or mood-ring eyes or some other highly cool distinguishing physical feature, and is generally the player's wish fulfilment. Weak-willed DMs often give their pleading players rule adjustments that make them horrendously overpowered, and they still manage to play their characters badly, whining when they fail to single-handedly oneshot the bad guy. Sadly, Mary-Sue is an all-pervading facet of fantasy.

Other clichés, I don't mind nearly so much. The big, dumb, sweet fighter, the aloof wizard, the kleptomaniac rogue: all of them spell tradition more than lack of imagination to me, and I've seen all of them played with nuance and ingenuity.

Morty
2007-07-16, 10:27 AM
Well, the cliches I dislike the most are: members of non-human races being all the same and magic solving everything(saying "it's magical" apparently solves everything).
Heh, I designed entire parts of my homebrewed setting to avoid most common cliches. Including races being cannon fodder, magic being deus ex machina, etc.

Kiero
2007-07-16, 10:32 AM
I fiercely dislike Mary-Sue, the young, butt-kicking female prodigy whose parents/loved ones/kitty-cat were brutally slaughtered when she was young and now she's out for revenge/to prove herself/trying to find the mystical artefact that'll make it all better. She's got a horrendously traumatic past which, despite her loner-ific ways, she ends up sharing with everyone she meets, and she's somehow, inexplicably, universally loved. She has odd-coloured hair or mood-ring eyes or some other highly cool distinguishing physical feature, and is generally the player's wish fulfilment. Weak-willed DMs often give their pleading players rule adjustments that make them horrendously overpowered, and they still manage to play their characters badly, whining when they fail to single-handedly oneshot the bad guy. Sadly, Mary-Sue is an all-pervading facet of fantasy.

That seems a particular strain of the Mary Sue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_sue) phenomenon, rather than the meme in it's entirety.

Stareyes
2007-07-16, 10:33 AM
I like it when there's at least some verisimilitude* in my settings, which usually means at least some attempt to flesh out clichés used -- if dragons horde treasure, why do they do that? I'm not for or against clichés, but I will say that mindless following of them and mindless breaking of them annoys me.

* Not necessarily realism. Let's keep the catgirls alive.

I am none too found of 'a wizard did it', unless it's got a bit more of a story -- for example, an owlbear as an attempt by Steve the Slightly Off to create an aerial army to defend against his neighbor, Jane, Friend of Griffins. Unfortunately, Bob got disemboweled before he worked out the kinks of getting them airborne, but after he made them fertile.

I do keep in mind that the PCs might never learn the fact, but I like knowing it. If nothing else because it might give me a story idea as GM.

I also have a pretty broad definition of fantasy -- A Song of Ice and Fire is fantasy, even without the references to magic in the first book. The alternate history/geography and the feeling of the unknown (since a lot of the stuff might be true or might not in the first book) makes it feel like fantasy. On the other hand, the Dresden Files are set in modern Chicago, but with magic and a typical cast of legendary creatures, so they feel like fantasy as well. So, I'd say fantasy for me is anything that feels otherworldly -- something that couldn't happen on Earth as We Know It, either past or future.

Attilargh
2007-07-16, 10:48 AM
Well, here's a few. Not sure if this is what you wanted, but...


Magical Meddling

The "wizard did it" justification is entirely justifiable in my eyes. After all, if there are magicians of any sort in the world, they will affect it in some way, and not all wizards are completely sane. Just look at the owlbears, made by the ones who live by the Coast!

The wizard's "big brother", the Gigantic Magical Catastrophe is also a goodie, although it's a bit worn by now. Nonetheless, it has its uses (the introduction of truly fantastic - or bizarre - places, beings and incidents). If the backstory is good enough, I will have no problem.

Farmboy With A Destiny is something I just loathe, mainly thanks to David Eddings. Meeting one might be a nice twist in a campaign though, especially if the characters eventually manage to foil him.


"But before I kill you, mr. Bond..."

Ah yes, the Evil Overlord (http://www.sff.net/paradise/overlord.html#bad_lead). Where to start?

Well, smart villains can be a pain in the behind. Your typical Overlord has lots of resources, and if you combine those with half a brain, the heroes are in deep... Muck. Furthermore, Bond-esque villains have that certain nice adventure feel. However, that must not be taken into the Austin Powers territory, for obvious reasons.

Unescapable dungeons might be the smart thing to do in-character. However, when the characters are locked in and can't get out, eventually getting out just to continue might really stretch the suspension of disbelief. Also, having an easily-executed execution plan for occasions when heroes get captured might really kill the fun for the players.

Don't have the villains monologue. That's just inviting movie references, mockery and thrown popcorn. If you really feel a need to hand out exposition, slip in some classified documents or something.


Racial Discrimination

Dragons hoarding gold is just a classic. It's like elves and orcs not getting along, or bearded dwarves. All it really needs is a good explanation, because things without good explanation are dumb.

"Elven craftsmanship" does not make any sense. Why is it always so much superior if there's been some pointy-eared spaghetti-arm banging at the sword instead of a human? A first-level NPC is still just a first-level NPC, with a first-level NPC's skill modifiers.

Why does each and every elf have the physique of a malnutritioned super model? What's the deal with all those "beautiful and ethereal beings"? They don't even have a Charisma bonus!

I personally prefer my dwarves aboveground, although still in sturdy little cottages up in the mountains. That might be partially the reason why I don't get their racial bonuses for Crafting stone and metal. Why in the heavens are there so many more smiths and stonemasons than carpenters and weavers? What's up with that? (Yeah, yeah, it's a classic. I've never bothered to read the Races of books, either.)

Halflings should, on average, lack a lot more hands. How come there is no mention of halflings getting driven out of a city or hanging them in droves for thievery? How come such a stealing-obsessed culture is warmly welcomed?

Half-elves seem to be constantly moping around for not belonging anywhere, while they seem to get along fine with everyone. With the amount of Tanthalas-inspired half-every, one'd think there'd be a half-elven community every five miles or so.


Legions of [Region]

Just who maintains the roads, anyway? Fharlanghn? ("Bless you!")

Okay, you're fierce as the lion and like red. I get it. But don't you think it'd be good for business to be easily recognizable from all other Colored Animal companies?

The Frozen North isn't quite frozen throughout the year. We've got a few months of summer, too. (Granted, ours is a bit warmer because of the Gulf Stream, but anyway.) It's a pretty image, but really now.

nerulean
2007-07-16, 10:53 AM
That seems a particular strain of the Mary Sue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_sue) phenomenon, rather than the meme in it's entirety.

Indeed. It's the one I've encountered most frequently in statted RPGs. Once you get onto freeform RP or even that environment that most encourages them, the fanfic, then you start to see some of the equally brain-putrefying variants.

Kiero
2007-07-16, 10:57 AM
Well, here's a few. Not sure if this is what you wanted, but...

Which ones do you like?

Which do you find kind of necessary even when you don't like them?

Pronounceable
2007-07-16, 11:05 AM
1) Dragon hoarding gold: I have no problem with something hoarding gold. It's almost necessary in a fantasy setting. My beef is with dragons, specifically DnD portrayal of dragons.

2) Dragon itself: There are 1,589,753 different kinds of dragons ranging from the classic red to the effingly stupid topaz. I mean, TOPAZ? WHAT THE FACK WERE YOU SMOKING? And no, amethyst or shadow aren't any better either.

3) Destiny, Fate and the Effing Wheel of Ages (or whatever): The destiny concept itself is abhorrant to me. This one is a personal vendetta.

4) Wizard lives in the tower: This one is good. I like it. Climbing a tower while fighting enemies and passing traps is a staple of fantasy. Climbing up a tower gives one a strange, unexplicable feeling of achievement. It does to me, at least.

5) A wizard did it: More likely the DM (or author) did it, and now he's trying to cover his tracks with lame excuses. But this one is useful. I'm strongly against this, but it's necessary for DM/author who can't really think of everything. Therefore, it's tolerable.

6) The four elements: This concept is no more. It has ceased to be. It's expired and gone to meet Aristotle. This is a late concept! It's a stiff! Bereft of imagination, it exists in spinal cord! If it hadn't been used in virtually every fantasy many people would be working up their gray cells! Its literary uses are of interest only to historians! It's hopped the twig! It's shuffled off its originality! It's run down its course and joined the Titanic! This is an EX-CONCEPT!
(I relish the oppurtunity to adopt this monologue.)

7) Hordes of Evil: A veritable ocean of darkness covering the land from horizon to horizon approaches. It is made up of (seemingly) tiny shapes made from the stuff of nightmares. They're the ORCS! Or the UNDEAD! Or the DEMONS! Or whatever. This one is also very tired, but it does have a charm of its own I must admit. But it must be used sparingly, lest it share the fate of the four elements.

8) The Good, The Bad and the Ugly: The murderous and evil and vile and heinous and insidious and sadistic and cruel and communist dark ewoks are coming! Run for your lives! Wait! How do we know they aren't just cuddly, fuzzy little bastards like vanilla ewoks? Duh, they have BLACK FUR! HEY! What are those things tagging along with them? OH NO! They're the ugly and wicked and scaled and horned and fanged and green skinned and warted and hairy and scabby boogiemen! AAAHH!
FEAR NOT, hapless peasants! We, the beautiful and handsome and blonde and blue eyed and fair skinned and slender and courageous and honorable and gentle and heroic and selfless and humble and magical and powerful and wise and divinely touched and ancient Sugar Elves, are here to save you from this menace! We even brought along our short and plump and jovial and humorous and comical and big nosed and cute sidekicks the Percentagelings to cheer you up!
(Man, do I like rambling, or do I like rambling?)


I'll be back if other cliches pop into my mind.

Attilargh
2007-07-16, 11:27 AM
Which ones do you like?

Which do you find kind of necessary even when you don't like them?
Well, I like a well done Wizard Did It (that goes beyond simple hand-waving), as I like a good Movie Villain. Unescapable dungeons and well-maintained roads between Nowhere and Somewhere are a bit daft, but including them is just courteous to people who haven't specifically requested otherwise. I think it wouldn't be very fun to endure a trek across crappy roads just to get locked up into a dungeon which you can't escape and then get your head chopped off very efficiently.

And I really like the Horde of EVIL image, especially with undead. (I've never seen any Evil Dead, oddly enough.)

Morty
2007-07-16, 11:57 AM
Racial Discrimination

Dragons hoarding gold is just a classic. It's like elves and orcs not getting along, or bearded dwarves. All it really needs is a good explanation, because things without good explanation are dumb.

"Elven craftsmanship" does not make any sense. Why is it always so much superior if there's been some pointy-eared spaghetti-arm banging at the sword instead of a human? A first-level NPC is still just a first-level NPC, with a first-level NPC's skill modifiers.

Why does each and every elf have the physique of a malnutritioned super model? What's the deal with all those "beautiful and ethereal beings"? They don't even have a Charisma bonus!

I personally prefer my dwarves aboveground, although still in sturdy little cottages up in the mountains. That might be partially the reason why I don't get their racial bonuses for Crafting stone and metal. Why in the heavens are there so many more smiths and stonemasons than carpenters and weavers? What's up with that? (Yeah, yeah, it's a classic. I've never bothered to read the Races of books, either.)

Halflings should, on average, lack a lot more hands. How come there is no mention of halflings getting driven out of a city or hanging them in droves for thievery? How come such a stealing-obsessed culture is warmly welcomed?

Half-elves seem to be constantly moping around for not belonging anywhere, while they seem to get along fine with everyone. With the amount of Tanthalas-inspired half-every, one'd think there'd be a half-elven community every five miles or so.

I'd personally add deisgining races who serve no other purpose than to be slaughtered by the heroes. I don't know why, but it really turns me away. I don't know, but after thousand of years of being killed by adventurers, these goblins or orcs or whatever could think that maybe raiding human villages isn't good idea after all. Not to mention such races show laziness of world creator who can now use them as easy justifable enemies for weak heroes.
As for A Wizard Did It: if my DM ever use that, I'll just ask him to show me the stats for spells used to create this particular effect, item or place. Saying "it's created by magic" without any futher explanation is just lazy.

Saph
2007-07-16, 12:04 PM
As for A Wizard Did It: if my DM ever use that, I'll just ask him to show me the stats for spells used to create this particular effect, item or place.

As a DM, my response to that question is always "Who are you asking?" :P

- Saph

bugsysservant
2007-07-16, 12:34 PM
I have no problem with "a wizard did it" if its taken to its logical conclusion. Which it never is. Why are wizards only ever able to engineer pissed off variations on already powerful animals? And why? Where are the wizards who decide, after creating owlbears, that humanity needs to surpass itself, and begin a campaign of altering all humans to lose their individuality, creating a perfect race of obedient slaves for their wizard overlords? Where are the wizards who show an ounce of forethought and create a creature that doesn't immediately turn on it's suddenly weak master?

I also see the value of some species/racial stereotypes. What would an epic level party of adventurers think upon finding out that the red wyrm they just killed had a soft spot in his heart for orphans, and had donated all of his treasure to charity.

Likewise I can see the psychological value of the "farm boy grows up to defeat ultimate evil". The subconscious mentality of many fantasy readers is "I could do all that, if the opportunity arose", aiding in the escapism. What I hate is the prevalence of the cliche. It has gotten to the point that any competent leader would wipe out all agrarian regions merely to ensure his power. The only redeeming aspect of this would be the Wheel of Time books, but I'm not going there.

But what I really hate is the recent emergence of of emo fantasy which is set in the modern world. Despite having incredible powers, and having been around for centuries/millenia, the magic has gone undetected for some inexplicable reason. The most common of these, and the least severe offender would be Harry Potter, but the number of books that have sprung up in its wake boggle the mind. The worst is when they give a psuedo-scientific explanation which ignores any actual knowlege of biology/physics/evolution (Twilight this means you).

skywalker
2007-07-16, 12:36 PM
I cannot stand the "kleptomaniac rogue." Every rogue I've ever been in a group with has done this. Usually, they aren't pocketing anything of serious value, but the fact that every single rogue always tries to pocket little items of value seems to imply that eventually, experienced adventuring parties would constantly keep a wary eye on the rogue, you know?

Oh, and chaotic neutral. Not so much a stereotype but a "get away with anything free" card, which is often times used by the aforementioned klepto-rogue to justify any action he or she takes.

I dislike the stereotype of halflings as gypsys that WotC have created. The fact that it's an entire race like that, just rubs me the wrong way.

Other than that, the racial stereotypes partially make the fantasy, for me. An elven-smithed weapon is higher quality because of thousands of years of lore that has been passed down about crafting it. Same with the dwarves. Naturally, creatures with longer lifespans would make better stuff.

The fact that elves are waif-thin is not due to high average CHA scores, but to low average CON scores. Which translates to thinness, which translates, in most modern societies, to attractiveness. Of course the short, stocky female dwarf isn't going to be seen as attractive compared to that, in our society.

Attilargh
2007-07-16, 01:07 PM
Where are the wizards who decide, after creating owlbears, that humanity needs to surpass itself, and begin a campaign of altering all humans to lose their individuality, creating a perfect race of obedient slaves for their wizard overlords?
In you cemetery, exhuming your corpses. :smallwink:

Knight_Of_Twilight
2007-07-16, 01:57 PM
Funny thing about the good/bad/ugly rule, I've heard relentless complaining by other male fans about the predominance of pretty boys in the genre, yet when I bring up the almost complete lack of ugly women, they just sort of mutter. Frankly, as an ugly person, I'd really like to see more of us represented, but hey, its not like its the end of the world.

I think Cliche's are both good and bad. On one hand, it helps bring familarity to the game. People have a better idea of how to play, or what to expect. On the other, used to liberally, it can suck the magic out of the setting.

I think they all have thier place, somewhere, as long as they are used in a way that is not overbearing. Also, intentionally trying to break cliche's has a similar caveat- it can be charming if its subtle, but its easy to go overboard and become more absurd then the cliche itself.

PlatinumJester
2007-07-16, 02:28 PM
I've always found it annoying when an NPC is obviously evil (Desther from NWN for example) and you can't do anythig to stop the main characters go "sure we'll help you out and let you join our team even though you'll do nothing and then betray us".

psychoticbarber
2007-07-16, 02:38 PM
Overeasy.

Seriously, though, clichés aren't necessarily bad things. The trick is, of course, when and how.

I'm DMing a campaign for people who are completely new to D&D, more or less (One exception). So I'm tossing in some of the well-worn clichés like "Starting in a Tavern", "Random party creation" and that sort of thing.

The important thing, I think, is that if you're going to do a cliché, do it well. I think our negative reply to some of these clichés is "We randomly decided to become a party in a campaign once and it was stupid! I'm never doing that again!" My tavern scene can be found here (http://cityofkayru.blogspot.com), and is, I believe, slightly more believable, giving the characters a reason to stick together, at least for now.

Clichés that I don't like include: The Big Dumb Fighter (unless well-played, of course), Chaotic Neutral Means Chaotic Stupid, Paladins Are Always Lawful Anal, Dungeons Don't Have To Make Sense: They're Just PC Fodder Anyway, and Evil Characters Have No Feelings.

Knight_Of_Twilight
2007-07-16, 02:39 PM
I've always found it annoying when an NPC is obviously evil (Desther from NWN for example) and you can't do anythig to stop the main characters go "sure we'll help you out and let you join our team even though you'll do nothing and then betray us".

Espicially when a simple "No." Would prevent the fall of an ancient kingdom, destruction of some mystical seal, or whatever other badness said villain creates with the help of your "unwitting" characters.

Morty
2007-07-16, 02:52 PM
As a DM, my response to that question is always "Who are you asking?" :P

- Saph

I'd response: my Spellcraft or Knowledge(Arcana) or Loremaster's Lore check. Or, in case of magical objects, Identify spell. Or maybe the wizard him/herself in case s/he isn't sitting in tower.

Inyssius Tor
2007-07-16, 03:16 PM
I'd response: my Spellcraft or Knowledge(Arcana) or Loremaster's Lore check. Or, in case of magical objects, Identify spell. Or maybe the wizard him/herself in case s/he isn't sitting in tower.
The nature of the spell, as far as you can deduce, was thus:

DC 5: It was designed to merge an owl... with a bear.
DC 10: It appears to fulfill its intended purpose.
DC 15: The structure of the spell leads you to believe that a wizard did it.

bugsysservant
2007-07-16, 03:37 PM
The nature of the spell, as far as you can deduce, was thus:

DC 5: It was designed to merge an owl... with a bear.
DC 10: It appears to fulfill its intended purpose.
DC 15: The structure of the spell leads you to believe that a wizard did it.

I prefer to think of the failed check. [rolls a one] "Actually, both owls and bears are descended from owlbears, they are one of the most clear examples of divergent evolution."

And you also forgot DC 20: "It was the product of long forgotten magic, practiced by a long lost people who wiped themselves out." Or is that to cliched?

Okizruin
2007-07-16, 03:40 PM
Well, the cliches I dislike the most are: members of non-human races being all the same and magic solving everything(saying "it's magical" apparently solves everything).
Heh, I designed entire parts of my homebrewed setting to avoid most common cliches. Including races being cannon fodder, magic being deus ex machina, etc.

Can you please tell the populace how you avoid those cliches?

Morty
2007-07-16, 03:50 PM
And you also forgot DC 20: "It was the product of long forgotten magic, practiced by a long lost people who wiped themselves out." Or is that to cliched?

It is perfectly logical, but it is cliched. Besides, due to scientifical nature of D&D magic, it wouldn't be to hard to reproduce such spells(and give them stats) if some powerful wizard had the creature of object created by this spell at hand.


Can you please tell the populace how you avoid those cliches?

By enforcing strict rules on what magic can and what can't do -if you can do this using spells from core or splatbooks, it's possible, otherwise it's not- and giving "green" races some other racial and cultural traits than "mean, green, likes to kill things".

bugsysservant
2007-07-16, 03:59 PM
It is perfectly logical, but it is cliched. Besides, due to scientifical nature of D&D magic, it wouldn't be to hard to reproduce such spells(and give them stats) if some powerful wizard had the creature of object created by this spell at hand.

Having all really powerful magic done by long lost civilizations is as logical as the romans having better weapons than the US military. It exists solely so that DMs can put in high level powers and items without worrying about a player recreating them. The same goes for the fact that all worlds have thousands of years of history, with static technology. Some will make an attempt to rationalize this with constant wars or other standard explanation, but others just glaze over the fact.

Morty
2007-07-16, 04:03 PM
Having all really powerful magic done by long lost civilizations is as logical as the romans having better weapons than the US military. It exists solely so that DMs can put in high level powers and items without worrying about a player recreating them. The same goes for the fact that all worlds have thousands of years of history, with static technology. Some will make an attempt to rationalize this with constant wars or other standard explanation, but others just glaze over the fact.

Magic isn't the same as military technology. Who knows, maybe these ancients were more attuned to magic than people in the time campaign takes place in? Maybe the magic itself flowed stronger? While it is cliched and unoriginal, there are numerous logical explanations.

Okizruin
2007-07-16, 04:12 PM
By enforcing strict rules on what magic can and what can't do -if you can do this using spells from core or splatbooks, it's possible, otherwise it's not- and giving "green" races some other racial and cultural traits than "mean, green, likes to kill things".

What about 'town guards'? They're considered nameless fodder to some.

Saph
2007-07-16, 04:24 PM
I'd response: my Spellcraft or Knowledge(Arcana) or Loremaster's Lore check. Or, in case of magical objects, Identify spell. Or maybe the wizard him/herself in case s/he isn't sitting in tower.

If it's powerful enough that you need to justify it with 'a wizard did it', the DC to figure out how to do it yourself is going to be somewhere between 'too high' and 'impossible'.

Most likely outcome:

DM: "Okay, roll your Spellcraft."
Player: "32."
DM: "That's pretty good. Okay, it's got elements in common with spells A, B, and C, but more powerful. Seems to use a similar design to that construct you saw two adventures back."

Then I'd tell the player a few more things about it that he could find useful. Actually figuring out the casting details of the epic spell used to make it, though, would be outside the bounds of a casual check. He could do it with some research and work, though, in which time I'd work out a more detailed answer.

See, 'a wizard did it' doesn't have to spoil the game.

- Saph

bugsysservant
2007-07-16, 04:32 PM
Magic isn't the same as military technology. Who knows, maybe these ancients were more attuned to magic than people in the time campaign takes place in? Maybe the magic itself flowed stronger? While it is cliched and unoriginal, there are numerous logical explanations.

You said it yourself, magic in d&d is Scientific, and science advances. In most campaigns, were magic is just a feature of reality, much like gravity, there is no reason or modus operandi for a change in its capabilities. And why is it always a decline? I have never seen a campaign where, for several millenia, magic has been on the up and up, where the ancient elves were impressed by prestidigitation, and where artifacts are becoming more and more common as they get easier to make. The fact is that most DMs attempt to give their world an epic backstory, ignoring the logical consequences, and justifying it with the cliche of long dead civilizations.

Morty
2007-07-16, 04:35 PM
What about 'town guards'? They're considered nameless fodder to some.

Which is another cliche I tend to avoid. It's kinda strange noone mentioned it before...


If it's powerful enough that you need to justify it with 'a wizard did it', the DC to figure out how to do it yourself is going to be somewhere between 'too high' and 'impossible'.

Most likely outcome:

DM: "Okay, roll your Spellcraft."
Player: "32."
DM: "That's pretty good. Okay, it's got elements in common with spells A, B, and C, but more powerful. Seems to use a similar design to that construct you saw two adventures back."

Then I'd tell the player a few more things about it that he could find useful. Actually figuring out the casting details of the epic spell used to make it, though, would be outside the bounds of a casual check. He could do it with some research and work, though, in which time I'd work out a more detailed answer.

See, 'a wizard did it' doesn't have to spoil the game.


But now it's no longer "a wizard did it". It's just magic too powerful to be recognized by common mage. "A wizard did it" as I meant it is "it's magical" without any futher explanation.


You said it yourself, magic in d&d is Scientific, and science advances. In most campaigns, were magic is just a feature of reality, much like gravity, there is no reason or modus operandi for a change in its capabilities.

It is scientific, but it's not entirely like science. In this case, it doesn't have to work like that. As I said before, maybe in these ancient times magic flowed stronge through the world? There are numerous possible explanations.


I have never seen a campaign where, for several millenia, magic has been on the up and up, where the ancient elves were impressed by prestidigitation, and where artifacts are becoming more and more common as they get easier to make.

Hmm... Eberron? It's the example of worst possible use of magic in setting, but from what I recall, magic has been "up and up" through the millenia.


The fact is that most DMs attempt to give their world an epic backstory, ignoring the logical consequences, and justifying it with the cliche of long dead civilizations.

That's true.

bugsysservant
2007-07-16, 04:52 PM
Hmm... Eberron? It's the example of worst possible use of magic in setting, but from what I recall, magic has been "up and up" through the millenia.

Huh. I am fully unfamiliar with Eberron (based on what I have heard, its mostly willful), and have only very little experience with FR, which does a decent job at best at handling the history of magic. Most of my experience is drawn from homebrewed worlds, and what I said tends to hold true.

psychoticbarber
2007-07-16, 05:21 PM
Having all really powerful magic done by long lost civilizations is as logical as the romans having better weapons than the US military. It exists solely so that DMs can put in high level powers and items without worrying about a player recreating them. The same goes for the fact that all worlds have thousands of years of history, with static technology. Some will make an attempt to rationalize this with constant wars or other standard explanation, but others just glaze over the fact.

This is kind of a logical fallacy. If you look at the Dark Ages, a whole lot of culture and knowledge was lost that wasn't regained until the Renaissance.

According to Wikipedia, Odoacer knocked off the Roman Emperor in the West in 476. The "Dark Ages" themselves lasted approximately 400 years, and the Renaissance didn't happen for another 500 years, beginning in the 1300s (at the earliest.)

That's about 900 years of "less knowledge and culture" (Magical Knowledge?) than their predecessors. If Elves were real, the oldest of them born in the heart of the middle ages may have lived to see the earliest days of the renaissance. Maybe not, and I'm being rather generous about the beginning of the Renaissance.

There's nothing to say that a magical catastrophe couldn't set a medieval society back further than the fall of the Roman Empire for a much longer time than the Middle Ages. Depending on the catastrophe, it's a very possible thing.

Edited a couple typoes.

Tengu
2007-07-16, 05:24 PM
6) The four elements: This concept is no more. It has ceased to be. It's expired and gone to meet Aristotle. This is a late concept! It's a stiff! Bereft of imagination, it exists in spinal cord! If it hadn't been used in virtually every fantasy many people would be working up their gray cells! Its literary uses are of interest only to historians! It's hopped the twig! It's shuffled off its originality! It's run down its course and joined the Titanic! This is an EX-CONCEPT!
(I relish the oppurtunity to adopt this monologue.)


Come on, everybody knows there are actually three prime elements: fire, ice and lightning. Everything else (earth, air, water, poison, darkness, light...) are secondary elements.

psychoticbarber
2007-07-16, 05:26 PM
6) The four elements: This concept is no more. It has ceased to be. It's expired and gone to meet Aristotle. This is a late concept! It's a stiff! Bereft of imagination, it exists in spinal cord! If it hadn't been used in virtually every fantasy many people would be working up their gray cells! Its literary uses are of interest only to historians! It's hopped the twig! It's shuffled off its originality! It's run down its course and joined the Titanic! This is an EX-CONCEPT!
(I relish the oppurtunity to adopt this monologue.)


Oh don't say that! I'm building a class based on them, thank you very much. And I don't think it will suck :smallwink:.

Edit: Oops, wrong smiley conventions.

Matthew
2007-07-16, 05:37 PM
This is kind of a logical fallacy. If you look at the Dark Ages, a whole lot of culture and knowledge was lost that wasn't regained until the Renaissance.

According to Wikipedia, Odoacer knocked off the Roman Emperor in the West in 476. The "Dark Ages" themselves lasted approximately 400 years, and the Renaissance didn't happen for another 500 years, beginning in the 1300s (at the earliest.)

Ah Wikipedia. The "Dark Ages" are named not so much becuase of their lack of knowledge during that time, but because of our lack of knowledge about them. Some things got better, some things got worse. The Dark Ages are undergoing a process of redefinition.

Still, there is no reason why a catastrophe wouldn't create a 'Lost Civilisation'.

psychoticbarber
2007-07-16, 05:40 PM
Ah Wikipedia. The "Dark Ages" are named not so much becuase of their lack of knowledge during that time, but because of our lack of knowledge about them. Some things got better, some things got worse. The Dark Ages are undergoing a process of redefinition.

Still, there is no reason why a catastrophe wouldn't create a 'Lost Civilisation'.

Fair enough. The Renaissance DID bring about a rediscovery of classical knowledge, stuff that had been relegated to monasteries (the Church-y kind) or lost libraries and the like. I did simply intend to provide a historical background for people not being as advanced as those who came before them.

Note: If you're a historian and I'm mistaken (I don't think I am, but weirder things happen daily), I'm sorry to have tread on your toes.

Jayabalard
2007-07-16, 05:48 PM
Having all really powerful magic done by long lost civilizations is as logical as the romans having better weapons than the US military. It exists solely so that DMs can put in high level powers and items without worrying about a player recreating them. Firstly, the dark ages do in fact represent a loss of knowledge, from the lack of literacy and the fact that a the primary people involved in copying texts were less than willing to preserve knowledge from the heathens, the destruction of many of the ancient sources of knowledge (some from the sacking of rome, the burning of the library of alexandria, etc), and general stagnation compared to the middle/far east . D&D generally is a very western medieval setting (ie pre-renaissance) it's both logical and reasonable that the this aspect of the setting applies to magic as well as other forms of knowledge.

Secondly, a common fantasy premise is that magic and science are related, and that as science advances, magic retracts. This supports the idea that ancient magic is more powerful than the current era magic, and that wizards would actively work to stagnate the advancement of science.

Thirdly, another fantasy theme: magic as a non-renewable resource; as magic is used, something from the source of magic that is finite in supply is used up. During the lifespan of an individual this won't be noticeable, but over long periods of history you'll see a reduction in the power of magic in general.


"Elven craftsmanship" does not make any sense. Why is it always so much superior if there's been some pointy-eared spaghetti-arm banging at the sword instead of a human? A first-level NPC is still just a first-level NPC, with a first-level NPC's skill modifiers.Elven craftsmanship is so superior because they don't share their secrets. Their craftsman don't don't teach it other races. I'm not sure why that wouldn't make sense... even in real world history, there were peoples/cultures that had the "secrets" of working with or creating iron/steel/silk/whatever, and they were often reluctant to share those secrets.

Kiero
2007-07-16, 05:53 PM
This is kind of a logical fallacy. If you look at the Dark Ages, a whole lot of culture and knowledge was lost that wasn't regained until the Renaissance.

According to Wikipedia, Odoacer knocked off the Roman Emperor in the West in 476. The "Dark Ages" themselves lasted approximately 400 years, and the Renaissance didn't happen for another 500 years, beginning in the 1300s (at the earliest.)

Course only the Western Empire fell; the Eastern Empire (later Byzantium) lasted almost a millenia more, until the Turks took Constantinople. Even then it was more like a change at the top with a continuation of the fragmentation that had already been going on for a while.

Matthew
2007-07-16, 06:03 PM
Fair enough. The Renaissance DID bring about a rediscovery of classical knowledge, stuff that had been relegated to monasteries (the Church-y kind) or lost libraries and the like. I did simply intend to provide a historical background for people not being as advanced as those who came before them.

Ah, never heard of the Twelfth Century Rennaisance, then? Prior to then, you have the reigns of Charlemagne and Alfred. Pretty much whenever a powerful ruler or 'stabalisation' takes place we get an encouragement of the arts and learning.
Most 'rediscovery' of knowledge came either through Greek or Arabic translations of Greek, rather than from secret knowledge vaults in Monastic establishments (which were generally more interested in preserving religious texts than scientific or historical facts).


Note: If you're a historian and I'm mistaken (I don't think I am, but weirder things happen daily), I'm sorry to have tread on your toes.

I am just a student of history at the moment (though maybe in a month or two...). Anyway, I wouldn't worry about it. I'm just some random guy on the internet as far as you're concerned. Better to go and read some history books than take my word for it.

Turcano
2007-07-16, 06:07 PM
I absolutely despise the "druids are hippies" cliche. I'm sorry, but your first level of druid does not come with a PETA membership. Animals eat each other. Forest fires are part of the ecological cycle. Deal with it. And if that wasn't enough, the people who follow this cliche don't even do so consistently, preferring to focus exclusively on charismatic megafauna with little to no regard for anything else (monstrous spiders are animals too, you know). I also don't understand why this rubbed onto elf stereotypes as well.

I also dislike dwarves as short, bearded Scotsmen who are constantly angry and/or drunk. And why don't they ever have any sort of agriculture? I know they don't live on rock, and they can't make enough in trade to import all their food, not to mention the raw materials required for their much-vaunted booze-making.

Dark Knight Renee
2007-07-16, 06:11 PM
Dragons, for a must have and a can't stand. Including them in fantasy is almost a must, but they can be very, very hard to justify, particularly in their aspects of power and rarity or lack thereof. I've tried with D&D, and as we all know, Logic + D&D = A headache and a lot of wasted time (that, and/or sheer absurdity), plus dead catgirls. I killed many catgirls that day.
Non-D&D Dragons are almost as bad, but more flexible generally.

I don't consider the kleptomaniac Rogue a viable character option, as a player or a DM. As a player, I'd kill it or drive it off. As a DM, I'd be sorely tempted not to allow it at all. This cliché is made of suck and fail, don't do it people!

I also have a weakness for the Tolkien/D&D elven racial stereotype (not in it's most obnoxious form, just the race in general), but often try to remove them when homebrewing a setting just to get some originality going... and because my players gripe.


Otherwise, I love using clichés, usually at least a little creatively. Rescue the damsel in distress (often not a damsel) is starting to become a little tired. I only occasionally get to use the rescue the princess or the Dragon & Tower clichés, but either because they aren't all that easy to use or because they are so cliché people avoid them, I find them quite rewarding. Especially when tweaked somehow. For example, switching the princess for a prince, though I can think of plenty more creative ways to tweak that one.

bugsysservant
2007-07-16, 06:48 PM
Wow, a lot of people seem to object to calling one of the most prevalent fantasy cliches, a cliche. Well, in response to the latest (since much of what was said was redundant)


Firstly, the dark ages do in fact represent a loss of knowledge, from the lack of literacy and the fact that a the primary people involved in copying texts were less than willing to preserve knowledge from the heathens, the destruction of many of the ancient sources of knowledge (some from the sacking of rome, the burning of the library of alexandria, etc), and general stagnation compared to the middle/far east . D&D generally is a very western medieval setting (ie pre-renaissance) it's both logical and reasonable that the this aspect of the setting applies to magic as well as other forms of knowledge.

First: you said it yourself, the dark ages were a highly localized phenomenon that lasted about 500 years. Most artifacts in the stereotyped homebrew world are *thousands* of years old. Also, during the dark ages, virtually all the world was in its peek except Europe, but the Euro-centric view of the world that is taught in (American) schools makes it seem like the end of all of humanity for centuries. Magical decline in campaign settings is always universal, otherwise you get vastly underpowered characters who aren't given artifacts on their fifth birthday because *their* civilization never declined.Furthermore, the longevity of races in D&D somewhat precludes a dark age, since it is hard to lose knowlege from 500 years ago when there are species that can live to be 4,500 and remember it.



Secondly, a common fantasy premise is that magic and science are related, and that as science advances, magic retracts. This supports the idea that ancient magic is more powerful than the current era magic, and that wizards would actively work to stagnate the advancement of science.

I don't know what you're talking about here, the only parrallel I can draw would be to Sabriel, and that's a bit unorthodox, hardly a cliche. And if science and magic were opposed, where are the guns that civilizations gained when they could no longer make artifacts? Where are the airplanes the bombs, the cars, the vaccines? Rarely are science and magic working in opposition, in fact, logic dictates that one can feul the other. What most worlds in fact have are full out magical and technological regresions.


Thirdly, another fantasy theme: magic as a non-renewable resource; as magic is used, something from the source of magic that is finite in supply is used up. During the lifespan of an individual this won't be noticeable, but over long periods of history you'll see a reduction in the power of magic in general.

Again, don't know where you're coming from with this, but it still doesn't ring true. For one, just about every fantasy book I have read merely had magic as an infinite fact of nature, it wouldn't "run out" any more than gravity would. Also, if magic has a limited amount, where was it created? If it can be drastically reduced over the course of a thousand years or so, it can't be that old, or species, many of which have evolved to use magic, would have exhausted it. Or is magic really old, but had a period where magic was unbelievably powerful? And if magic can be used up, can other worlds use it? If not, what are the stars, if not other worlds for which the basic laws of reality apply? And what was powerful enough to create magic in the first place? Having magic as a finite resource is possible, but doesn't match up with logic, or any campaigns I have ever seen, and while interesting, not the likely solution for most of the magicly cliched worlds.
[/rant]

psychoticbarber
2007-07-16, 07:10 PM
First: you said it yourself, the dark ages were a highly localized phenomenon that lasted about 500 years. Most artifacts in the stereotyped homebrew world are *thousands* of years old. Also, during the dark ages, virtually all the world was in its peek except Europe, but the Euro-centric view of the world that is taught in (American) schools makes it seem like the end of all of humanity for centuries. Magical decline in campaign settings is always universal, otherwise you get vastly underpowered characters who aren't given artifacts on their fifth birthday because *their* civilization never declined.Furthermore, the longevity of races in D&D somewhat precludes a dark age, since it is hard to lose knowlege from 500 years ago when there are species that can live to be 4,500 and remember it.

I think the "Dark Age of Magic" idea is intended, as you said, to combat the "But we can get all that magical stuff now, and better, because this stuff is all old!" problem.

Magic can do things in D&D that the technology at the fall of the Roman Empire couldn't. I stand by my declaration that a magical catastrophe could have larger, further-reaching, and longer-lasting consequences than the fall of the Roman Empire did.

Does it jibe with our history? Maybe not. Is it possible in a Fantasy world? Why not?

There are solid game-design reasons for it to be there, so I think we just have to come up with our best possible explanation, grit our teeth, and bear it. Or else completely rework magic into something more powerful than it already is, but I'm not about to do that.

The Glyphstone
2007-07-16, 07:23 PM
For the Owlbear..that's easy. Epic level wizard + Epic Spellcasting (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/spells/originOfSpeciesAchaierai.htm) = Owlbear. With a DC100 Knowledge check, that is.

(The link is to Origin of Species: Achaierai, but you could easily make an identical spell with different factors called Origin of Species: Owlbear.)

Trauco
2007-07-16, 07:47 PM
Fair enough. The Renaissance DID bring about a rediscovery of classical knowledge, stuff that had been relegated to monasteries (the Church-y kind) or lost libraries and the like.

Actually those bad bad priests translated the classical knowledge during the "dark" ages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_ages). And some of the most aberrant acts of the human kind, like the several inquisitions, happened after the "dark" ages (and Spanish Inquisition, the most important one happened during renaissance).

Also universities appear 700 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Al_Karaouine) years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Magnaura) before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preslav_Literary_School) renaissance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance)

Isn't it funny that the Islamic Golden Age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age) overlaps with the "dark" ages?

The two cliches i dislike the most are Eurocentrism, and Dark Ages.

PD: But you could pull out a dark age of magic, if instead of science-magic (mechanical, measurable, the idea of progress) you got art-magic (based on the skill of individuals to shape this power, with no such thing as progress).

Inyssius Tor
2007-07-16, 09:44 PM
I don't know what you're talking about here; the only parallel I can draw would be to Sabriel, and that's a bit unorthodox, hardly a cliché.

Just off the top of my head: the Harry Potter series? The Dresden Files? Stardust? Myth Hunters?

EDIT:
Again, don't know where you're coming from with this, but it still doesn't ring true. For one, just about every fantasy book I have read merely had magic as an infinite fact of nature, it wouldn't "run out" any more than gravity would.

Just off the top of my head: the Discworld series? The Magic Goes Away series?

bugsysservant
2007-07-16, 11:13 PM
Just off the top of my head: the Harry Potter series? The Dresden Files? Stardust? Myth Hunters?

Haven't heard of the latter three, but I know that in Harry Potter magic doesn't preclude technology. Its just the superior option in almost all instances. If magic advancement prevented technological advancement, then the "muggle world" would still be living in caves.



Just off the top of my head: the Discworld series? The Magic Goes Away series?

Wait, Discworld has finite magic? As far as I know, the discworld has high energy magic fields which are replentished by the world itself. If magic could "run out", the events in Sourcery wouldn't have been possible, because the magic that sustained the original sorcerors would have diminished beyond use, save in lesser forms by feeble old men.

Neek
2007-07-17, 12:29 AM
You said it yourself, magic in d&d is Scientific, and science advances. In most campaigns, were magic is just a feature of reality, much like gravity, there is no reason or modus operandi for a change in its capabilities. And why is it always a decline? I have never seen a campaign where, for several millenia, magic has been on the up and up, where the ancient elves were impressed by prestidigitation, and where artifacts are becoming more and more common as they get easier to make. The fact is that most DMs attempt to give their world an epic backstory, ignoring the logical consequences, and justifying it with the cliche of long dead civilizations.

The Mayans who lived when the Spanish conquistadors were far less advanced than the Mayans in the 11th century. The regression of agricultural communities in North America to hunter-gatherer, to some that would imply a digression of human evolution. The art of the medieval era did not stand up against the art of the Romans, who borrowed it from the Greeks, who took pains in preserving the true beauty of the human form.

These societies changed from their former ways because of other impacts:
* The Mayans abandoned their cities and the learning it offered because of various factors, notably that the construction of their cities require a massive burning of plants to turn limestone into quicklime; that their slash and burn agriculture depleted the soil of the ground; and because of external and internal pressures, they left and reverted to hunter-gatherer life.
* Medieval era art was a regression of classical art based on cultural forces: the people were no longer concerned with the beauty of the human body, but iconography. It wasn't important to represent the physical form, but the idea. Realism need to be needed.

There are plenty of reasons why magic is on the decline. While it is an mutable and infinite source, it requires an agent to form raw magical energy (whether by nature or learning) into an end product (a spell). Create a system by which magic could be in decline:

1). The rye cultivation argument. Wizards of ancient times had a poor grasp on the forces they were working with. The energy and effort they put into practicing magic did not yield suitable results, so the practice died. It just takes some new innovation to find different routes to higher power. In such a campaign, high magic spells have not yet been researched. It takes characters a lot of time and money and XP to research new spells, but it also means they're on the up and up.
2). The Inquisition Factor. Magic is on the decline as a result of persecution. Perhaps a war with Elves ignited a totalitarian desire to destroy every Wizard in the world. Perhaps the gates of Hell opened up and droves of demons entered the world, armed with powerful casters. Henceforth from that battle, a stigma has been placed. Such a catastrophe can only also turn the entire world on its head. Empires would crumble from sheer destruction or power vacuums after Emperors are killed in battle, capital cities are crushed, &c. In such a campaign, magic users are likely to be lynched.
3). The Star Wars Effect. Or possibly a Theocratic emperor has united the world under his hand with divine magic, but seeks to destroy arcane magic as he feels it opposes the very nature of the gods; that such power could be god-given. His empire has fallen into disarray, but such thoughts have not yet left the heads of people. See #2., they also might be revered, optionally.
4). It worked in Dragonlance, didn't it? The gods took the toys away from the mortals. It's gone, all gone. Some people have a knack from their own insides, and an occasional deity may allot the power (secretly) to other people to study. This severely limits magic except to Sorcerers.

Feel free to add your own.


Firstly, the dark ages do in fact represent a loss of knowledge, from the lack of literacy and the fact that a the primary people involved in copying texts were less than willing to preserve knowledge from the heathens, the destruction of many of the ancient sources of knowledge (some from the sacking of rome, the burning of the library of alexandria, etc), and general stagnation compared to the middle/far east . D&D generally is a very western medieval setting (ie pre-renaissance) it's both logical and reasonable that the this aspect of the setting applies to magic as well as other forms of knowledge.

Uhm... the Dark Ages weren't a loss in knowledge; there was plenty, there's a lot more than just knowledge and the transmission therein. Pagan texts were kept. Shakespeare, and other playwrights of his had access to a massive amount of Roman and Greek comedies; translations of the Iliad, the Odyssey, and the original Latin Aeneid were kept. Hell, a dirty little story called "Apuleius and the Golden Ass was record," and so was Catullus highly erotic and offensive poetry.

It was a selection of knowledge that was made widespread to people; even though, the majority of knowledge that was regained in the following Renaissances were kept not by the remnants of the Western Roman Empire, but mainly in the Eastern Roman and Islamic empires (the loss of the Library of Alexandria is also a sticky situation. There's no historical basis to go on, and there's too much controversy; the argument that it was destroyed by the Muslims during the Dark Ages seems to have been born from Christian propaganda during Crusade). This isn't to say the Western Roman empire didn't have knowledge of their own; monks did copy Roman texts.

The Dark Ages were dark: The roads that connected cities no longer received upkeep and were no longer guarded. The basis of the economy was uprooted from a powerful central nation minting coins to a perverted form of slavery and sharecropping. Not just that, but the religion also changed focus. Disease rampant, warfare constant, and an emerging social system helped also make this time terrible. There was also considerable loss of communication; seeing that transmission of knowledge is very important in any empire. With languages in Europe being divergent at this point, from different Germanic tribes filtering in, from time, &c., people were isolated, geographically and linguistically. The lack of communication meant that any available knowledge was not being transmitted. Whatever information the that were being reproduced

Now, take into account this: manorialism had its basis in Roman economy. It's a system where the common farmer would exchange their freedoms for safety. They swore fealty to their lord, and gave them a percentage of their crop and few fleshy bodies so the opposing warlord has someone else other than the lord to stick swords and arrows into. Not just that, but rampant raiding also made travel difficult, and it was materially expensive to transport troops alongside travelers. As a result, the mass population died of simply working themselves to death. They destroyed their bodies working in fields; people would work for 14-16 hours a day, six days out of a seven day week. A stressed body is more susceptible to common diseases.

Religion changed to match the lives of people: Jesus suffered, so their suffering's not that bad as the afterlife's guaranteed to be good. Christ in Catholicism is a depressing figure because the times were depressing. The common depiction in the Byzantine Empire of Christ was not on a cross, because their times weren't as drab; he was reborn and looking good.

Also, viking raids. So fun.

The Dark Ages were dark not because we don't have information on them: we have plenty. They were dark because it was an intermittent time between the fall of an Empire and the rise of new ones, the lack of consistent communication between villages, cities, and nations (once nations got a foot hold and were able to get lords to swear fealty to a king, &c., they were able to bring peace and remove internal threats), a decreasing life-span, and a depressing outlook on life from the aforementioned.

Kurald Galain
2007-07-17, 05:58 AM
Some variant settings on magic...

* The Magic Goes Away (Larry Niven). Magic uses mana, a natural resource that naturally replenishes itself, at a certain rate. Using extravagantly large amounts of magic can deplete the resource faster than it replenishes, thus rendering certain areas magic-dead. This, incidentally, causes "thaumivoric" creatures like unicorns to go extinct in said areas.

* Magic's Price (Mercedes Lackey). Magic is a rare inborn talent. A mostly-immortal evil guy has been systematically killing every person with said talent at a young age, thus ensuring that no mages will grow up to oppose his power. The Last Herald Mage counters with a mighty conjuration that makes it practically impossible to use, or even think about, magic within the domain of his country. The result is a country that doesn't believe in magic much.

* The Farthest Shore (Ursula LeGuin). Magic (and wonder) is a function of belief; if for whatever reason people cease believing in it (for instance through apathy) it mostly ceases to function. This, incidentally, is also used in Mage: the Ascension, by White Wolf.

* Tear of the Gods (Raymond Feist). A powerful artifact exists that is needed in a yearly ceremony; if it's not, magic (in this case, priestly magic) shuts down entirely because the gods can no longer communicate with mortals for some reason, despite the fact that they do so all the time in different fashion as well.

* Lyonesse (Jack Vance). Magic is a rare ability wielded by a handful of very powerful people. After some warring and strife, the most powerful of these decreed that wizards would no longer interfere in mortal affairs such as politics, on pain of being stripped of all power by himself, who was more than capable of following through on this threat.

* Discworld (Terry Pratchett). Magic is a closely-guarded secret possessed by a number of powerful people who know enough about it to know that it's generally not the solution to whatever problem you're having, and are powerful enough to be beyond being bribed, threatened or otherwise coerced into doing stuff for you.

Irreverent Fool
2007-07-17, 06:34 AM
I'd personally add deisgining races who serve no other purpose than to be slaughtered by the heroes. I don't know why, but it really turns me away. I don't know, but after thousand of years of being killed by adventurers, these goblins or orcs or whatever could think that maybe raiding human villages isn't good idea after all. Not to mention such races show laziness of world creator who can now use them as easy justifable enemies for weak heroes.
As for A Wizard Did It: if my DM ever use that, I'll just ask him to show me the stats for spells used to create this particular effect, item or place. Saying "it's created by magic" without any futher explanation is just lazy.

On the one hand, I agree with you on the 'wizard did it' bit. As A DM I try to stick to the rules to create magic affects and such. With such a plethora of spells at our disposal, it's not that difficult. On the other hand, I feel that this is one of the failings of 3e. All the spells are rules are defined and limiting oneself to them stifles creativity. I heard someone say once that 'rules are for players' and I think this is true. Now, there should be an explaination to HOW the wizard did it and if given time to research it, the PCs should be able to discover the methods too. Concept first. Then rules. Fudge as necessary.

BTW, if a player ever asked me to show him the stats for spells to create a particular effect, item or place I'd come up with and placed in my game, I'd smack him with an XP penalty. "The roaring fires at the bottom of the pit never seem to die. The heat is blistering and yet you feel yourself compelled to step closer." "How are you doing that? I don't recognize those spells." Just plain rude.

Saithis Bladewing
2007-07-17, 07:07 AM
I'm a big fan of 'A Wizard Did It' myself, with Dragons Hoarding Treasure to a lesser degree.

Matthew
2007-07-17, 07:07 AM
The Dark Ages were dark not because we don't have information on them: we have plenty. They were dark because it was an intermittent time between the fall of an Empire and the rise of new ones, the lack of consistent communication between villages, cities, and nations (once nations got a foot hold and were able to get lords to swear fealty to a king, &c., they were able to bring peace and remove internal threats), a decreasing life-span, and a depressing outlook on life from the aforementioned.

As far as I am aware, that is a view completely at variance with current academic usage. Political and social fragmentation is one thing, the term 'Dark Ages' is quite another.
Most of what you say I agree with, though I wouldn't be inclined to put such a critical spin on things (I mean, 'perverted form of slavery?').

Morty
2007-07-17, 07:18 AM
BTW, if a player ever asked me to show him the stats for spells to create a particular effect, item or place I'd come up with and placed in my game, I'd smack him with an XP penalty. "The roaring fires at the bottom of the pit never seem to die. The heat is blistering and yet you feel yourself compelled to step closer." "How are you doing that? I don't recognize those spells." Just plain rude.

Rude? I think that player is in right to try to recognize spells used. If he's able to do that is up to DM. I follow the rule "if NPCs can to this, PCs can do this as well". I don't put uber-powerful mages in my games, so every magic PCs encounter is recognizable. Nor do I put uber-artifacts.

Kiero
2007-07-17, 07:39 AM
Most of what you say I agree with, though I wouldn't be inclined to put such a critical spin on things (I mean, 'perverted form of slavery?').

Well, aside from those in the galleys or mines, the life of a slave under much of the Roman Empire was generally better than that of a serf. Especially because it was a condition that they could (theoretically, at least) leave if they saved enough money.

Kurald Galain
2007-07-17, 07:42 AM
Rude? I think that player is in right to try to recognize spells used. If he's able to do that is up to DM. I follow the rule "if NPCs can to this, PCs can do this as well". I don't put uber-powerful mages in my games, so every magic PCs encounter is recognizable. Nor do I put uber-artifacts.

No, it is rude. The player is falling out of character, metagaming, interrupting a drama scene with rules discussion, and implying the DM isn't doing his job properly. My answer would simply be "your character doesn't know, how is he intending to find out?"

Yes, if the NPC has some new trick, the PC can learn it. Later. Perhaps by stealing this NPC's spellbook, or perhaps by taking some homebrew feat the next level. But at this moment, the answer to the PC is simply "you've never seen this before". If the player concludes from that "therefore it can't be real", they are free to attempt to disbelieve it.

Incidentally I use the second-edition rule for disbelieving, which states that "it automatically forfeits a saving throw IF the effect is real". Come on, if you disbelieve a fireball that strongly implies you're not going to dodge it (because if you were, you subconsciously are believing it). Hence no ref save for you.

Matthew
2007-07-17, 08:11 AM
Well, aside from those in the galleys or mines, the life of a slave under much of the Roman Empire was generally better than that of a serf. Especially because it was a condition that they could (theoretically, at least) leave if they saved enough money.

Life as a Slave could be relatively good, but so could life as a Serf. It could also be spectacularly bad, even if you weren't working in a Mine or on a Galley.
You could also theoretically (and practically) leave Serfdom, if you could find enough money or could be elevated out of Serfdom, same as a Slave.

Morty
2007-07-17, 09:01 AM
No, it is rude. The player is falling out of character, metagaming, interrupting a drama scene with rules discussion, and implying the DM isn't doing his job properly. My answer would simply be "your character doesn't know, how is he intending to find out?"

if the player says "I use my Spellcraft check to find out what it is" then yes, it is metagaming and falling out of character. But when player says "I stay here to learn more about this fascinating object" then I can't see what's wrong about it.

Inyssius Tor
2007-07-17, 09:17 AM
Wait, Discworld has finite magic? As far as I know, the discworld has high energy magic fields which are replentished by the world itself. If magic could "run out", the events in Sourcery wouldn't have been possible, because the magic that sustained the original sorcerors would have diminished beyond use, save in lesser forms by feeble old men.

It did! They were called sourcerers for a reason: they were literally the source of all of their magic. The other wizards became far more powerful when Coin showed up, because his existence was pumping vast amounts of magic into the world.

Human Paragon 3
2007-07-17, 09:19 AM
Having all really powerful magic done by long lost civilizations is as logical as the romans having better weapons than the US military. It exists solely so that DMs can put in high level powers and items without worrying about a player recreating them. The same goes for the fact that all worlds have thousands of years of history, with static technology. Some will make an attempt to rationalize this with constant wars or other standard explanation, but others just glaze over the fact.

Not exactly. It would be more like having the Romans or Greeks possessed of better technology than the dark ages civilizations, which was true. Also true of the Ottomans and Turks. Much knowledge was lost after the barbrians sacked Rome.

horseboy
2007-07-17, 02:00 PM
That seems a particular strain of the Mary Sue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_sue) phenomenon, rather than the meme in it's entirety.

OOOHHH! That's what Mary Sue means. Thanks.

As far as character cliches go, it depends on how much I care about the campaign. For beer and pretzels he's lucky to get a back story, let alone a non-cliched one.
For serious games I tend to do it in layers, usually not having the final couple of layers until a couple of games after I've started playing. I don't purposely use or avoid cliches. I just make a character.

For game setting cliches:
For dragons hoarding treasure, I'd paraphrase Vasdenjas:
"It's not that I'm "hoarding" treasure. Every item here has a story. Just as you take a knick-knack every you go somewhere to remind you of your travel, so have I. My live has been several tens of thousands of years long, imagine how much you'd collect in that time."

For the 5 elements, well yeah, they are important in Earth Dawn, but it's not like you've got to go to a temple dedicated to one of each of the elements, run a dungeon and then you get power over them. Yeah, that annoys me.

Teeming seas of evil: No, that's too much work as a DM. I'll leave that to my skaven army in War Hammer Fantasy.

As to "wizards did it", it depends. If the mods thrown in some 1/2 belor 1/4 orc 1/4 troll so it will be the right CR, I'm gonna be pissy about it. That's just stupid. Things like Owlbears and hydras being created by high level wizards I believe are okay. In fact they're right along the same vein as "Scientists did it" when discussing Godzilla. They're supposed to be warnings about abusing power. Of course such warnings are most often ignored.

The cliche I hate the most (currently) is Caravan guarding duty. Oh how I hate being stuck on caravan guard duty.

Much like when I play, when I DM I generally don't worry about cliches. I concern myself more with the "theme". That which promotes the theme will generally get used.

Xuincherguixe
2007-07-17, 03:10 PM
I don't particularly like cliches, and try to avoid them in general. Except when making a point of the cliches :P

NPC 1 BBEG guy, "Mwa ha ha! I will summon Squiggy, the dark lord who none of you think exist!"
NPC 2, random farmer who overhears, "Uh. Why?"
BBEG, "... Just because! Shut up."
Random Farmer, "You don't know why do you?"
BBEG, "Sometimes it feels like my life is being controlled by an all powerful being with no imagination. And I can't do anything about it! You think I don't know how stupid Squiggy is? But I can't help it!" BBEG sobs uncontrollably.