PDA

View Full Version : Annoying Fantasy Clichés II: We're gonna need more Trope



Guizonde
2018-05-18, 09:19 AM
here is the previous entry, if you want to catch up. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?537137-Fantasy-Tropes-Cliches-that-Annoy-You)

this thread is all about what annoys you in fantasy: pointy wizard hats, gods that don't do anything, a strangely human-centric outview in the city of the deathworms on vlaaaaargh 7? post your gripes here, and hear about what annoys the rest of the boards!

Spore
2018-05-18, 09:43 AM
And much about how the Doctor works is governed by aesthetics (especially dramatic irony)--the punishment must fit the (attempted) crime. It's a basic rule, not of the universe, but of the Doctor. And those rules are more binding on him than mere physical law (which he tramples on regularly).

In general, when dealing with such things there's always an unspoken law. It's unspoken because trying to explain it would ruin the fiction (by being verbose and boring and something that very few people actually care about). It's plausible coherence that matters. Lots of things work under very controlled situations that just don't work in other cases. And for magic, especially, the mental is more important than the physical, the perceived more important than the actualized.

This is just plain weird. It _sounds_ plausible and the doctor is a strong psychic entity but most of the times, the punishment for the villains are both improvised and dictated by the story.

I don't think in the - off screen thinking process - there are several dozens of solutions for the problem. He rather comes up with a few non-lethal solutions and picks the one that saves the most people. Because if he has anything, it is a high body count DESPITE helping. Also while I do NOT want to devolve into an alignment discussion, I feel the doctor abides by nothing but the Shadow Proclamation

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-18, 10:25 AM
This is just plain weird. It _sounds_ plausible and the doctor is a strong psychic entity but most of the times, the punishment for the villains are both improvised and dictated by the story.

I don't think in the - off screen thinking process - there are several dozens of solutions for the problem. He rather comes up with a few non-lethal solutions and picks the one that saves the most people. Because if he has anything, it is a high body count DESPITE helping. Also while I do NOT want to devolve into an alignment discussion, I feel the doctor abides by nothing but the Shadow Proclamation

It's not that the rules are binding from the outside. They're binding from the inside--he chooses to abide by rules. And it seems that aesthetic punishments are one of those, especially when he's seriously ticked off.

Remember the "A good man doesn't need rules? There's a reason I have so many" part from Matt Smith's Doctor? He has lots of rules. Many of them are unstated, but they're there. And the truth about super-powered people is that it's the internal constraints, the things that are true because otherwise he wouldn't be who he is, that are interesting.

Quellian-dyrae
2018-05-18, 03:39 PM
Probably my biggest pet peeve in fantasy is when evil is presented as some necessary thing. Key to the fabric of the universe, a necessary "balance" to good, etc. It becomes especially annoying when it's taken outside of the arbitrary cosmological arena and presented as a necessary or beneficial aspect of morality. Such as the arguments that "civilization/progress would not exist if not for evil" or "without evil good would not exist" or, probably worst of all, "if it wasn't for evil, good would just become more and more intolerant and destroy itself; evil gives it something to fight".

It's fine when villains are trying to convince people of that sort of stuff, of course. But yeah it annoys me when the narrative presents it as a true or reasonable argument.

Beleriphon
2018-05-18, 03:54 PM
Probably my biggest pet peeve in fantasy is when evil is presented as some necessary thing. Key to the fabric of the universe, a necessary "balance" to good, etc. It becomes especially annoying when it's taken outside of the arbitrary cosmological arena and presented as a necessary or beneficial aspect of morality. Such as the arguments that "civilization/progress would not exist if not for evil" or "without evil good would not exist" or, probably worst of all, "if it wasn't for evil, good would just become more and more intolerant and destroy itself; evil gives it something to fight".

It's fine when villains are trying to convince people of that sort of stuff, of course. But yeah it annoys me when the narrative presents it as a true or reasonable argument.

Evil being necessary is really just a riff on this Gordon Gecko's speech about greed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVxYOQS6ggk

I can also be about how evil is inevitable, or a part of how the universe functions and quite frankly can't be stopped completely no matter how hard one tries.

Personification
2018-05-18, 04:32 PM
Probably my biggest pet peeve in fantasy is when evil is presented as some necessary thing. Key to the fabric of the universe, a necessary "balance" to good, etc. It becomes especially annoying when it's taken outside of the arbitrary cosmological arena and presented as a necessary or beneficial aspect of morality. Such as the arguments that "civilization/progress would not exist if not for evil" or "without evil good would not exist" or, probably worst of all, "if it wasn't for evil, good would just become more and more intolerant and destroy itself; evil gives it something to fight".

It's fine when villains are trying to convince people of that sort of stuff, of course. But yeah it annoys me when the narrative presents it as a true or reasonable argument.

An interesting twist on this concept (which was then used as the plot of Serenity), is a Jewish folktale (it probably also exists in other cultures) of how a bunch of rabbis managed to trap what could be translated as "the evil impulse", basically the shoulder devil of the universe. While at first it made everything better, soon nobody was doing anything, and society was stopping, because the evil impulse goes back to impulsiveness itself, which at its root is an aspect of the impetus to act and will to live. So the rabbis were forced to release the impulse back, as without it everyone just sort of died.

Of course, this is not exactly the same concept. Also I would like to say that I probably messed up the details on the above story.

Quellian-dyrae
2018-05-18, 04:49 PM
Yeah that's pretty much exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about.

Evil is in no way required for impulse or action. When a story gives evil credit for the motivation to act, or (touching on the greed speech above) ambition, or some other entirely neutral but necessary thing, it bugs me. Evil might certainly be just as natural a thing as the motivation to act or the drive to succeed, but it isn't a prerequisite for them.

Personification
2018-05-18, 04:56 PM
Yeah that's pretty much exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about.

Evil is in no way required for impulse or action. When a story gives evil credit for the motivation to act, or (touching on the greed speech above) ambition, or some other entirely neutral but necessary thing, it bugs me. Evil might certainly be just as natural a thing as the motivation to act or the drive to succeed, but it isn't a prerequisite for them.

It isn't that those are inherently evil, it is that they are also related to evil impulses. I probably didn't explain it well.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-18, 05:24 PM
I would say that it's the ability to do evil that's important. If everyone could live as saints, doing no evil, that would be a wonderful thing. Each individual would still have the ability to do evil, but actively chooses not to. Removing this ability to do evil renders the person not a moral actor--merely the moral equivalent of a robot. Unthinking machines, rocks falling off of mountains, hurricanes, etc. aren't evil--they're not moral objects at all. They can't do good, either. They merely do what they're acted on to do. And that would be a tragedy.

Personification
2018-05-18, 05:47 PM
I would say that it's the ability to do evil that's important. If everyone could live as saints, doing no evil, that would be a wonderful thing. Each individual would still have the ability to do evil, but actively chooses not to. Removing this ability to do evil renders the person not a moral actor--merely the moral equivalent of a robot. Unthinking machines, rocks falling off of mountains, hurricanes, etc. aren't evil--they're not moral objects at all. They can't do good, either. They merely do what they're acted on to do. And that would be a tragedy.

This is closer to what the story is getting at.

elanfanboy
2018-05-18, 05:55 PM
I would say that it's the ability to do evil that's important. If everyone could live as saints, doing no evil, that would be a wonderful thing. Each individual would still have the ability to do evil, but actively chooses not to. Removing this ability to do evil renders the person not a moral actor--merely the moral equivalent of a robot. Unthinking machines, rocks falling off of mountains, hurricanes, etc. aren't evil--they're not moral objects at all. They can't do good, either. They merely do what they're acted on to do. And that would be a tragedy.

This isn’t exactly right. Without evil there is no free will. Every choice has multiple sides to it, and every option has good and evil results. Evil and good are two sides of the same coin, but they don’t need to exist together.

Quellian-dyrae
2018-05-18, 06:34 PM
I would say that it's the ability to do evil that's important. If everyone could live as saints, doing no evil, that would be a wonderful thing. Each individual would still have the ability to do evil, but actively chooses not to. Removing this ability to do evil renders the person not a moral actor--merely the moral equivalent of a robot. Unthinking machines, rocks falling off of mountains, hurricanes, etc. aren't evil--they're not moral objects at all. They can't do good, either. They merely do what they're acted on to do. And that would be a tragedy.

I'm not sure I agree. Or more precisely, I think the causality is being inverted there.

I would agree that removing the ability to do evil by removing the ability to make moral choice at all, would be a net negative thing. Having free will and the capacity to do evil along with it is better than having no free will. I think this is likewise how I'd come at the impulse thing; removing the impulse to do evil by removing all impulse entirely would absolutely be a net negative. And it would certainly be fair to say that there's no "shortcut" to removing evil without removing free will entirely. There's no magic or technology or phlebotinum or whatever that can extricate it, and the only real option is for the people themselves to reject or otherwise grow beyond it. That's a perfectly reasonable moral for a story.

It's the idea that without the capacity for evil you couldn't have the capacity for good that I don't buy. If the magic/supertech/phlebotinum is presented as removing the capacity for evil specifically (or removing evil from the universe, or destroying the source of evil, or whatever), and what ends up happening is something like oops without the evil free will goes away I guess we need the evil! That's where it bugs me. Given the fantastical premise that evil itself can be isolated and removed, I reject the idea that without it there can't also be goodness/free will/whatever. Lacking the ability to choose to harm others for selfish reasons does not inherently preclude the ability to choose to help others for selfless reasons, although yes lacking the capacity to choose entirely would preclude both.


Without evil there is no free will.

This, likewise. You can have free will without the ability to do evil (theoretically; in practice, human beings do not), although it would not be unfair to say you have less free will. But there are plenty of things I could will to do and yet am not capable of doing (as an example, I cannot choose to be a duck, though I could certainly choose to act like one). The inability to make that choice does not mean I don't have free will, although it would be fair to say my will is less free than that of a hypothetical reality warper who could, if it so wished, choose to be a duck.


Every choice has multiple sides to it, and every option has good and evil results. Evil and good are two sides of the same coin, but they don’t need to exist together.

This I'd more-or-less agree with, although I'd maybe instead say every option can potentially have both positive and negative results. I don't think a hypothetical being incapable of evil but capable of choice would necessarily be unable to make choices simply because they have negative repercussions for others, which is what you would get if you labeled those results evil in and of themselves. But it probably would not be able to assign those repercussions as it knows them a zero-or-positive value in calculating that option's desirability. That is, it probably wouldn't be able to ignore (or diminish) the harm that might come to others as a result of its choices, and it certainly wouldn't be able to take that harm as a desirable result of the choice in itself.

elanfanboy
2018-05-18, 06:45 PM
@Quellian-dyrae:
I understand what you mean, and it makes perfect sense, but there is one thing that makes the trope pretty much guaranteed in every setting. The simple fact that a story is boring without conflict, which takes place between two sides, these sides are always classified as the “good” side and the “bad” side even though both sides will commit acts on both sides of the spectrum. Good and evil are two views that other humans place actions in. One person committing a murder will be both good and evil depending on who the is classsifying the action. Therefore evil will always exist because of the subconscious classifications caused by human nature.

Cluedrew
2018-05-18, 06:54 PM
Did the thread actually get back to annoying fantasy clichés? I abandoned the last thread when it were several pages into a debate on racism and I hadn't seen a proper annoyance in almost as many pages.

On a similar note I'm not sure this is the place for a debate on the necessity of evil, seems a bit much. But just in case I will through out two things: the potential to be evil is different from actually being evil and not all suffering in the world is actually from evil (plenty of problems for people to fix without causing more of them).

Anyways, for annoying fantasy things... anyone who is powerful and special just because of destiny is really hard to get right. I mean if it changes something about the world and that is important than is one thing. But if it is code for "they are the main character"... I mean it that is the joke maybe, but I never seen it done well.

Also people getting transported to some fantasy world with video game rules. People getting transported to fantasy land has been a staple since... before the Chronicles of Narnia at least. But the moment video game rules show up that is a red flag. First it once again seems to be a way to explain that the PCs are important without an in world reason for it. Second stories that do this seem to follow a very narrow formula and almost all the ones I've seen have been bad.

Quellian-dyrae
2018-05-18, 07:18 PM
@Quellian-dyrae:
I understand what you mean, and it makes perfect sense, but there is one thing that makes the trope pretty much guaranteed in every setting. The simple fact that a story is boring without conflict, which takes place between two sides, these sides are always classified as the “good” side and the “bad” side even though both sides will commit acts on both sides of the spectrum. Good and evil are two views that other humans place actions in. One person committing a murder will be both good and evil depending on who the is classsifying the action. Therefore evil will always exist because of the subconscious classifications caused by human nature.

Oh evil, conflict, and the like existing in the stories is totally fine, definitely. I'm not saying stories should not have evil in them. I'm saying that if a story presents a way of removing evil (specifically; again, removing something bigger like free will with the side effect of removing evil is another story), they should not present it as a bad thing. I'm talking about a much more specific trope than evil existing in general...uh, quick checking TV Tropes, I'm probably most specifically talking about Good Needs Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoodNeedsEvil) and perhaps some functions of Balance Betwen Good and Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BalanceBetweenGoodAndEvil).

Story has evil: Fine.

Story has bad guys trying to "make the world a better place" by removing free will (which includes capacity for evil) and the heroes stop them: Fine.

Story has the good guys find/do something that they think removes evil but it turns out it actually removes free will and now they have to undo it: Fine.

Story has the good guys specifically remove/defeat/destroy/seal/whatever evil and the world turns to suck because of it: :smallfurious:.

Bohandas
2018-05-19, 01:48 AM
An interesting twist on this concept (which was then used as the plot of Serenity), is a Jewish folktale (it probably also exists in other cultures) of how a bunch of rabbis managed to trap what could be translated as "the evil impulse", basically the shoulder devil of the universe. While at first it made everything better, soon nobody was doing anything, and society was stopping, because the evil impulse goes back to impulsiveness itself, which at its root is an aspect of the impetus to act and will to live. So the rabbis were forced to release the impulse back, as without it everyone just sort of died.

Of course, this is not exactly the same concept. Also I would like to say that I probably messed up the details on the above story.

That was also an episode of The Powerpuff Girls. An antivillain named Allegro comes to Townsville and magically makes everybody happy, laid back, and content, but to the point wjere they're so laid back that the infrastructure of the city starts to collapse because nobody's working and they're all so content that nobody cares (except for the Powerpuff Girls themselves, who are apparently immune)

Bohandas
2018-05-19, 02:14 AM
Probably my biggest pet peeve in fantasy is when evil is presented as some necessary thing. Key to the fabric of the universe, a necessary "balance" to good, etc. It becomes especially annoying when it's taken outside of the arbitrary cosmological arena and presented as a necessary or beneficial aspect of morality. Such as the arguments that "civilization/progress would not exist if not for evil" or "without evil good would not exist" or, probably worst of all, "if it wasn't for evil, good would just become more and more intolerant and destroy itself; evil gives it something to fight".

It's fine when villains are trying to convince people of that sort of stuff, of course. But yeah it annoys me when the narrative presents it as a true or reasonable argument.

The worst version of this is when it's presented via an equally incorrect metaphor or analogy such as that light cannot exist without darkness or, worse, that darkness cannot exist without lighf

Spore
2018-05-19, 07:39 AM
The one thing you lack is that evil in any philosophy is not cut and dry. it is not objective. Everyone defines evil slightly different. To me it is evil and selfish to not help a semi-paralyzed man to walk to the bathroom? To me definitely. To my coworkers? Apparently not, sympathy is enough.

Also good and evil scale. If you had not evil, you could not differentiate your response. Why not buy the man in my example a 24/7 help? That would be "gooder", now would it? It would bankrupt me but it would be the good solution. Helping him through the day myself would be perfect. But I have a job to do to pay my own rent. Some sort of egoism is necessary.


Story has the good guys specifically remove/defeat/destroy/seal/whatever evil and the world turns to suck because of it

So you are not angry at philosophical concepts but at poorly explained plots. Got it. :smalltongue:

Quellian-dyrae
2018-05-19, 02:32 PM
The one thing you lack is that evil in any philosophy is not cut and dry. it is not objective. Everyone defines evil slightly different.

Which is another excellent reason to say "why no, there's not some spell you can cast/object you can break/villain you can defeat/whatever that can just make evil go away, thanks for asking". But once you do have something like that, evil being subjective doesn't really change that evil going away should not result in a ruined world or other sufficiently large-scale problem that it has to be undone.


Also good and evil scale. If you had not evil, you could not differentiate your response. Why not buy the man in my example a 24/7 help? That would be "gooder", now would it? It would bankrupt me but it would be the good solution. Helping him through the day myself would be perfect. But I have a job to do to pay my own rent. Some sort of egoism is necessary.

I'd argue you absolutely could. You can be less good without being more evil. You can have less of a thing while still not having any of that thing's opposite, particularly in a sliding scale like good and evil where you've got a big ol' block of neutrality sitting in the middle.


So you are not angry at philosophical concepts but at poorly explained plots.

It's not so much that they explain it poorly as that the explanation they give annoys me. "Evil ain't so easy to get rid of" is a moral I can get behind. "Evil's actually a pretty useful thing to have" isn't.

The Jack
2018-05-19, 03:51 PM
Good and evil nonsense always comes off as someone trying to justify their own inadequacy. I love extremes because they're good for exploring ideas, but the whole "evil necessary for good" thing as a metaphysical truth is the result of a writer who likes words more than sense, and who probably should have a deal of guilt to them.

Even though I despise his political standpoint, I can appreciate Tolkien ascribing evil to things he doesn't like. It works because it's a point of view, and he's honest about it.



I dislike the fantasy of leather armour, and any and all cosplay trying to emulate it is almost certainly a disaster.

The abundance of magic swords tends to wear thin sometimes too. Ten thousand extra minus points if they're japanese blades in a european setting.

Archpaladin Zousha
2018-05-19, 09:50 PM
Something that has bugged me lately has been the "specific body types for specific fantasy races" thing: Elves are always "slender" and "willowy," Dwarves are always "stocky" or "stout," etc. Part of it is about beauty standards, naturally, slim elves being viewed as more beautiful than stocky dwarves and humans, and that's kind of seeped into fantasy film and stuff, most notably with the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit live-action movies. Tolkien himself says hobbits are inclined to be fat (how could they not be, they eat 7 meals a day?!), but in the movies only Sean Astin as Samwise seems to have the "normal" hobbit body-type Tolkien described. I wanna see more muscular or chubby elves! I wanna see more slim or wiry dwarves! I wanna see humans of ALL body types in these stories, and not just chiseled barbarians and buxom princesses! I want to see more pretty orcs (these aren't TOO hard to find, but it's mostly through fanart or original depictions)! Thank you!

Bohandas
2018-05-20, 01:50 AM
This isn’t exactly right. Without evil there is no free will.

What if, hypothetically, somebody lives in perfect total seclusion? With no living beings around to harm nothing is evil

The Jack
2018-05-20, 04:14 AM
Body types

It's fantasy and all, but most of it's got a basis in medieval times. Quite simply the food you'd need to become overweight isn't there, and to serve in combat you're generally after a minimum level of fitness. If it's a setting with an abundance of sugary foods and the overwhelming majority of people aren't working in manual labour, fine, but nothing breaks immersion more than the west-modern idea of fat acceptance in a society that wouldn't have it.

Added note: Sometimes authors use morbid obesity to highlight a character flaw in a person who, at the time, would probably be as big as I am, but having my size indicate a character flaw would upset too many in a modern audience.

And if you're going to say "it's fantasy" then ideally, everyone above the age of 16 should be a hunk or a babe, even the elderly,

Getting the body-builder look, on the otherhand... well, that isn't realistic, but it's somewhat more healthy.
You're clearly cherry picking with Tolkien. Yes Hobbits are fat, but elves are light enough to walk on snow, and are near-perfect beings. Dwarves are manly men. Much of this is based in mythology and the body types are included. If I recall correctly, the Goblin king and one of the bad dudes from laketown were big, and that was to show their degeneracy.

Guizonde
2018-05-20, 06:37 AM
It's fantasy and all, but most of it's got a basis in medieval times. Quite simply the food you'd need to become overweight isn't there, and to serve in combat you're generally after a minimum level of fitness. If it's a setting with an abundance of sugary foods and the overwhelming majority of people aren't working in manual labour, fine, but nothing breaks immersion more than the west-modern idea of fat acceptance in a society that wouldn't have it.

Added note: Sometimes authors use morbid obesity to highlight a character flaw in a person who, at the time, would probably be as big as I am, but having my size indicate a character flaw would upset too many in a modern audience.

And if you're going to say "it's fantasy" then ideally, everyone above the age of 16 should be a hunk or a babe, even the elderly,

Getting the body-builder look, on the otherhand... well, that isn't realistic, but it's somewhat more healthy.
You're clearly cherry picking with Tolkien. Yes Hobbits are fat, but elves are light enough to walk on snow, and are near-perfect beings. Dwarves are manly men. Much of this is based in mythology and the body types are included. If I recall correctly, the Goblin king and one of the bad dudes from laketown were big, and that was to show their degeneracy.

that is one hell of a mine field, body standards. i'll just add one thing is that professional soldiers back in medieval times were more chunky than we presume. archer skeletons found at the battle of agincourt (john keegan, the face of battle) had hypertrophied upper arms and ribcages due to using 150+lbs warbows. they would be what the gym rats call today "never skip leg day", since it's comically overproportionned. roman gladiators were pudgy by design, eating a crazy amount of cereal-based foods, and their paunch did help to survive cuts and wounds more easily. if a sword slash hits you in the stomach, better to have a bit of fat to cushion the slash rather than risk it hitting your abdominal belt, since that could put you out of commission permanently.

charlemagne was known as charles the great not only due to his rank, but his height and weight, too. contemporary accounts list him as being over 2 meters tall, and being built like a fridge, with an apetite to match. so, being overweight was rare, but being chunky was not all that uncommon. sure, carolus magnus looked more like the mountain (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haf%C3%BE%C3%B3r_J%C3%BAl%C3%ADus_Bj%C3%B6rnsson), but he was a fighting man like most nobility at the time.

i always try to add realistic body shapes to my characters. a vegetarian dwarf i played was frail by dwarven standards (i took the recommended weight of a dwarf and placed it 1/3 under to represent privations). a halfling paladin was a mound of muscle with not a bit of unnecessary fat, and so on. we've unfortunately got to remember that "hollywood fat" is a trope that exists, and it's not going away completely anytime soon, even if times are changing.

The Jack
2018-05-20, 07:06 AM
exceptions to the rules
Gladiators in their professional days would need to yield blood for the entertainment of the crowd without risking anything vital to life/career, so they packed on a layer of fat you could slash for blood without risking too much. Don't skew it as some sort of strategic advantage to fights, it was a strategic advantage to entertainment.

As for your other examples, one's an emperor, the other was a very specific build for a very specific but necessary function we don't have a modern equivalent too.

8BitNinja
2018-05-20, 08:33 PM
Although I love medieval fantasy, I'd love to see more fantasy in earlier iron ages or even the bronze age.

Elves and dwarves causing the fall of the Not Persian Empire anyone?

(Also, thanks everyone for continuing a thread I made out of boredom for so long)

Mr Beer
2018-05-20, 08:45 PM
Ramming clumsy neologisms into the narrative when there is no imperative to do so, sorry you are not Tolkien, you didn't invent a whole language...elves can just say 'my cloak' not 'my piwafwi'. Forgotten Realms books were particularly egregious offenders.

Guizonde
2018-05-21, 07:59 AM
Gladiators in their professional days would need to yield blood for the entertainment of the crowd without risking anything vital to life/career, so they packed on a layer of fat you could slash for blood without risking too much. Don't skew it as some sort of strategic advantage to fights, it was a strategic advantage to entertainment.

As for your other examples, one's an emperor, the other was a very specific build for a very specific but necessary function we don't have a modern equivalent too.

alright, fair enough, although it was a strategic advantage for both survival and entertainment. shall we talk about the roman legions fattening up before campaigning? you make your legionnary gain 20lbs of fat, that directly translates to more energy stored for forced marches, and after a month or three of campaigning, your legionnary is in perfect shape while using marginally less food.

now, perhaps in ancient times people were not morbidly obese, but not everyone was suffering the effects of famine either. i remember in the previous thread people talking about this exact point (obesity vs starvation) from a historical perspective. i'll stop talking about it because i know a dangerous topic when i see one.

The Jack
2018-05-21, 09:30 AM
alright, fair enough, although it was a strategic advantage for both survival and entertainment. shall we talk about the roman legions fattening up before campaigning? you make your legionnary gain 20lbs of fat, that directly translates to more energy stored for forced marches, and after a month or three of campaigning, your legionnary is in perfect shape while using marginally less food.
.

20lbs of fat is nothing. It's 9kg

I'm very close to 100kg, BMI says I should Ideally be under 80kg, though I suspect with my proportions/musculature 80kg would be a good weight.

I am technically obese. It's not by much, and most people would think of me as just overweight, given my body type and the standards of where I live in the UK. If I visit my girlfriend's family in eastern europe, I'm considered humorously fat by her cousins, and it's a slight concern for her parents. My waist measurement is probably larger than my chest measurement

But thinking about it, and considering that my "proportions/musculature" comment's probably me just getting defensive, that 9kg over 80kg wouldn't look too bad, my waist would probably be less than my chest. Considering how I'm actually looking at the high point of healthy BMI, and the average male my exceedingly average (maybe I'm short) height should (BMI again) be about 68kg, if they gain 9kg, they're not going to be overweight, and many of them should be thinner than that.

TLDR: 9kg (20lbs) is a weight gain unnoticeable on a man of healthy size. Now, when I factor in that italians are, on average, shorter, I note that it's not actually enough to make a big difference. If I consider my experience of Italians, I think 9kgs would still result in apparently thin people, since they're a relatively thin people in comparison to other european nations. What factors makes romans different from modern italians? I'm not really sure, honestly. A cursory glance says they were maybe 5cm/2 inches shorter, but still... You'd have to be half the size for 9kgs to have any pronounced effect. It's doubtful that you're going to exit a healthy size.

PS. Strong Belwas is easily my favourite aSoIaF character on essos, despite the various small details that add up and make his character less plausible.

Amaril
2018-05-21, 10:27 AM
Even in settings that portray body types more realistically, wouldn't you expect different species to have different average body types than humans? Think about, I dunno, walruses, who are supposed to have lots of blubber and aren't unhealthy for it--maybe your dwarves are adapted to cold environments and tend to put on weight for the same reasons, so they're perfectly healthy at levels of body fat that would be dangerous on a human, and "skinny" to them might still look slightly overweight to us. If your elves are adapted to live in treetops, it makes sense for them to be lighter. Just seems awfully humanocentric to me to assume all species should have the same range of healthy and unhealthy body types as us.

PersonMan
2018-05-21, 10:46 AM
And if you're going to say "it's fantasy" then ideally, everyone above the age of 16 should be a hunk or a babe, even the elderly,

I don't see how this follows, myself.

---

Personally, something I'm not a fan of is wholesale transporting of parts of a modern state into a fantasy setting. Ideas like "the military" or a bureaucratic structure can be made to work in them, but more often they're just thrown in until what you have is a 21st century nation-state but with swords.

Also I don't like ignoring the implications of powerful groups within a country, especially when said country is undergoing crisis or is similarly in a position where power is up for grabs.

The Jack
2018-05-21, 11:06 AM
Even in settings that portray body types more realistically, wouldn't you expect different species to have different average body types than humans? Think about, I dunno, walruses, who are supposed to have lots of blubber and aren't unhealthy for it--maybe your dwarves are adapted to cold environments and tend to put on weight for the same reasons, so they're perfectly healthy at levels of body fat that would be dangerous on a human, and "skinny" to them might still look slightly overweight to us. If your elves are adapted to live in treetops, it makes sense for them to be lighter. Just seems awfully humanocentric to me to assume all species should have the same range of healthy and unhealthy body types as us.

If you want to diversify your races, then that's a cool idea, but for the most part, most fantasy races default to wearing clothes,using tools and building complicated structures for homes, so they are going to be similar to humans. Another thing is that humans have so many races and peoples for their environment. Some have ebony skin and on the complete opposite end one can have blue eyes,pale faces,freckles and orange/silver hair. People even adapt to diets over thousands of years, but there's only really a few outliers like some exceptionally short tribes. Humans change for their environments, but I'd argue that's somewhat superficial. Even Australian natives, who spent tens of thousands of years doomed to a poor hunter-gatherer state by a hostile environment, so much so that europeans thought they weren't human, have shown that people are mostly the same when in the same circumstances.

Elves would really have to be full on monkey-like or go far more ape to live in trees, but if you're going to go that far with them there'd be some more extreme changes. Their arms would be develop differently, their fine motor skills would be poorer since the muscles would need to specialise towards the strength of climbing, their legs would be shorter

...you really need to go to extremes to do that kind of thing. I don't think I have any problem with most races being simple archetypes of what humans could be, it'd make an interesting narrative if it wasn't done to death.

Consensus
2018-05-21, 11:37 AM
doomed to a poor hunter-gatherer state
quite the assumption that this is a bad way to be

Bohandas
2018-05-21, 01:31 PM
Even in settings that portray body types more realistically, wouldn't you expect different species to have different average body types than humans? Think about, I dunno, walruses, who are supposed to have lots of blubber and aren't unhealthy for it--maybe your dwarves are adapted to cold environments and tend to put on weight for the same reasons, so they're perfectly healthy at levels of body fat that would be dangerous on a human, and "skinny" to them might still look slightly overweight to us. If your elves are adapted to live in treetops, it makes sense for them to be lighter. Just seems awfully humanocentric to me to assume all species should have the same range of healthy and unhealthy body types as us.

Agreed.

I hate settings where all the elves and goblins and aliens and crap are just regular humans with rubber ears

Wardog
2018-05-23, 06:16 PM
Probably my biggest pet peeve in fantasy is when evil is presented as some necessary thing.

+1 on that.


There are a couple of Discworld quotes that I think are relevent here. Paraphrasing from memory:


One character (Vimes, I think) observing that all the people who like to insist that "good and evil are just points of view" are invariably the ones that fit the common conception of "evil".

Granny Weatherwax being of the opinion that the true cause of evil was "thinking of people as things". Now, if you accept that definition of evil, then one can envisage a hypothetical world where noone thinks of people as "things", and therefore true evil doesn't exist. That wouldn't mean that there was no free will, nor that people would have no motivation to do anything, nor that there was no difficuly or hardship or challenges in the world, nor that some people couldn't go beyond the call of duty in seeking to do good.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-23, 06:34 PM
+1 on that.


There are a couple of Discworld quotes that I think are relevent here. Paraphrasing from memory:


One character (Vimes, I think) observing that all the people who like to insist that "good and evil are just points of view" are invariably the ones that fit the common conception of "evil".

Granny Weatherwax being of the opinion that the true cause of evil was "thinking of people as things". Now, if you accept that definition of evil, then one can envisage a hypothetical world where noone thinks of people as "things", and therefore true evil doesn't exist. That wouldn't mean that there was no free will, nor that people would have no motivation to do anything, nor that there was no difficuly or hardship or challenges in the world, nor that some people couldn't go beyond the call of duty in seeking to do good.


That Granny Weatherwax quote is being interpreted backwards. That's not a definition of evil, that's a major cause of evil. Evil comes from thinking of people as things (a very Kantian argument) in her opinion, not that thinking of people as things is the sole definition of evil.

Without the option to do evil, there is no option to do good. And vice versa. That doesn't excuse evil doers, and in a world where evil is a literal physical force, nor does it save creatures made of that evil substance from a righteous smiting. But it does say that removing evil cannot happen unless everyone chooses to stand aside from evil. And then evil still exists but it has no power. Because evil only has that power that it's given--light always excludes darkness, since darkness is merely the absence of light.

Quellian-dyrae
2018-05-23, 07:11 PM
Without the option to do evil, there is no option to do good.

Sure there is. Say you come across a person who fell into a hole.

A good option: You roll up your sleeves and help them out of it (or call for help from someone better equipped to do so, or whatever).
A neutral option: You don't get involved (for a practical reason such as not having the tools or the skills to be able to do so effectively, or believing that someone better equipped to the task will handle it).
An evil option: You throw rocks down at them and laugh at them. Or actively interfere with rescue operations, or whatever.

A hypothetical being who is physically or mentally incapable of performing and/or conceiving of the evil options is still entirely capable of performing the good and neutral options. And in a world where nobody could come across a person in a hole and laugh and throw rocks at them, it still doesn't make the people who will roll up their sleeves and help them any less good.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-23, 07:52 PM
Sure there is. Say you come across a person who fell into a hole.

A good option: You roll up your sleeves and help them out of it (or call for help from someone better equipped to do so, or whatever).
A neutral option: You don't get involved (for a practical reason such as not having the tools or the skills to be able to do so effectively, or believing that someone better equipped to the task will handle it).
An evil option: You throw rocks down at them and laugh at them. Or actively interfere with rescue operations, or whatever.

A hypothetical being who is physically or mentally incapable of performing and/or conceiving of the evil options is still entirely capable of performing the good and neutral options. And in a world where nobody could come across a person in a hole and laugh and throw rocks at them, it still doesn't make the people who will roll up their sleeves and help them any less good.

I don't believe in evil actions per se. Evil or good is a characteristic of moral agents, not of actions. Evil and good require intent--I wouldn't say that a robot programmed to help people out of holes is "doing good", nor that one programmed to throw rocks at people in holes is "doing evil". Their programmers, on the other hand, may warrant those terms.

Personification
2018-05-23, 09:31 PM
Sure there is. Say you come across a person who fell into a hole.

A good option: You roll up your sleeves and help them out of it (or call for help from someone better equipped to do so, or whatever).
A neutral option: You don't get involved (for a practical reason such as not having the tools or the skills to be able to do so effectively, or believing that someone better equipped to the task will handle it).
An evil option: You throw rocks down at them and laugh at them. Or actively interfere with rescue operations, or whatever.

A hypothetical being who is physically or mentally incapable of performing and/or conceiving of the evil options is still entirely capable of performing the good and neutral options. And in a world where nobody could come across a person in a hole and laugh and throw rocks at them, it still doesn't make the people who will roll up their sleeves and help them any less good.

If someone is stuck in a hole and can't get out, and you are in any position to help them, or even call for help, I would say that not doing so is evil. Inaction is just as much of a choice as action. Just because you aren't increasing their pain doesn't mean that your actions aren't problematic.

Additionally, the conversation reminds me of a quote about stopping evil. (This is from a conversation between a mortal and a character who is effectively a god):


You would have me intervene and stop the murders of innocents. I could do this. I have considered it. If I were to stop every one, what then? Do I stop maimings as well?”
“Of course,” Wax said.
“And where do I hold back, Waxillium? Do I prevent all wounds, or do I prevent only those caused by evil people? Do I stop a man from falling asleep so that he will not tip a candle and burn down his house? Do I stop all harm that could ever befall a person?”
“Maybe.”
“And once nobody is ever hurt,” Harmony said, “will people be satisfied? Will they not pray to me and ask for more? Will some people still curse and spit at the sound of my name because they are poor, while another is rich? Should I mitigate this, make everyone the same, Waxillium?”
“I won’t be caught in this trap,” Wax said. “You’re the God, not me. You can find a line where You prevent the worst. You can find a line where You’re stopping the worst that is reasonable, while still letting us live our lives.” [...]
“Perhaps,” Harmony said softly, “I have already done just as you suggest. You do not see it, because the worst never reaches you.”


Basically, the idea is that you can't prevent all harm, because you wouldn't know where to draw the line.

Luccan
2018-05-24, 01:53 AM
Something that has bugged me lately has been the "specific body types for specific fantasy races" thing: Elves are always "slender" and "willowy," Dwarves are always "stocky" or "stout," etc. Part of it is about beauty standards, naturally, slim elves being viewed as more beautiful than stocky dwarves and humans, and that's kind of seeped into fantasy film and stuff, most notably with the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit live-action movies. Tolkien himself says hobbits are inclined to be fat (how could they not be, they eat 7 meals a day?!), but in the movies only Sean Astin as Samwise seems to have the "normal" hobbit body-type Tolkien described. I wanna see more muscular or chubby elves! I wanna see more slim or wiry dwarves! I wanna see humans of ALL body types in these stories, and not just chiseled barbarians and buxom princesses! I want to see more pretty orcs (these aren't TOO hard to find, but it's mostly through fanart or original depictions)! Thank you!

I was going to do a version of this, but since it has already been posted, I'll get real specific: I hate it in any setting when female dwarves have beards. In the rare cases where it is not played for comedy, female dwarves never seem to show up, leading me to the conclusion that the stigma of a bearded woman has lead to a significant negative impact on characters that can be used in fantasy. I genuinely believe the idea of female dwarves having beards is what has lead to me almost never seeing them in fiction or at the table, even when it isn't the case for the setting. To a slightly lesser degree, elves that don't grow hair below their eyelashes. Can we get get some bearded elves please? I always thought the pictures of half-elves looked cool because they had the beard + pointed ears. I like that aesthetic and while I can put up with it a lot more easily than bearded dwarf women, it's still annoying that it manages to be so common to this day.

Anonymouswizard
2018-05-24, 05:59 AM
Probably one that's already been brought up, but common magic that doesn't change the world.

In settings where magic is rare it makes sense. In settings where every ordained priest is a 1st level Cleric you'd assume that they'd at least prepare Create Food and Drink every morning during a famine.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-24, 07:40 AM
I was going to do a version of this, but since it has already been posted, I'll get real specific: I hate it in any setting when female dwarves have beards. In the rare cases where it is not played for comedy, female dwarves never seem to show up, leading me to the conclusion that the stigma of a bearded woman has lead to a significant negative impact on characters that can be used in fantasy. I genuinely believe the idea of female dwarves having beards is what has lead to me almost never seeing them in fiction or at the table, even when it isn't the case for the setting. To a slightly lesser degree, elves that don't grow hair below their eyelashes. Can we get get some bearded elves please? I always thought the pictures of half-elves looked cool because they had the beard + pointed ears. I like that aesthetic and while I can put up with it a lot more easily than bearded dwarf women, it's still annoying that it manages to be so common to this day.

So what if a) dwarven females have beards (and are darn proud of them), b) dwarven females are easily visually distinguishable from the males, and c) dwarven females are just as common as males in society?

My dwarves pair bond for life, for biological reasons. So much so that "widow/widower" and "broken" are the same word. They're almost always born as fraternal twins (one male, one female). And in one particular culture the women are the "face" of the pair by-and-large while the men do other things. Adventurer dwarves are weird, not the least because they're not usually married.

And my elves do grow beards. Well, anyway, they can, although high elves tend to go for the goatee/chin beard look, while wood elves don't tend to go more than stubble/short beards.

Luccan
2018-05-24, 12:23 PM
So what if a) dwarven females have beards (and are darn proud of them), b) dwarven females are easily visually distinguishable from the males, and c) dwarven females are just as common as males in society?

My dwarves pair bond for life, for biological reasons. So much so that "widow/widower" and "broken" are the same word. They're almost always born as fraternal twins (one male, one female). And in one particular culture the women are the "face" of the pair by-and-large while the men do other things. Adventurer dwarves are weird, not the least because they're not usually married.

And my elves do grow beards. Well, anyway, they can, although high elves tend to go for the goatee/chin beard look, while wood elves don't tend to go more than stubble/short beards.

As long as you're willing to have female dwarves show up, great. I'll admit, I don't give female dwarves beards as a common trait because it isn't a preference of mine and I don't think you should give half a fantasy population any traits that might make you not want to use them in your story/game. Which is my problem with the trope when actually used: with literally just you as the exception (in my experience), everyone I've read/gamed with who gave beards to dwarven women never seemed to use them, even when they claimed it was what they preferred and that it didn't bother them. So good on you, glad someone is willing to roll with what they've written for their world.

As for elves, my general rule in my writing is that noble elves use magic to give themselves the whole hairless elf look, while the general elven populace doesn't care that much (though they're usually less hirsute than humans and dwarves).

Beleriphon
2018-05-24, 12:47 PM
As for elves, my general rule in my writing is that noble elves use magic to give themselves the whole hairless elf look, while the general elven populace doesn't care that much (though they're usually less hirsute than humans and dwarves).

My preference for dwarves is they grow hair in the usual way as humans, but a much greater rate. So dwarves grow body hair at a rate that it would take a particularly fuzzy human to grow in a week. So a dwarf shaved bald will have full head of hair or bead within a week, and within a month a male dwarf could pass as a member of ZZ Top.

Blymurkla
2018-05-24, 01:15 PM
I'm incredibly annoyed by the wild west feel of D&D fantasy. I like a Western as much as the next guy, but a Western with a veneer of medieval Europe? I don't see the charm in that. The wacky economical system of D&D (based on the gold rush), the semi-autonomous frontier villages. There are general stores but hardly any agriculture (seriously, check basically any map of a village included in an adventure). There's this feel that there's 'a law', but its agents are always distant. No, I like my fake middle ages to have a middle age feel.

The worst offender in the wild west mockery is of course the inns and taverns in fantasy. Okay, fair enough, The Prancing Pony is a pretty huge influence on the genre too, but fantasy taverns are always just saloons with a brawl just seconds away. And there's always a tavern or inn, no matter how small a village. If you want medievalism, keep them in the towns and along the very large trade routes.

I have no problem with the classic quest-starts-at-inn trope, but don't try to make the inn interesting. Any number of weird patrons won't change the fact that an inn scene in the beginning of the session is super hard to make interesting, the players are looking to get going, not have pointless chats with people.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-24, 01:26 PM
As long as you're willing to have female dwarves show up, great. I'll admit, I don't give female dwarves beards as a common trait because it isn't a preference of mine and I don't think you should give half a fantasy population any traits that might make you not want to use them in your story/game. Which is my problem with the trope when actually used: with literally just you as the exception (in my experience), everyone I've read/gamed with who gave beards to dwarven women never seemed to use them, even when they claimed it was what they preferred and that it didn't bother them. So good on you, glad someone is willing to roll with what they've written for their world.

As for elves, my general rule in my writing is that noble elves use magic to give themselves the whole hairless elf look, while the general elven populace doesn't care that much (though they're usually less hirsute than humans and dwarves).

All my races are a bit...different. And different cultures of different races are different. The humans in the northern area build walls obsessively and are allergic to bees in large numbers, the humans in the south have minor amounts of elven and snake DNA (and some have mottled skin), the humans to the west are tall, dark, and pale even in the sun (because their ancestors were devoted to the old Goddess of Night).

So you never see a solo dwarf except as an adventurer. Always pairs. Each pair ends up looking very similar to each other, no matter how different they were to begin with.

And humans (and orcs, and halflings, and lots of other races) are descended from goblins by way of intentional magical manipulation. Blame the elves for that one.



The worst offender in the wild west mockery is of course the inns and taverns in fantasy. Okay, fair enough, The Prancing Pony is a pretty huge influence on the genre too, but fantasy taverns are always just saloons with a brawl just seconds away. And there's always a tavern or inn, no matter how small a village. If you want medievalism, keep them in the towns and along the very large trade routes.


I don't actually use very many inns. Depending on the culture, some don't do inns--the only lodgings for travellers in some areas are people with spare rooms. Others have a tightly registered system of inns for non-locals, with tokens proving that you're registered there so the guards don't bust you for vagrancy. But I've never started a campaign in an inn, so :shrug:.

Anonymouswizard
2018-05-24, 02:19 PM
As long as you're willing to have female dwarves show up, great. I'll admit, I don't give female dwarves beards as a common trait because it isn't a preference of mine and I don't think you should give half a fantasy population any traits that might make you not want to use them in your story/game. Which is my problem with the trope when actually used: with literally just you as the exception (in my experience), everyone I've read/gamed with who gave beards to dwarven women never seemed to use them, even when they claimed it was what they preferred and that it didn't bother them. So good on you, glad someone is willing to roll with what they've written for their world.

As for elves, my general rule in my writing is that noble elves use magic to give themselves the whole hairless elf look, while the general elven populace doesn't care that much (though they're usually less hirsute than humans and dwarves).

My current character specifically has a beard because he intentionally looks very feminine but I want his gender to be obvious (the party includes another tiefling, who's gender-ambiguous, so I'm contrasting). A rather short and well kept beard, but still a beard. However he is a tiefling, so the weird bit is that it's just the kinda slightly-patchy beard you'd see on a human in their twenties rather than an evil goatee.

Although like me he also finds facial hair (and body hair, hair is good) on women rather attractive. Not to the full bushy beard sense (although it's not exactly a turn off), but certainly staches and sideburns. So yeah, while my worlds might not go for the 'dwarven women have beards' trope (I'm actually much more likely to have beardless males and just give them all long luxurious hair) they do tend to have a larger than realistic number of women who are noticably hairy.


The worst offender in the wild west mockery is of course the inns and taverns in fantasy. Okay, fair enough, The Prancing Pony is a pretty huge influence on the genre too, but fantasy taverns are always just saloons with a brawl just seconds away. And there's always a tavern or inn, no matter how small a village. If you want medievalism, keep them in the towns and along the very large trade routes.

Being an Englishman, I tend to run inns as if they were pubs. So while you might have a brawl break out occasionally most of them with locals looking to hang out with friends or just get a drink or a bite to eat. I'll generally put a pub or an inn in anything I'd mentally classify as a 'village' or larger, because I've been in hamlets with multiple pubs, but most of them will cater more towards locals than travellers (and outside of trade routes many of them won't have rooms intended for guests).

Max_Killjoy
2018-05-24, 02:37 PM
That Granny Weatherwax quote is being interpreted backwards. That's not a definition of evil, that's a major cause of evil. Evil comes from thinking of people as things (a very Kantian argument) in her opinion, not that thinking of people as things is the sole definition of evil.

Without the option to do evil, there is no option to do good. And vice versa. That doesn't excuse evil doers, and in a world where evil is a literal physical force, nor does it save creatures made of that evil substance from a righteous smiting. But it does say that removing evil cannot happen unless everyone chooses to stand aside from evil. And then evil still exists but it has no power. Because evil only has that power that it's given--light always excludes darkness, since darkness is merely the absence of light.


I think there's also a huge difference between "the possibility of evil being done is an unavoidable consequence of free will", and "evil as a cosmic force, in balance with good as a cosmic force, is absolutely necessary." It's the latter that is, IMO, dead wrong, occasionally bordering on the stupid, and beyond worn out as an aspect of fiction and gaming settings.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-24, 02:40 PM
My current character specifically has a beard because he intentionally looks very feminine but I want his gender to be obvious (the party includes another tiefling, who's gender-ambiguous, so I'm contrasting). A rather short and well kept beard, but still a beard. However he is a tiefling, so the weird bit is that it's just the kinda slightly-patchy beard you'd see on a human in their twenties rather than an evil goatee.

Although like me he also finds facial hair (and body hair, hair is good) on women rather attractive. Not to the full bushy beard sense (although it's not exactly a turn off), but certainly staches and sideburns. So yeah, while my worlds might not go for the 'dwarven women have beards' trope (I'm actually much more likely to have beardless males and just give them all long luxurious hair) they do tend to have a larger than realistic number of women who are noticably hairy.


I ran a character (a half-orc) who was rather short and stout. He got seriously sick of being mistaken for a dwarf, so he kept his head and face clean shaven to avoid that reference.

I also am currently running a warlock/bard who started out doing the androgynous look. He's finally come out as female--he made a deal with a celestial (Celestial Warlock) who had a seriously twisted sense of humor (being chaotic). He asked for the best voice ever. The celestial decided that the best voice belonged to a female opera singer, so to make things work he'd have to give him her physical shape as well. It took him a while to become comfortable with that, so he (now she) tried to hide it for a while.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-24, 02:43 PM
I think there's also a huge difference between "the possibility of evil being done is an unavoidable consequence of free will", and "evil as a cosmic force, in balance with good as a cosmic force, is absolutely necessary." It's the latter that is, IMO, dead wrong, occasionally bordering on the stupid, and beyond worn out as an aspect of fiction and gaming settings.

That I can accept just fine. The first is my real-life view, but I don't do "good and evil as cosmic forces" in games these days. There are certainly evil people and beings out there. But that's because they chose to do horrific things. There is no "plane of good" or "plane of evil"--even the devils and demons can be good or evil as individuals. Demons tend to get a bad rap, living in the Abyss (created as a prison for the Primordial of Change after he rebelled before the beginning) and consuming souls and all, but mostly they've just chosen goals at odds with the current order. There was going to be a Demon Prince who was honest and good, accepting only willing sacrifices to create a paradise-like afterlife (something that's missing), but the players convinced him to self-destruct due to existential angst before he got that far. It was messy.

Blymurkla
2018-05-24, 03:05 PM
I'll generally put a pub or an inn in anything I'd mentally classify as a 'village' or larger, because I've been in hamlets with multiple pubs. Sure, but that's like saying "most of the states in my medieval fantasy worlds are democracies, because I've voted in elections".

If you want an medieval feel, where taverns are rare, there's still a way to get those barbrawl/quests scences. Beer in medieval times weren't stored, it was drunk freshly brewed. So ever so often, one of the farms would brew a batch and thus become an impromptu tavern for the village (and any visiting adventurers).

There's nothing inherently wrong with putting an inn in every village, or even one along the road in the middle of nowhere, eigher because you like the Prancing Pony/saloon trope or because you like your fantasy to be close to home so it's easy to grasp. I'm just tiered of the trope, and that's my problem.

Anonymouswizard
2018-05-24, 03:08 PM
I ran a character (a half-orc) who was rather short and stout. He got seriously sick of being mistaken for a dwarf, so he kept his head and face clean shaven to avoid that reference.

I also am currently running a warlock/bard who started out doing the androgynous look. He's finally come out as female--he made a deal with a celestial (Celestial Warlock) who had a seriously twisted sense of humor (being chaotic). He asked for the best voice ever. The celestial decided that the best voice belonged to a female opera singer, so to make things work he'd have to give him her physical shape as well. It took him a while to become comfortable with that, so he (now she) tried to hide it for a while.

Yeah, you can certainly have fun with this stuff.

I personally really do enjoy digging down into what the characters find physically attractive, rather than going for modern attractiveness. My character was raised by a criminal and managed to get himself through university (not quite legally), he's the grandchild of a low ranking demon and bard, and he's naturally charming if a bit shy. He certainly likes his cuddle buddies on the chubby side and with hair, partially because those with weight are doing well (he himself carries a bit of fat when he's been in town for a few weeks).

EDIT: on inns, I mentioned it because I was explaining why my players tend to find it comfortable. Also 'village' really varies here, and realistically pubs/inns should not be spread as evenly as I have them. I suppose 'town' might be the better word, although I also don't run middle ages.

Corneel
2018-05-24, 03:50 PM
On Inns, I think you should find them mainly along roads or waterways that see a bit of travel. Also, they should be seen as the center of communal life in smaller communities. It's where the village council gathers to discuss stuff, where court is held when the sheriff is visiting to decide on matters of justice or where public sales are held of properties (which still happens in Belgium that way, public sales of real estate is often done in a pub). It's often the only building in the settlement open to the general public.

In smaller settlement you might mix it up with other functions, like Tim the Miller, who has a large estate with some room to spare and a place with a hearth were the villagers can share a bit of gossip while drinking the ale his wife made for just a few coppers. If you want a bed he might have spare room, and even a place for your horse. And you can share some of the stew that always on the fire.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-24, 03:55 PM
Yeah, you can certainly have fun with this stuff.

I personally really do enjoy digging down into what the characters find physically attractive, rather than going for modern attractiveness. My character was raised by a criminal and managed to get himself through university (not quite legally), he's the grandchild of a low ranking demon and bard, and he's naturally charming if a bit shy. He certainly likes his cuddle buddies on the chubby side and with hair, partially because those with weight are doing well (he himself carries a bit of fat when he's been in town for a few weeks).

EDIT: on inns, I mentioned it because I was explaining why my players tend to find it comfortable. Also 'village' really varies here, and realistically pubs/inns should not be spread as evenly as I have them. I suppose 'town' might be the better word, although I also don't run middle ages.

I've been doing some work with clothing and cultural descriptors. One particular culture is short (due to a genetic bottleneck and resource starvation). They actually find pudgyness and roundness attractive--the feminine ideal is heavy-set and "full", while a pot-belly is the ideal for me. Still strong, but definitely not the modern western ideal. Another culture, also of humans, prizes slender, almost androgynous looks for both men and women. They're into snakes, so sinuous is the ideal.

Archpaladin Zousha
2018-05-24, 09:25 PM
I have no problem with the classic quest-starts-at-inn trope, but don't try to make the inn interesting. Any number of weird patrons won't change the fact that an inn scene in the beginning of the session is super hard to make interesting, the players are looking to get going, not have pointless chats with people.
This is why one of the best games I was ever in dispensed with the adventuring in the wilds nonsense and just centered the entire campaign IN a tavern and the wacky shenanigans its wacky staff and wacky regular customers got up to! I played the head chef, a grumpy dwarf with a heart of gold and no indoor voice who doted on his pet duck and adoptive human son! It was fun! :smalltongue:

Personification
2018-05-25, 12:53 AM
This is why one of the best games I was ever in dispensed with the adventuring in the wilds nonsense and just centered the entire campaign IN a tavern and the wacky shenanigans its wacky staff and wacky regular customers got up to! I played the head chef, a grumpy dwarf with a heart of gold and no indoor voice who doted on his pet duck and adoptive human son! It was fun! :smalltongue:

In a world, where Cheers takes place on Faerun...

Bad Wolf
2018-05-25, 01:12 AM
Seems odd that Asmodeus hasn't been brought up at all in the whole "Good and Evil Balance" trope discussion.

I personally think they did a good job of justifying it. Asmodeus was an angel who made a pact with the gods (in 3rd edition at least) to punish evildoers on their behalf. Sure, he made a sucker of them in the exact details of the contract, but you don't see any of the gods of good interfering in the Nine Hells.

Also if the devils weren't keeping the demons occupied in the Blood War, there'd be a bloody apocalyptic war between them and the Upper Planes, with mortals caught in the middle.

TL;DR: Asmodeus in 3.5 edition is a good example of "Good Needs Evil". In my opinion, at least.

Anonymouswizard
2018-05-25, 05:51 AM
Seems odd that Asmodeus hasn't been brought up at all in the whole "Good and Evil Balance" trope discussion.

I personally think they did a good job of justifying it. Asmodeus was an angel who made a pact with the gods (in 3rd edition at least) to punish evildoers on their behalf. Sure, he made a sucker of them in the exact details of the contract, but you don't see any of the gods of good interfering in the Nine Hells.

Also if the devils weren't keeping the demons occupied in the Blood War, there'd be a bloody apocalyptic war between them and the Upper Planes, with mortals caught in the middle.

TL;DR: Asmodeus in 3.5 edition is a good example of "Good Needs Evil". In my opinion, at least.

This brings up another annoying thing, 'evil is more powerful but divided, but good is united and use can fend off whatever evil sends their way'.

Whyis good united? Why isn't good divided over how to do good? Over what exactly is good? Why is good one big happy family?

Archpaladin Zousha
2018-05-25, 06:50 AM
In a world, where Cheers takes place on Faerun...
Actually it was Eberron! :smallwink:

Beleriphon
2018-05-25, 07:51 AM
This brings up another annoying thing, 'evil is more powerful but divided, but good is united and use can fend off whatever evil sends their way'.

Whyis good united? Why isn't good divided over how to do good? Over what exactly is good? Why is good one big happy family?

Because generally speaking good people don't decide genocide is the appropriate answer to a philosophical dispute.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-25, 08:29 AM
Because generally speaking good people don't decide genocide is the appropriate answer to a philosophical dispute.

I've never seen the side of good as a big happy family, it's just that their disagreements are kept to the "annoying person who's good-hearted but wrong on the means" level rather than the "competitor for ultimate power that must be crushed" level. That allows cooperation--they agree on the ends but not always the means.

Evil can't even get that far, because for some of them the means are the ends.

NecroDancer
2018-05-25, 08:47 AM
I'm not a huge fan of "always evil and always good" it tends to make characters less interesting/relatable.

For example what if the courageous paladin is really envious of a colleagues' success and try's to sabotage the his rival during a tourney so he can look better? The paladin is still "good", he follows the laws and helps people as much as possible but his envy causes him to resort to dirty tactics against his rival. The paladin's character is now way more interesting than your stereotypical paladin because he has a very relatable flaw.

A villain on the other hand may be a tyrannical warlord but he also loves his pet dog. The dog is a puppy that he found during a raid and he is raising it as his own, during his free time the villain often plays, trains, and snuggles with the puppy. The villain is a horrible person but he dotes on the puppy and has a parental love for it. This bond makes the villain better because he has a human trait and is capable of empathy for other but chooses to ignore his empathy.

Beleriphon
2018-05-25, 10:12 AM
A villain on the other hand may be a tyrannical warlord but he also loves his pet dog. The dog is a puppy that he found during a raid and he is raising it as his own, during his free time the villain often plays, trains, and snuggles with the puppy. The villain is a horrible person but he dotes on the puppy and has a parental love for it. This bond makes the villain better because he has a human trait and is capable of empathy for other but chooses to ignore his empathy.

Sounds rather like Thanos. If the dog was green, and sapient.

Consensus
2018-05-25, 11:00 AM
Sounds rather like Thanos. If the dog was green, and sapient.
And he also abused the dog, but somehow still """""""""""""loved""""""""""""" it when he killed it for his own personal gain. I have problems with that scene.
EDIT: Spoiler

Bad Wolf
2018-05-25, 12:30 PM
I'm not a huge fan of "always evil and always good" it tends to make characters less interesting/relatable.

For example what if the courageous paladin is really envious of a colleagues' success and try's to sabotage the his rival during a tourney so he can look better? The paladin is still "good", he follows the laws and helps people as much as possible but his envy causes him to resort to dirty tactics against his rival. The paladin's character is now way more interesting than your stereotypical paladin because he has a very relatable flaw.


Depending on the level of dirty tactics, that might be a reason for the paladin to fall. Even if no one got harmed by it, I'd require him to get an antonement spell from his church or someone sharing his moral background.

You can be perfect in all other areas, but if you have a big enough character flaw, it can keep you from being considered good enough for the paladin's code. Resorting to underhanded tactics just to look better, and not because anything important's at stake, is not what a paladin should do.

Lord Raziere
2018-05-25, 12:40 PM
Depending on the level of dirty tactics, that might be a reason for the paladin to fall. Even if no one got harmed by it, I'd require him to get an antonement spell from his church or someone sharing his moral background.

You can be perfect in all other areas, but if you have a big enough character flaw, it can keep you from being considered good enough for the paladin's code. Resorting to underhanded tactics just to look better, and not because anything important's at stake, is not what a paladin should do.

Yeah, Paladin's a bad example of not being fully good. Being fully good is pretty much the entire point of the class. Paladin's not really supposed to be relatable, they're supposed to be Superman if he didn't have phenomenal cosmic power.

now if it was a fighter or cavalier with a knightly theme, that'd be perfectly in character for the times. THOSE are fair game.

AuthorGirl
2018-05-25, 04:12 PM
And he also abused the dog, but somehow still """""""""""""loved""""""""""""" it when he killed it for his own personal gain. I have problems with that scene.
EDIT: Spoiler

Thank you for putting into words my problems with that scene.

Consensus
2018-05-25, 08:46 PM
Thank you for putting into words my problems with that scene.
Yeah, you'd think that logically killing a person you love for power would be a catch-22 in order to prevent a power hungry person from getting the stone, but apparently it works the exact other way and ensures no one who isn't power hungry gets the stone.

Blymurkla
2018-05-26, 02:52 AM
I wanna see more muscular or chubby elves! I wanna see more slim or wiry dwarves! I wanna see humans of ALL body types in these stories, and not just chiseled barbarians and buxom princesses! I want to see more pretty orcs (these aren't TOO hard to find, but it's mostly through fanart or original depictions)! Thank you!

There's a reason for the narrow range of body types, as well as culture etc., for fantasy races like dwarves and elves. Diversity is almost always human's shtick. Humans have diverse looks, lots of cultures, countries, are spread out over the world etc. etc. To be something else than humans, the fantasy races needs to be rather narrow cliches.

Sure, occasionally you can play with these cliches. Make dwarves not-necessarily-stocky, or make elves have multiple, decidedly different cultures. But then, you might want to divide the race up into sub-races - that's your dark elves, wood elves etc. When a fantasy race isn't a narrow cliche, it's divided up into two narrow cliches!

Why? Well, your world could have a description of dwarves that reads »Dwarves vary in height, but they are always at least slightly shorter than most humans. They're known to be quite stocky, but some dwarves are slim.«

Then you follow up with »Male dwarves' facial hair grows rapidly, and as a result many wear long beards. However, there are dwarves who shave their chins clean«.

And for a bit of varied culture, you write »Most dwarves live in underground barrows in the worlds mountain chains, where they're renowned smiths and armourers. There are also dwarf realms along the coast, where the dwarves are expert woodworkers, shipwrights and sailors.«

So now, you've might got a player who plays a character that's on the short side for a human (but not exceedingly short), is fairly skinny, doesn't wear a beard and has a background as a pirate on the high seas. In what way is that character a dwarf?

Xuc Xac
2018-05-26, 03:49 AM
So now, you've might got a player who plays a character that's on the short side for a human (but not exceedingly short), is fairly skinny, doesn't wear a beard and has a background as a pirate on the high seas. In what way is that character a dwarf?

When the skinny beardless dwarf pirate applies for a loan to get a new ship, elven bankers still deny him credit? When he tries to marry a human girl, her family will disown her and say "You can hire those people to build your castle but you don't let them sleep in it"? But sure, when he goes to Moria, the other dwarves will probably accuse him of trying to "act white tall".

Spore
2018-05-26, 05:21 AM
I'm not a huge fan of "always evil and always good" it tends to make characters less interesting/relatable.

While I agree for ALL other media, a certain black/white is very enjoyable (to me) for roleplaying. Yes, interesting backstories can be morally grey. But the world is so ambiguous nowadays, that I enjoy a bit of simplicity in my escapism.

:thog: Orc, bad, evil, smash.
:thog: Elf, nice, good, eat.

:smalleek: Wait what?

Guizonde
2018-05-26, 06:06 AM
While I agree for ALL other media, a certain black/white is very enjoyable (to me) for roleplaying. Yes, interesting backstories can be morally grey. But the world is so ambiguous nowadays, that I enjoy a bit of simplicity in my escapism.

:thog: Orc, bad, evil, smash.
:thog: Elf, nice, good, eat.

:smalleek: Wait what?

slightly off-topic, but why are knife-ears the de facto snack on these boards? cannibalism is universally seen as evil, but if we chomp on legolas we've got a free pass or something?

i mean, they're delicious, i'm not criticizing, just curious.

Anonymouswizard
2018-05-26, 07:40 AM
Ask the beret wearing insect men of Athas.

Bohandas
2018-05-26, 11:52 AM
There's a reason for the narrow range of body types, as well as culture etc., for fantasy races like dwarves and elves. Diversity is almost always human's shtick. Humans have diverse looks, lots of cultures, countries, are spread out over the world etc. etc.

That's actually something that irks me about a lot of fantasy settings. What reason do the other races have to be monolithic that doesn't apply to the setting's humans as well? It strikes me as a plot hole and the result of lazy writing. Such explanations as are given are usually a morass of tautologies and begging the question.

Guizonde
2018-05-26, 11:59 AM
Ask the beret wearing insect men of Athas.

mind if i sig this? it's such a perfect dismissal, it's appropriate in all circumstances!

1: what time is it?
2:Ask the beret wearing insect men of Athas.

1: what's for dinner?
2:Ask the beret wearing insect men of Athas.

1: why is the baby on fire?
2: ... dude, stop.

8BitNinja
2018-05-26, 01:19 PM
Ramming clumsy neologisms into the narrative when there is no imperative to do so, sorry you are not Tolkien, you didn't invent a whole language...elves can just say 'my cloak' not 'my piwafwi'. Forgotten Realms books were particularly egregious offenders.

The Lord of the Rings movies are actually somewhat guilty of this, as they randomly went from talking between human and elvish in conversations (although I can recall certain times where this was practical, such as hiding information from other characters)

8BitNinja
2018-05-26, 01:27 PM
Ten thousand extra minus points if they're japanese blades in a european setting.

This bugs me a lot, especially if they are katanas in a European setting. IIRC katana forging techniques existed due to the limited amount of iron due to living on an island, although I'm no historian, and I'm sure trade with the Portuguese could have changed this. In any case, I find it hard to see a weapon like the katana being used against an opponent in plate armor.

Guizonde
2018-05-26, 01:37 PM
In any case, I find it hard to see a weapon like the katana being used against an opponent in plate armor.

because it would be useless. a katana's construction wouldn't endure the first hit. the blade construction and resistance is all wrong. in europe, we built the messers, which are built in opposite strengths to a katana's. the europeans had the messer to fill the niche role of the katana (sort of...). you've got a few different versions, but thank german law for it all. a messer is a saber build like a knife. you've got your regular messer, akin to a machete (yeah, big knife, but it's 15th century rules-lawyering). then you've got your kriegsmesser. that'd be the germanic equivalent to the falchion, meant to hit hard but be wielded with the same basic moves as a sword. finally, you've got the grosse messer. which is nearly 5 feet long, curved, and meant to ruin your day. enough impact strength to break a bone under plate, and absurdly deadly for cutting. it is a saber, after all.

i wrote all this before looking at the wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messer_(weapon)), and i'm glad my years of studying military history paid off somewhat. i'm not entirely wrong on all counts!

The Jack
2018-05-26, 02:07 PM
It annoys me more that nobody seems to "get" japan. I actually tried to write a guide to setting a game in japan, but my computer isn't reliable and it was lost and I started to wonder if it was an actuall good idea.

The folding technique was something they used in the west, but then they worked out better techniques so didn't need it. For whatever reason the Japanese didn't work out these better techniques so they doubled down on the folding.

The Katana was a weapon found among all classes, there was no restriction to the samurai until the edo period, which was really late.

The Katana wasn't a battlefield weapon. Just like a sword (or longsword) it was nice for carrying around town and when doing your civilian duties, but in a pitched battle it'll be your sidearm to a polearm, great weapon, bow or gun. I actually felt infuriated when I read the Lot5r/Oriental adventures part about katana/wakazashi being the only honourable weapons for samurai on samurai fights.
The katana should not be a finesse weapon, while we're here. It's perfectly a longsword.

When it came to honour, samurai were not really that different from knights. Some were the ideal and all about holding honour, many were much more pragmatic, some were real bastards. Seppuku was more often an execution than a suicide.

Shinobi were functionally just spies, the same as anywhere else. They could be a samurai, peasant, prostitute or merchant. Their primary job was to gather information. I like the bombastic Ninja concept, but I am convinced they should be quite separate. Oh, shinobi had no special weapons, shuriken were something some samurai used.

Nobody wants to use guns in a samurai setting, which is a shame, because guns, or the outside influence of technologically superior powers, were real instigators.

Sohei Warrior monks are underated, which reminds me; The Barbarian class fits japanese warrior monks more than the "monk" class does (Fighter fits everything) Japanese warrior monk orders fought with armour and weapons, and were quite a troublesome lot. For whatever reason, honing the body was great for the spirit in japanese buddhism, in general, a re-fluffed barbarian works for Sohei/Yamabushi far more than a "monk" class does, and it's good that 5e Barbarians can read. The "monk" class works nicely for chinese immigrants (or their analogues) fighters in an edo-like period or mythical wire-fu beast people, but not the warrior monks of japan.

Pirates also an oddly overlooked by the west part of fuedal japan.

Xuc Xac
2018-05-26, 02:10 PM
This bugs me a lot, especially if they are katanas in a European setting. IIRC katana forging techniques existed due to the limited amount of iron due to living on an island, although I'm no historian, and I'm sure trade with the Portuguese could have changed this. In any case, I find it hard to see a weapon like the katana being used against an opponent in plate armor.

The way they folded the steel over and over to make many layers was a necessity of the quality of their iron. The shape and style of the finished katana has nothing to do with it. The Japanese used to make straight swords too before settling on "hand-and-a-half saber" as the default sword shape. Vikings used to use the same forging techniques and the swords they made were nothing like katana in shape or use.

Luccan
2018-05-26, 02:41 PM
-snip-

The Katana wasn't a battlefield weapon. Just like a sword (or longsword) it was nice for carrying around town and when doing your civilian duties, but in a pitched battle it'll be your sidearm to a polearm, great weapon, bow or gun. I actually felt infuriated when I read the Lot5r/Oriental adventures part about katana/wakazashi being the only honourable weapons for samurai on samurai fights.
The katana should not be a finesse weapon, while we're here. It's perfectly a longsword.

-snip-

Sohei Warrior monks are underated, which reminds me; The Barbarian class fits japanese warrior monks more than the "monk" class does (Fighter fits everything) Japanese warrior monk orders fought with armour and weapons, and were quite a troublesome lot. For whatever reason, honing the body was great for the spirit in japanese buddhism, in general, a re-fluffed barbarian works for Sohei/Yamabushi far more than a "monk" class does, and it's good that 5e Barbarians can read. The "monk" class works nicely for chinese immigrants (or their analogues) fighters in an edo-like period or mythical wire-fu beast people, but not the warrior monks of japan.
Pirates also an oddly overlooked by the west part of fuedal japan.

There's a reason I reworked the starting weapons for samurai in my 3.X games. I let them basically be any weapon the character can wield. As for the sohei, OA did have that they just... kinda suck. Lack of support and slightly worse versions of other classes' abilities being their main problems. Though I always thought monk was intended to represent Chinese monks, not Japanese monks. Never crossed my mind to equate them to anything Japanese, actually.

The Jack
2018-05-26, 03:04 PM
I looked at all the "oriental" classes (it pains me how japan-centric "oriental" often is) and went "nope"
Fighter, barbarian, paladin, cleric, ranger... All the Japanese rolls fit nicely within the western classes, especially if we're considering 5e.

Shugenja, is, as far as I know, straight out made-up. Just grab your caster of choice and make your Taoist/Confucian/animistic/shinto/buddhist reskin (As opposed to the hermetic/gnostic/pagan/abrahamic things we put onto western wizards)

Japan is so over-represented. The mythology of the Norse, Greeks and egyptians are overdone, and the bog-standard western europe (-american frontier) isn't grand.
I'd really appreciate someone capable of crafting a proper arabian/indian/slavic/american/Sub-Saharan setting for me. That, or if someone could really nail western europe like nobody does, that'd be great.

Luccan
2018-05-26, 04:50 PM
I looked at all the "oriental" classes (it pains me how japan-centric "oriental" often is) and went "nope"
Fighter, barbarian, paladin, cleric, ranger... All the Japanese rolls fit nicely within the western classes, especially if we're considering 5e.

Shugenja, is, as far as I know, straight out made-up. Just grab your caster of choice and make your Taoist/Confucian/animistic/shinto/buddhist reskin (As opposed to the hermetic/gnostic/pagan/abrahamic things we put onto western wizards)

Japan is so over-represented. The mythology of the Norse, Greeks and egyptians are overdone, and the bog-standard western europe (-american frontier) isn't grand.
I'd really appreciate someone capable of crafting a proper arabian/indian/slavic/american/Sub-Saharan setting for me. That, or if someone could really nail western europe like nobody does, that'd be great.

I'm sure there are people who can, but you have to remember most people write what they know (or at least, what won't get them yelled at too much if they mess it up). And most writers popular in the west are, well, western. So western Europe, sometimes with tropes more suited to the American Old West, is a more common fantasy base. Japan gets a lot of focus because Japanese media is more easily accessed in the west.

In defense of Rokugan, it is fantasy. It isn't an accurate representation of feudal Japan, but neither is the Forgotten Realms an accurate representation of medieval Europe.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-26, 04:54 PM
And having tried to find information about the Old Khmer civilization to flesh out a culture for my setting, finding information for the layperson on any but the "big" (well-known, etc) civilizations is pretty darn hard.

Amaril
2018-05-26, 05:12 PM
Also, for pen-and-paper RPGs in particular, I've found it to be a huge advantage to have players already be familiar with certain broad strokes of the setting when they jump in. And the (rather unfortunate, but true) fact in my experience is that far more people who play RPGs have a ready mental image of a setting inspired by medieval western Europe, feudal Japan, or Greek and Norse mythology than any of those other cultures. Being able to say "it's like medieval England, but with elves" and have the players immediately be able to picture that leaves them with far more energy to think about playing their characters, and to know how said characters might react to a situation without having to first jump through fifteen mental hoops to visualize everything, and then think about how a character to whom it's all familiar would feel about it.

In a novel or a CRPG or what have you, where much of that work is already done for you as a player, then by all means go nuts. Same if you know your players are familiar with the relevant history and mythology. But for my part, I'll be careful about trying to build my RPG settings off of historical bases that none of my group are acquainted with (myself included--I can't claim to know enough to pull off an Arabian or Indian or pre-colonial American setting).

Anonymouswizard
2018-05-26, 05:57 PM
mind if i sig this? it's such a perfect dismissal, it's appropriate in all circumstances!

Sure, sig away.


I looked at all the "oriental" classes (it pains me how japan-centric "oriental" often is) and went "nope"
Fighter, barbarian, paladin, cleric, ranger... All the Japanese rolls fit nicely within the western classes, especially if we're considering 5e.

Shugenja, is, as far as I know, straight out made-up. Just grab your caster of choice and make your Taoist/Confucian/animistic/shinto/buddhist reskin (As opposed to the hermetic/gnostic/pagan/abrahamic things we put onto western wizards)

Japan is so over-represented. The mythology of the Norse, Greeks and egyptians are overdone, and the bog-standard western europe (-american frontier) isn't grand.
I'd really appreciate someone capable of crafting a proper arabian/indian/slavic/american/Sub-Saharan setting for me. That, or if someone could really nail western europe like nobody does, that'd be great.

I'm getting into Chinese settings at the moment, as the fact that China is slightly less popular means it's easier to find the good ones.

The first thing I've noticed is that, if running in D&D, the monk would be the first class I ban. The main class selection I'd give in a Wuxia D&D game is Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue, homebrew Daoist class that gives access to external alchemy, internal alchemy, and divination (it's recommended to focus on one). Possibly Paladin and Ranger as well, especially spellless variants.

But yeah, a well done Arabian or Slavic setting would be amazing to me. Especially if it used a system specifically designed for it. I mean, I enjoy iron age Celts as much as the next guy, but they're essentially what everybody goes for when they don't want to do 'medieval', samurai, or vikings.

Personification
2018-05-27, 02:55 AM
I think you might be a bit too hard an the DND Monk. While it is definitely nothing like historically accurate, it is also in a setting with nothing like our history. The Monk as a class is not made to accurately model real life warrior monks (which weren't super common anyway, and I'm pretty sure that the type that they are trying to model is Chinese and not Japanese), it is made so that someone can have a character based on an old cheesy martial arts movie with an impractical number of flips in the combat. Plus, while I understand your sentiment, the Monk is a really cool class mechanically and I think that banning it outright for being historically inaccurate isn't the best approach (though that was probably hyperbole). Anyway, devils' advocate etc. etc.

Blymurkla
2018-05-27, 03:29 AM
When the skinny beardless dwarf pirate applies for a loan to get a new ship, elven bankers still deny him credit? When he tries to marry a human girl, her family will disown her and say "You can hire those people to build your castle but you don't let them sleep in it"? But sure, when he goes to Moria, the other dwarves will probably accuse him of trying to "act white tall".

I think I fail to understand your point, Xuc Xac.

Drascin
2018-05-27, 04:25 AM
Shugenja, is, as far as I know, straight out made-up. Just grab your caster of choice and make your Taoist/Confucian/animistic/shinto/buddhist reskin (As opposed to the hermetic/gnostic/pagan/abrahamic things we put onto western wizards)

It feels like making D&D Wizard fit a any of those molds would require so much reworking that you might as well just chuck Wizard entirely and make a whole new class. Wizard is WAY too steeped into specific assumptions to map to basically anything else (which is in fact something of a problem players already have with the D&D wizard in western fantasy settings already, because D&D wizard has a massive pile of assumptions built in that don't actually map to anything except an extremely specific kind of pseudo-hermetic mage... and D&D-inspired fiction).

You can, conceivably, manage to remap clerics to shinto priests with some merciless brutalizing of spell lists, but I'm pretty sure Wizard is just kind of a lost cause.

The Jack
2018-05-27, 04:31 AM
Oddly, the Monk could happily be used for South east asia, india or an arabian setting, (America/africa makes much sense too) they're not exclusively chinese. Hell I don't mind making western monks (since the western setting is so watered down anyway) but for some maddening reason they're not allowed scimitars despite the allowance of short swords. Madness.

But then again they can't use polearms, and I can't really imagine shaolin knockoffs without polearms.
The monk class always just struck me as contrived, I'd rather see fighters/barbarians/rangers/paladins/war clerics with hand to hand advantages than a specific hand to hand class based on a poorly aged movie trope.

Anonymouswizard
2018-05-27, 06:43 AM
I think you might be a bit too hard an the DND Monk. While it is definitely nothing like historically accurate, it is also in a setting with nothing like our history. The Monk as a class is not made to accurately model real life warrior monks (which weren't super common anyway, and I'm pretty sure that the type that they are trying to model is Chinese and not Japanese), it is made so that someone can have a character based on an old cheesy martial arts movie with an impractical number of flips in the combat. Plus, while I understand your sentiment, the Monk is a really cool class mechanically and I think that banning it outright for being historically inaccurate isn't the best approach (though that was probably hyperbole). Anyway, devils' advocate etc. etc.

The problem with the monk is that you need to be emulating a genre where it's tricks aren't standard. Imagine a Wuxia game, almost everybody important is lightfooting around the place and using acrobatic fighting styles (except the few people who don't), and most warriors are trained to fight unarmed (although using a weapon is just better). When not being monk is rare is easier to just give everybody some monk abilities and get more variation.

Max_Killjoy
2018-05-27, 07:27 AM
And having tried to find information about the Old Khmer civilization to flesh out a culture for my setting, finding information for the layperson on any but the "big" (well-known, etc) civilizations is pretty darn hard.

In general, I've found it very hard to dig up sources that are in the sweet spot of "not dumbed-down or based on pop-science and modern myth" and at the same time "not so academic as to be written with the assumption the reader has spent decades immersed in the jargon and references of the field".

Max_Killjoy
2018-05-27, 07:29 AM
Oddly, the Monk could happily be used for South east asia, india or an arabian setting, (America/africa makes much sense too) they're not exclusively chinese. Hell I don't mind making western monks (since the western setting is so watered down anyway) but for some maddening reason they're not allowed scimitars despite the allowance of short swords. Madness.

But then again they can't use polearms, and I can't really imagine shaolin knockoffs without polearms.
The monk class always just struck me as contrived, I'd rather see fighters/barbarians/rangers/paladins/war clerics with hand to hand advantages than a specific hand to hand class based on a poorly aged movie trope.

None of the weapon restrictions ever made a lick of sense.

The Jack
2018-05-27, 09:56 AM
None of the weapon restrictions ever made a lick of sense.

They're sort of ok in 5e, you just don't get to add your proficiency but you're still fine to use the weapon, which would be more than reasonable if classes were sensible about that sort of thing. When it's all martial, or all simple, or none, it's fine. When it's "you can use weapons A,B,C,F,H,I and K, even though K is near the exact same thing as J" then it's nonsense.

Still, armour is the worse offender by far. Far more punishing for something leaps and bounds easier.

Bohandas
2018-05-27, 11:21 AM
I'm getting into Chinese settings at the moment, as the fact that China is slightly less popular means it's easier to find the good ones.

The first thing I've noticed is that, if running in D&D, the monk would be the first class I ban. The main class selection I'd give in a Wuxia D&D game is Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue, homebrew Daoist class that gives access to external alchemy, internal alchemy, and divination (it's recommended to focus on one). Possibly Paladin and Ranger as well, especially spellless variants.

Really the monk class should just be banned in general as it makes absolutely no sense, has a misleading name, and doesn't really serve a purpose.

Also, are you using core only? Because I would think the classes from Tome of Battle would fit into a wuxia setting

Anonymouswizard
2018-05-27, 01:46 PM
Really the monk class should just be banned in general as it makes absolutely no sense, has a misleading name, and doesn't really serve a purpose.

Also, are you using core only? Because I would think the classes from Tome of Battle would fit into a wuxia setting

Was thinking more 5e, it's what I'm playing at the moment. Even then if I was running Wuxia I've got two dedicated systems for it, no need Hank D&D.

But yes, burn the monk to the ground and loot it's corpse.

Guizonde
2018-05-27, 02:07 PM
Was thinking more 5e, it's what I'm playing at the moment. Even then if I was running Wuxia I've got two dedicated systems for it, no need Hank D&D.

But yes, burn the monk to the ground and loot it's corpse.

isn't that why the unarmed swordsage has risen in popularity? or is it just mechanically better as opposed to better in both fluff and crunch? i've never read the class myself, despite owning the book of weeb. none of my dm's have ever allowed that source to be used.

Personification
2018-05-27, 02:34 PM
Really the monk class should just be banned in general as it makes absolutely no sense, has a misleading name, and doesn't really serve a purpose.

Also, are you using core only? Because I would think the classes from Tome of Battle would fit into a wuxia setting

I still think that this is an overreaction. I get saying that you disagree with the fluff, or even banning it in a thematic game where you really want to get a certain feel from the setting and characters, but banning a class outright because you disagree with the fluff might not be the right way to go. After all, you can play Barbarian and know Greek, the Druid class has few similarities to actual Celtic Druids, and none of the Clerics that I know actually use heavy armor. Plus, at least in 5E (I don't know other editions), the Monk class does serve a purpose, it is a mechanically interesting class that has certain abilities and skills that are not matched by any class and, though they do not represent their historical counterparts very well, are useful to emulate a certain trope, which is in essence the point of DND. Plus, if it bothers you so much you can ignore the flavor and just go with the abilities. In your game you can have a character who is a warrior monk but is mechanically a reskinned barbarian fighting alongside an angry cage fighter who loses it in battle but is mechanically a reskinned monk.

Basically, I get having problems with the flavor, but outright banning all use of a class that is mechanically both distinct and interesting because of problems with flavor seems too strong

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-27, 06:36 PM
Apropos of the monk discussion, I have a pet peeve about fantasy.

When it takes itself too seriously and falsely insists on "historical" accuracy...to a world it doesn't exist in. Or insists that everything must have a real-world analogue, or be the expy of something on Earth. Do your own thing, even if it sticks a bunch of things in the blender. Originality isn't required, but neither is slavish devotion to the real world. "Inspired by" does not mean "direct copy of" or even "must be faithful to".

Yes, if you're setting your work in a slightly-fictionalized historical earth nation, you need to pay attention to such things. Set in a different universe? With different history and logic? Do your own thing as long as it fits your world's history and logic. Are monks wire-fu/no-armor/unarmed specialists? Sure. Go with it. They're not Asian expies. They're their own thing. Same with druids. Or paladins. Or clerics. Or any other thing. As long as you're internally consistent, it doesn't matter if it matches Earth's model at all. In fact, that can be distracting because it draws in too many other assumptions.

And you can have an intentionally illogical world. One that works on dream-logic, or cartoon logic. Or one where chaos reigns. All of these can be interesting to explore.

Anonymouswizard
2018-05-27, 07:19 PM
isn't that why the unarmed swordsage has risen in popularity? or is it just mechanically better as opposed to better in both fluff and crunch? i've never read the class myself, despite owning the book of weeb. none of my dm's have ever allowed that source to be used.

It's definitely mechanically better, and the fluff is certainly broader. I mean, they still kind of have that 'trained at a martial arts place' thing, but like other initiators that place isn't explicitly defined as a monestary.


When it takes itself too seriously and falsely insists on "historical" accuracy...to a world it doesn't exist in. Or insists that everything must have a real-world analogue, or be the expy of something on Earth. Do your own thing, even if it sticks a bunch of things in the blender. Originality isn't required, but neither is slavish devotion to the real world. "Inspired by" does not mean "direct copy of" or even "must be faithful to".

The problem is kitchen sink fantasy can very easily break suspension of disbelief. It's really going too far either way.

So my settings tend to have a couple of Chinese weapons floating about that I think might be fun (meteor hammers as the big example), but katana immediately implode upon creation because I don't have the time to deal with their fanboys. You can have your sabre and like it (or really any european sword from about 1000 to 1700, I'm not fussy).

On the other hand I don't have a bunch of Chinese style people wedged into the corner of the map to justify it. In-setting the meteor hammer originated as a dueling weapon and sees more use as a tool than a battlefield weapon.


Are monks wire-fu/no-armor/unarmed specialists? Sure. Go with it. They're not Asian expies. They're their own thing.

Part of the problem is the name. Monk means multiple things, and it really cramps those of us who want to play more scholastic monks.

I've stopped even trying to play Brother Geoffrey because people keep expecting him to be a warrior rather than a scholar. He's a monk! Before adventuring he mainly sat around in the monastery reading, praying, and learning basic medicine, not boxing.

Cleric doesn't have the same problem because the word 'priest' allows us an alternative for noncasting Clerics.

Also, if I'm giving one person wire-fu I'd rather give it to everybody. Spread the fun, don't lock it behind a class!

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-27, 07:41 PM
The problem is kitchen sink fantasy can very easily break suspension of disbelief. It's really going too far either way.

So my settings tend to have a couple of Chinese weapons floating about that I think might be fun (meteor hammers as the big example), but katana immediately implode upon creation because I don't have the time to deal with their fanboys. You can have your sabre and like it (or really any european sword from about 1000 to 1700, I'm not fussy).

On the other hand I don't have a bunch of Chinese style people wedged into the corner of the map to justify it. In-setting the meteor hammer originated as a dueling weapon and sees more use as a tool than a battlefield weapon.


First, you can have an non-earth internal logic without being a kitchen sink (in the pejorative sense). That's a goal of my setting, in fact--to find an organic place for as much as possible of the mechanical content, preserving the high-level flavor where possible. Lots of the specific fluff changes--my demons aren't anything like the default. Nor are any of my planars even slightly similar. The origin of the races is also very different, as is the relationship of the gods to the people, etc.

That's the thing. Those aren't Chinese weapons in your setting--the Chinese don't exist. You can have those weapons without any strain on anything--they're there for <in-universe reasons>. That's exactly what I'm irritated by. The insistence that just because on Earth those things are associated with <culture>, they have to be associated with <culture-expy> in all other settings.



Part of the problem is the name. Monk means multiple things, and it really cramps those of us who want to play more scholastic monks.

I've stopped even trying to play Brother Geoffrey because people keep expecting him to be a warrior rather than a scholar. He's a monk! Before adventuring he mainly sat around in the monastery reading, praying, and learning basic medicine, not boxing.

Cleric doesn't have the same problem because the word 'priest' allows us an alternative for noncasting Clerics.

Also, if I'm giving one person wire-fu I'd rather give it to everybody. Spread the fun, don't lock it behind a class!

On Faerun, a scholastic monk wouldn't be called a monk. He'd be called a scholar. Or something else. And that's a background, not a class. Classes represent a package of game-related features and progressions that have descriptive archetypes attached, they're not in-universe things unless the setting designer decides they are. D&D (particularly) has never done "I'm a non-combatant" well. Mainly because it's primarily about adventurers doing adventuring things, which are inevitably dangerous. But that's a game system problem, not a trope problem.

I've played a scholar priest (knowledge cleric). Not particularly holy, not particularly religious, really interested in books. I've built a nature cleric who's a reluctant cleric--a dwarf chosen by a gnomish god more or less under duress.

My setting has "monasteries"--one is an open dojo dedicated to teaching martial arts to everyone who comes, another is mostly a contemplative retreat, with only a tiny fraction of the denizens having any combat training. A third mainly trains spies and dancers. A fourth is home to the study of the elements--wizards, druids, wardens (a homebrew class), monks, scholars, etc all study there.

Only a tiny fraction of the residents of any of these would be game-monks, although most of them are monastics. Same with priests--most priests are not clerics. And not all clerics are priests--some are completely religiously ignorant but have a strong connection to a god for other reasons. Most tribal wise-people aren't either clerics or druids--they're shamans who have features of both or neither.

The quicker we abandon the idea that game classes represent actual in-universe entities and groups and treat them as the game UI that they are (convenient packages of abilities balanced for play and advancement as a player character with the associated archetypal themes and flavor), the better off we'll be, IMO.

Oh, and I agree that if you're doing a wire-fu-flavored game, go ahead and give it to everyone. At that point, the "monk" class ceases to be useful in and of itself--instead everybody's doing a sort of gestalt of X/monk.

Spore
2018-05-27, 10:36 PM
Part of the problem is the name. Monk means multiple things, and it really cramps those of us who want to play more scholastic monks.

Correct. If axing the unarmed martial arts experts means I can FINALLY play my skill based unarmored divine caster with a few arcane spells (mainly Divinations and the odd Illusion/defensive/offensive spell for balancing reasons), I'll gladly kill it with fire.

Though not the best book (it uses other tropes, like cruel bullies, and is quite bland once he hero is established because he just wins after he gets the item that let's him be a hero), I enjoy Salvatore's The Highwayman, where the main character portrays a westernized monk with a creative backstory. The character was poisoned in the womb always internally struggling to get a grip on his body (which in itself is a good metaphor for physical disabilities), when a soul stone supresses this poison (yes, yes, a poison active for two decades is stupid; and a character suddenly knowing kung fu after 20 years of fumbling about is too) he suddenly becomes monk Robin Hood.

The story has other problems, but the depiction of the monk class is not one of them. but I think that book happened as a result of Salvatore wanting to make the Cadderly series about a monk but was refused to do so in favor of cleric being a much more mainstream D&D class.

Arbane
2018-05-27, 10:56 PM
In the words of a webcomic I like (but can't find the exact script):
"Hey, authenticity cops! I'M PLAYING A FREAKIN' ELF!"

Luccan
2018-05-28, 12:07 AM
I'm not generally for outright banning a class for anything but flavor or setting a particular power curve. I'm also of the opinion the monk-as-martial-artist concept standard to D&D can exist just fine in a setting with otherwise western fantasy concepts and medieval inspirations. Here's how I might do it: a group of peasants and low-class soldiers invented the techniques of the monk in a time where they were even more poorly treated than currently in your campaign. Their fighting styles relied on: quick strikes, avoiding blows since they mostly owned no armor, and the ability to use what tools they had on hand as weapons (including their bodies). How I might explain the more mystical abilities depend on the edition, since the exact level you get them and how they work varies.

Bohandas
2018-05-28, 12:45 AM
The name at least has to go. Change it to "martial artist". "Monk" does not mean "martial artist".

Luccan
2018-05-28, 01:13 AM
The name at least has to go. Change it to "martial artist". "Monk" does not mean "martial artist".

If that's something you want to do, sure. Definitely better than tossing the whole class. Baby, bathwater, and all that.

Xuc Xac
2018-05-28, 01:45 AM
The name at least has to go. Change it to "martial artist". "Monk" does not mean "martial artist".

"Barbarian" doesn't mean "warrior with anger management issues". "Druid" doesn't mean "nature worshiping shapeshifter". Most classes are badly named. Barbarians are just foreigners with a strange accent. Bards are epic poets (meaning really long poems, not super powerful). Druids aren't mysterious weirdos who live outside of civilization: they are priests and judges with a central role in their society. Monks aren't the only class like this.

Drascin
2018-05-28, 03:23 AM
"Barbarian" doesn't mean "warrior with anger management issues". "Druid" doesn't mean "nature worshiping shapeshifter". Most classes are badly named. Barbarians are just foreigners with a strange accent. Bards are epic poets (meaning really long poems, not super powerful). Druids aren't mysterious weirdos who live outside of civilization: they are priests and judges with a central role in their society. Monks aren't the only class like this.

What this man said. I always find it weird that people find "monk" objectionable but accept "barbarian" - like, at least there were SOME monks that are sort of like the D&D monk if you squint (though, as said, they really should have a bunch more weapon proficiencies), while "barbarian" was just a despective form of "foreigner".

Anonymouswizard
2018-05-28, 04:21 AM
The name at least has to go. Change it to "martial artist". "Monk" does not mean "martial artist".

I personally support using 'Xia' (roughly the Chinese for 'Knight Errant', it's closer to the thing it's actually modelling). Sure it's a bit awkward to say and might cause confusion if I'm ever playing on a group with my friend Xue, but it's a much better name.


What this man said. I always find it weird that people find "monk" objectionable but accept "barbarian" - like, at least there were SOME monks that are sort of like the D&D monk if you squint (though, as said, they really should have a bunch more weapon proficiencies), while "barbarian" was just a despective form of "foreigner".

Barbarian should really be 'Berserker', while 'Cleric' should be something like 'Godtouched', and Druids need to sit in a fire or be replaced by a Shapeshifter class.

But I've been focusing on Monks because that's been the topic of discussion.

Guizonde
2018-05-28, 05:45 AM
In the words of a webcomic I like (but can't find the exact script):
"Hey, authenticity cops! I'M PLAYING A FREAKIN' ELF!"

i share the sentiment, even if the only time i had to say it was during a larp 10 years back. i got accused of not looking "authentic". ok, true, i was wearing a tabard that was half-black, and half-hot pink bordering on neon. my objection was that the people who said that were a guy painted green and wearing fur briefs and sandals and a girl dolled up in spiral-pointy ears and enough silk ribbons to be mistaken for a spool of cloth (i learned later she was rp-ing a genasi cleric).

at least my tabard could be explained away with practicality: loud colors catch the eye more than drab ones, and i was the only dedicated combattant in my team (who wore drab clothes). i met up with the nudist orc and the genasi in a later fight and they did agree that my tabard was so colorful the enemy npc's forgot all about other pc's but me.

but still, it makes me chuckle that an orc called me out for being unrealistic. "pot, i'd like you to meet a friend of mine..."

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-28, 07:05 AM
The name at least has to go. Change it to "martial artist". "Monk" does not mean "martial artist".


"Barbarian" doesn't mean "warrior with anger management issues". "Druid" doesn't mean "nature worshiping shapeshifter". Most classes are badly named. Barbarians are just foreigners with a strange accent. Bards are epic poets (meaning really long poems, not super powerful). Druids aren't mysterious weirdos who live outside of civilization: they are priests and judges with a central role in their society. Monks aren't the only class like this.


What this man said. I always find it weird that people find "monk" objectionable but accept "barbarian" - like, at least there were SOME monks that are sort of like the D&D monk if you squint (though, as said, they really should have a bunch more weapon proficiencies), while "barbarian" was just a despective form of "foreigner".



Barbarian should really be 'Berserker', while 'Cleric' should be something like 'Godtouched', and Druids need to sit in a fire or be replaced by a Shapeshifter class.

But I've been focusing on Monks because that's been the topic of discussion.

This is exactly what I'm peeving about. Requiring that all the names have real-world analogues that they're "modeling". No. They're their own thing. Words have many meanings, and etymology is not destiny. Normal people can cleave to names while cleaving apart their various different meanings. Embrace the polysemy. Words mean what they're used to mean, not inherently what they originally meant.

Specifically, the inspiration (which is not binding) is the pop culture versions of those things.

Western warrior priest -> cleric
Shaolin monk + wire-fu -> monk
pop culture idea of a savage warrior frothing at the mouth -> barbarian (which has taken on other meanings since the greeks)
nature-associated, non-standard priests + legends -> druids

Etc.

All D&D classes have this "issue"--a D&D wizard and a earth-myth wizard are basically mutually unrecognizable. But no one complains about that one. "Sorcerer" and "wizard" should be synonyms. Warlock means "oath breaker", not "guy who makes deals with <extraplanar creature>". And so on.

D&D worlds are not Earth. They're not bound by earth myths or earth history. Stop trying to import that. You'll end up with less evocative names that don't catch anyone's attention, and D&D haters will find something else to hate. So you do no good while doing harm.

Max_Killjoy
2018-05-28, 08:34 AM
"Barbarian" doesn't mean "warrior with anger management issues". "Druid" doesn't mean "nature worshiping shapeshifter". Most classes are badly named. Barbarians are just foreigners with a strange accent. Bards are epic poets (meaning really long poems, not super powerful). Druids aren't mysterious weirdos who live outside of civilization: they are priests and judges with a central role in their society. Monks aren't the only class like this.

Another reason I dislike the character classes.

Max_Killjoy
2018-05-28, 08:41 AM
First, you can have an non-earth internal logic without being a kitchen sink (in the pejorative sense). That's a goal of my setting, in fact--to find an organic place for as much as possible of the mechanical content, preserving the high-level flavor where possible. Lots of the specific fluff changes--my demons aren't anything like the default. Nor are any of my planars even slightly similar. The origin of the races is also very different, as is the relationship of the gods to the people, etc.

That's the thing. Those aren't Chinese weapons in your setting--the Chinese don't exist. You can have those weapons without any strain on anything--they're there for <in-universe reasons>. That's exactly what I'm irritated by. The insistence that just because on Earth those things are associated with <culture>, they have to be associated with <culture-expy> in all other settings.



On Faerun, a scholastic monk wouldn't be called a monk. He'd be called a scholar. Or something else. And that's a background, not a class. Classes represent a package of game-related features and progressions that have descriptive archetypes attached, they're not in-universe things unless the setting designer decides they are. D&D (particularly) has never done "I'm a non-combatant" well. Mainly because it's primarily about adventurers doing adventuring things, which are inevitably dangerous. But that's a game system problem, not a trope problem.

I've played a scholar priest (knowledge cleric). Not particularly holy, not particularly religious, really interested in books. I've built a nature cleric who's a reluctant cleric--a dwarf chosen by a gnomish god more or less under duress.

My setting has "monasteries"--one is an open dojo dedicated to teaching martial arts to everyone who comes, another is mostly a contemplative retreat, with only a tiny fraction of the denizens having any combat training. A third mainly trains spies and dancers. A fourth is home to the study of the elements--wizards, druids, wardens (a homebrew class), monks, scholars, etc all study there.

Only a tiny fraction of the residents of any of these would be game-monks, although most of them are monastics. Same with priests--most priests are not clerics. And not all clerics are priests--some are completely religiously ignorant but have a strong connection to a god for other reasons. Most tribal wise-people aren't either clerics or druids--they're shamans who have features of both or neither.

The quicker we abandon the idea that game classes represent actual in-universe entities and groups and treat them as the game UI that they are (convenient packages of abilities balanced for play and advancement as a player character with the associated archetypal themes and flavor), the better off we'll be, IMO.


I was with you up to this paragraph.

If you want to treat the Classes as a "toolkit", then IMO you can't also invoke archetypes, themes, and flavors.

As soon as you do the later, you're tying a statement about the character as in "in fiction" person/entity, into the mechanical-layer element of the Class, and it's no longer just a took in the kit. That is, if you say Fighter is just the tool for making a combat-capable character in the mechanical layer, that's one thing... but if you also say "and Fighter has the following archetypes, themes, and flavors attached", then that's another thing completely. Attaching those other things makes Fighter the mechanical class inappropriate for some characters at the "fiction" /in-setting level, even if they're really good at combat.

The Jack
2018-05-28, 08:46 AM
When it takes itself too seriously and falsely insists on "historical" accuracy...to a world it doesn't exist in. Or insists that everything must have a real-world analogue, or be the expy of something on Earth. Do your own thing, even if it sticks a bunch of things in the blender. Originality isn't required, but neither is slavish devotion to the real world. "Inspired by" does not mean "direct copy of" or even "must be faithful to".




See, I play like a tactician, and for that I really need information on how the world works. If it's realistic, I can make good assumptions. If it's not realistic, but it's all explained out beforehand, then that's awesome. But if it's not realistic nor well explained, I'm going to hit snags planning stuff out, and if character plans don't work out because of some bull**** conceived by a thoughtless gm, people are going to be dissatisfied.

Also, as GM, I like to play sociologist. That can make really interesting and believable cultures if you go all out on it, though players should only get the relevant details their characters should know.


As long as you're internally consistent, it doesn't matter if it matches Earth's model at all.
This is words to work by.



Martial arts
Martial arts means war arts. Like, everything the fighter does is considered martial arts, and by fantastical extention an evocation wizard could be considered a martial artist.

Renaming isn't the worst idea, but make sure the name at the end sounds good.

Barbarian- Beserker. I kinda like rager, or Rage warrior.
Monk- Ki Master.
Druid- At a total loss here. "Sage" is to broad, "land master" or "nature cleric" or "green keeper" don't feel like solid hits. I think, maybe Druid is best, it's original meaning too niche to be a problem. Then again you only need to keep up to the likes of "fighter" so maybe I'm being too harsh.
Ranger- Fool

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-28, 08:56 AM
I was with you up to this paragraph.

If you want to treat the Classes as a "toolkit", then IMO you can't also invoke archetypes, themes, and flavors.

As soon as you do the later, you're tying a statement about the character as in "in fiction" person/entity, into the mechanical-layer element of the Class, and it's no longer just a took in the kit. That is, if you say Fighter is just the tool for making a combat-capable character in the mechanical layer, that's one thing... but if you also say "and Fighter has the following archetypes, themes, and flavors attached", then that's another thing completely. Attaching those other things makes Fighter the mechanical class inappropriate for some characters at the "fiction" /in-setting level.

I don't see the disconnect. Archetypes and flavor are for players, not for the in-game universe. They're guidance on the design intent and "happy path" play style. You can deviate from them (or remix them) as desired, but they're a guide to choice. It's a key problem I have with point-buy systems--it's hard (requires significant system mastery and effort) to get something that's both thematic and effective, especially for new players. With classes, you can say "I want to play a big guy who hits hard" and pick up a barbarian without too much issue. Done well, they package both mechanics and thematics together in a self-sufficient way. Done poorly, you have to stitch even common things ("Guy who hits things hard without spells") out of a bunch of other pieces. At that point, you might as well use point-buy--it takes the same effort and is much more coherent.

For me, the archetypes and flavor pieces let me pick "what looks right" for that vision without having to be a mechanics expert. Done right, "what looks right" will give a nice, solid character (if not a superbly optimized one). It gives me something to fall back on in portraying the character as well. It's a guide-rail, not a railroad.

There's a mix of broad classes (Fighter, rogue, wizard) which have very little in the way of specific attached fiction but still represent archetypes (in a broad sense), and there are classes with much more detailed attached fiction (monk, druid, warlock, paladin) who represent narrower archetypes. Those narrow ones are the most likely to be represented in-universe as an actual thing, because they tend to be attached to organizations/specific individuals (a paladin's Order, a warlock's Patron, a druid's Grove). And then there are in-between ones (most of the rest).

Most of the effort is in making playable archetypes that at least roughly cover the desired space. Because D&D is a game, first and foremost. The emphasis is on game, not on modeling anything in particular. There's also (except in 3e which is an outlier in most ways) a strong understanding that classes and abilities are options that may or may not exist in a particular game. They're examples of what you can do, not what must exist. So yes, if I were running a more "historical" game, I'd use a restricted subset. Or one with particular cultural assumptions.

Bohandas
2018-05-28, 01:05 PM
"Barbarian" doesn't mean "warrior with anger management issues". "Druid" doesn't mean "nature worshiping shapeshifter". Most classes are badly named. Barbarians are just foreigners with a strange accent. Bards are epic poets (meaning really long poems, not super powerful). Druids aren't mysterious weirdos who live outside of civilization: they are priests and judges with a central role in their society. Monks aren't the only class like this.
Yes, but at least there's a clear and obvious path leading from those names to those classes (although I agree the barbarian class should be called a berserker instead). The default mental image that the words conjure, while not entirely related to the class is at least not entirely unrelated to the class. The barbarian and druid do not require you to be familiar with a specific sub-sub-subgenre of kung-fu movies and tv shows from the 70's for the name to make any sense at all.

Xuc Xac
2018-05-28, 01:38 PM
The barbarian and druid do not require you to be familiar with a specific sub-sub-subgenre of kung-fu movies and tv shows from the 70's for the name to make any sense at all.

The barbarian that flips out and the druid that shapeshifts only exist in games and media based on them. If you can recognize them, there's no reason you can't be just as familiar with monks with magic punches.

Bohandas
2018-05-28, 06:54 PM
Going back to the "balance between good and evil" issue from a couple pages back, a couple of C.S.Lewis' books deal with reasons why somebody who is really really bad at being good may, in practice, be worse than someone who is just bad:

"If we must have a tyrant a robber baron is far better than an inquisitor. The baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point be sated, and since he dimly knows he is doing wrong he may possibly repent. But the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven will torment us infinitely because he torments us with the approval of his own conscience and his better impulses appear to him as temptations." - C.S.Lewis, A Reply to Prof.Haldane

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals." -C.S.Lewis, The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment

Belac93
2018-05-30, 11:57 PM
"Barbarian" doesn't mean "warrior with anger management issues". "Druid" doesn't mean "nature worshiping shapeshifter". Most classes are badly named. Barbarians are just foreigners with a strange accent. Bards are epic poets (meaning really long poems, not super powerful). Druids aren't mysterious weirdos who live outside of civilization: they are priests and judges with a central role in their society. Monks aren't the only class like this.

Have you ever read Dungeon World? They're a PbtA D&D clone, but they do something that I really liked with races. All other characters have the 'human' option, plus a couple others (such as elf and halfling for druid, or dwarf for paladin), but for the Barbarian, the only race option is 'Outsider.' Your actual race doesn't matter aside from fluff, all that matter is that you aren't from around here.

Bohandas
2018-05-31, 12:21 AM
What this man said. I always find it weird that people find "monk" objectionable but accept "barbarian" - like, at least there were SOME monks that are sort of like the D&D monk if you squint (though, as said, they really should have a bunch more weapon proficiencies), while "barbarian" was just a despective form of "foreigner".

That's what it means in greek. The english word means someone savage, brutish, and/or uncivilized, which fits an illiterate warrior with anger management issues well.

To my knowledge it has never within my lifetime meant "foreigner" in english.

Guizonde
2018-05-31, 01:29 AM
That's what it means in greek. The english word means someone savage and/or uncivilized, which fits an illiterate warrior with anger management issues well.

To my knowledge it has never within my lifetime meant "foreigner" in english.

there's some truth to it, but the adjective barbaric could be interpreted as "foreign/alien" in a very pejorative way. think of the "absolutely barbaric" meme. i've seen examples of it being about culture shock. maybe i'm stretching here, maybe it's mayb...arbarian.

i'll get my hat for this bad pun.

The Jack
2018-05-31, 04:33 AM
Actual working language takes precedence over the origins of the word, and they were far more likely to be thinking Conan & co, not celts, gauls or north africa when the class was conceived.

The Jack
2018-05-31, 04:37 AM
Also, I hate how often -CatholicChurchAnalogue- is terrifying/evil all the time if it's ever going to be important (it's probably fine if it's just a sidenote). It's especially prominent when I read manga.

Arbane
2018-05-31, 05:25 PM
Actual working language takes precedence over the origins of the word, and they were far more likely to be thinking Conan & co, not celts, gauls or north africa when the class was conceived.

I dunno, Asterix and Obelix must've looked pretty barbaric to those crazy Romans, no matter how even-tempered they were. :smallbiggrin:

parryhotter
2018-05-31, 05:33 PM
Basically how I see evil is that it provides conflict and without conflict you would have no story. But the concept of evil and good being in balance is rediculous I agree.

Anonymouswizard
2018-05-31, 05:51 PM
'Magic is inherently unresearchable.'

I'm sure this must have been brought up, but it annoys me when we have mages, especially ones taught in academies, that don't try to look into the underlying rules of magic. Are you telling me that no renegade mage has tried, even if most people are willing to stick to the spells handed down by the ancients? There must be some mage out there trying to poke magic with a stick (or several sticks, to see if that alters the response).

Probably the only times I've seen it make sense are Discworld, where mages eventually get around to analysing the rules about how magic changes it's rules, and El Goonish Shive where those best placed to research magic have incredibly limited initial access but are noted to have a tendency to look into it anyway.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-31, 06:05 PM
'Magic is inherently unresearchable.'

I'm sure this must have been brought up, but it annoys me when we have mages, especially ones taught in academies, that don't try to look into the underlying rules of magic. Are you telling me that no renegade mage has tried, even if most people are willing to stick to the spells handed down by the ancients? There must be some mage out there trying to poke magic with a stick (or several sticks, to see if that alters the response).

Probably the only times I've seen it make sense are Discworld, where mages eventually get around to analysing the rules about how magic changes it's rules, and El Goonish Shive where those best placed to research magic have incredibly limited initial access but are noted to have a tendency to look into it anyway.

But what if you have a situation where there are no (or none accessible to mortal minds) patterns? That is, each spell works entirely de novo. Mispronounce a single word, and it fails (or explodes in your face). Exact repetition works, but experimentation is both fruitless and dangerous. So spells are discovered at random and passed down as black boxes.

So it can be theoretically researchable without being practically researchable.

Or, you could have a situation where each magical adept is born with a certain set of spells in their blood. They can cast those without needing more than to be able to control the flow of energy (meditation-focus style, not specific training). You can't learn more, and they don't inherit well. Call this "super-power style magic."

The Jack
2018-06-01, 05:51 AM
I hate how nobody want's to replicate technology/amazing biologies in fantasy/sci-fi/the superhero genre. First thing people'll want to do when they get a superior being, alien (Not always literally) technology, magic or whatever is to recover it, study it and try to replicate it.

Nearly every superhero's a one off experiment that can't/won't be replicated, and it's nonsense. Convenient lab-explosion after the first successful prototype, can never reach such heights again.

Doorhandle
2018-06-01, 06:28 AM
I hate how nobody want's to replicate technology/amazing biologies in fantasy/sci-fi/the superhero genre. First thing people'll want to do when they get a superior being, alien (Not always literally) technology, magic or whatever is to recover it, study it and try to replicate it.

Nearly every superhero's a one off experiment that can't/won't be replicated, and it's nonsense. Convenient lab-explosion after the first successful prototype, can never reach such heights again.

It's one of the main bugbears of superhero series as a whole, for a simple reason: if superpowers are replicable, it stops being a superhero series and starts becoming a sci-fi series very quickly.
Exhibt A: Planetary.

Although if that's within your interest, you may like Base Raiders (http://www.baseraiders.com/): which is basically about raiding supervillain/hero lairs in order to snatch up and reverse-engineer their technology.


Actual working language takes precedence over the origins of the word, and they were far more likely to be thinking Conan & co, not celts, gauls or north africa when the class was conceived.
Dungeon world has a good line in using both meanings of the word though: The barbarian class is 90% Conan, but the question they start each session with is "How does this area differ from your homeland?" or something to that effect.

Anonymouswizard
2018-06-01, 06:55 AM
But what if you have a situation where there are no (or none accessible to mortal minds) patterns? That is, each spell works entirely de novo. Mispronounce a single word, and it fails (or explodes in your face). Exact repetition works, but experimentation is both fruitless and dangerous. So spells are discovered at random and passed down as black boxes.

So it can be theoretically researchable without being practically researchable.

Or, you could have a situation where each magical adept is born with a certain set of spells in their blood. They can cast those without needing more than to be able to control the flow of energy (meditation-focus style, not specific training). You can't learn more, and they don't inherit well. Call this "super-power style magic."

Sorry, I should specify that I wasn't talking about research definitely carrying results. Even if you can't get usable data it's still likely that people will try to.

Although I'll admit that I have a massive preference for standardised, teachable, deconstructable magic. It's part of what makes me annoyed when settings don't feature people who even try to poke their magic with a stick (let's be honest, half of science has always been building more precise sticks to poke the universe with).

So yeah, while I like it when the attempts yield results, the attempt is the important part.


I hate how nobody want's to replicate technology/amazing biologies in fantasy/sci-fi/the superhero genre. First thing people'll want to do when they get a superior being, alien (Not always literally) technology, magic or whatever is to recover it, study it and try to replicate it.

Nearly every superhero's a one off experiment that can't/won't be replicated, and it's nonsense. Convenient lab-explosion after the first successful prototype, can never reach such heights again.

Yep, agreeing with this. It's one of the reasons I like Fate's Venture City setting, the background begins with 'we knew that superpowers had to be activated, but nobody was sure how to do it. Until we figured it out.' The end result is very much a superhero/science fiction setting, where there's low-end science fiction technology as standard, some people building higher end stuff (that tends to be pretty closely guarded), and companies making, employing, and marketing superheroes (with 'supervillains' being those without a sponsor).

It really makes me wish superpunk was a more common genre. There's a lot of potential in stories where superpowers do change the world.

The Jack
2018-06-01, 10:54 AM
It's one of the main bugbears of superhero series as a whole, for a simple reason: if superpowers are replicable, it stops being a superhero series and starts becoming a sci-fi series very quickly.

See, that's the kicker. There are ways to do things very well, and incredibly contrived methods. Scientists always dying just after their creations are released is just a ****y method of doing it. Hyper-misusable technology, a great danger to replication attempts, or a -we tried, we just can't do it- kinda deal when it comes to something too ahead is all fine.


I loved Stargate; SG1, SGA,SGU were fantastic shows... but they were incredibly guilty of wasting technology. From armbands that gave you superhuman speed to that time a dude offered the humans his race's complete technological knowledge in a hard-drive in return for saving and was rejected for being a spacenazi (as if the US never recruited nazi war criminals) , to the personal shields they love to ignore. (alien stun guns are great but won't be reversed engineered for whatever reason) and all that nanotech...

VoxRationis
2018-06-01, 12:59 PM
I loved Stargate; SG1, SGA,SGU were fantastic shows... but they were incredibly guilty of wasting technology. From armbands that gave you superhuman speed to that time a dude offered the humans his race's complete technological knowledge in a hard-drive in return for saving and was rejected for being a spacenazi (as if the US never recruited nazi war criminals) , to the personal shields they love to ignore. (alien stun guns are great but won't be reversed engineered for whatever reason) and all that nanotech...

For what it's worth, Stargate did a better job of it than a lot of works I've seen. They were constantly shown doing as much R&D as they possibly could, and eventually reverse-engineered enough alien tech to make their own starships from scratch.
Also, there were a host of factors preventing them from broadly applying the armbands specifically.
Firstly, the armbands tended to affect the mindset of the user, either directly or through the simple effect of great personal power on a human psyche, and when the armbands make the users just that much better than the rest of your organization, that can prove a liability.
Secondly, the armbands had a limitation in that any given individual could only use them for a short period, once, before their body rejected the armband and could no longer use it. At best, this would mean you would have to cycle them through your ranks, and eventually with use, you would run out of trained, trusted, and qualified personnel to hand the armbands to, which was theorized to be the cause of the demise of the armbands' creators.
Thirdly, even if they decided to keep them in a closet somewhere and hand to random SGC guards for use in times of great need, SG-1 lost the armbands when they fell off automatically in a hostile environment (which I think later exploded).

Beleriphon
2018-06-01, 01:01 PM
It really makes me wish superpunk was a more common genre. There's a lot of potential in stories where superpowers do change the world.

I think the biggest problem is that you end with one of two scenarios in anything approaching a sensible setting (of which neither Marvel or DC possess for the purposes of these scenarios): Stormwatch where a team/sufficient powerful individual takes control of the world because nobody can stop them, or a sort of semi-stable MAD scenario where nobody wants to do too much since they'll just end up blowing up the world.

VoxRationis
2018-06-01, 01:05 PM
'Magic is inherently unresearchable.'

I'm sure this must have been brought up, but it annoys me when we have mages, especially ones taught in academies, that don't try to look into the underlying rules of magic. Are you telling me that no renegade mage has tried, even if most people are willing to stick to the spells handed down by the ancients?

(bolding mine)

More irksome is when wizards are supposed to be academic or analytic, but the above cliche is applied. Having an academic society or even the concept of academia in a field that cannot be researched is like having a corporate board of directors in a society without money or industry. The social institution makes no sense in that context.

Anonymouswizard
2018-06-01, 01:45 PM
(bolding mine)

More irksome is when wizards are supposed to be academic or analytic, but the above cliche is applied. Having an academic society or even the concept of academia in a field that cannot be researched is like having a corporate board of directors in a society without money or industry. The social institution makes no sense in that context.

Certainly.

I've seen game settings pull it off. Unknown Armies used to have a lot of magickians looking into how magick works, but these days such thaumaturges are rare and Adepts are more common. 99% of Adepts don't care about how magic works, although different schools will have different proportions (I suspect there are a decent number of bibliomancers who pride themselves on owning and having read actual tomes of magical theory).

Of course, magick in UA settles down for long enough periods of time that you can work out a basic model. Research from I think the 1800s means even most Adepts know that magick tends to be based on paradoxes, or that Avatars get power fro devotion to an archetype. The exact type of Adepts you see tend to change (for example Cinemancers replacing Videomancers), but there's a core set of rules that don't change ("Oh look, a paradox", "ain't no such thing as a free lunch", and "ya obsessed with your school of magick kiddo"). That's just for Adepts, thaumaturge rituals still work (even for the noncrazy) and follow a simpler yet more complex set of rules ('do the actions and potentially provide the juice', but possibly a lot more within that), and Avatars simply most follow the strict rules of their archetype.

The end result is wonderful and makes sense. Why aren't universities researching magick? Because magickians tend to not be associated with universities.

SpectreT65
2018-06-01, 02:28 PM
No plans, no protoype, No backup - the big two had internally consistent handwaves for that back in the '80s and early '90s.

· DC, you have a meta gene (see what they did there?) that activates the powers you have inside of you if the event that triggers them (sitting on a nuke, getting hit by lightning, plagiarizing anything by Harlan Ellison) doesn't kill you outright.

· Marvel, powers were either tied to the accident that gave you the powers (bitten by a radioactive pygmy marmoset... Strike that, spider.) or your personality (dissociative identity disorder combined with rage issues) I always liked that they had something to hang your disbelief on.

And Star Wars is a good example of how the balance between good and evil can create a crapsack world.

The Jack
2018-06-01, 02:53 PM
For what it's worth, Stargate did a better job of it than a lot of works I've seen. They were constantly shown doing as much R&D as they possibly could, and eventually reverse-engineered enough alien tech to make their own starships from scratch.
Also, there were a host of factors preventing them from broadly applying the armbands specifically.
Firstly, the armbands tended to affect the mindset of the user, either directly or through the simple effect of great personal power on a human psyche, and when the armbands make the users just that much better than the rest of your organization, that can prove a liability.
Secondly, the armbands had a limitation in that any given individual could only use them for a short period, once, before their body rejected the armband and could no longer use it. At best, this would mean you would have to cycle them through your ranks, and eventually with use, you would run out of trained, trusted, and qualified personnel to hand the armbands to, which was theorized to be the cause of the demise of the armbands' creators.
Thirdly, even if they decided to keep them in a closet somewhere and hand to random SGC guards for use in times of great need, SG-1 lost the armbands when they fell off automatically in a hostile environment (which I think later exploded).

Stargate missed more than it hit with tech. Sure, they got naquadah generators and eventually Impressive ships and Totally OP teleporters and a few times experimented with (disastrous) dimensional energy, plus you see them tinker with drones... But they miss far more often than they take. I think you could average it out to one new thing a season when they could've gotten so much more. I do recall episodes of " you've been meeting advanced species for years, what are you doing, why are we wasting our money when you don't bring things back" and "the SG dudes are useless at getting the tech we need to defend humanity so let's make our own group..."

The Nazi episode might've been first season where the writers didn't quite know what they were doing, and the armbands wasn't late... But, I do recall that the armbands would work by secreting a certain drug into you, and a good goal would've been to modify the dosage or create temporary booster shots that don't need a band. The power of those armbands was phenomenal and earth has an extreme population in comparison to every other planet shown in stargate. Earth could've used them in emergencies reliably.

AtlasSniperman
2018-06-01, 05:12 PM
https://i.imgflip.com/2bgazs.jpg

Really, can't stand them. the whole concept just irks me, and a couple times I have in fact banned them in games!

Personification
2018-06-01, 05:15 PM
https://i.imgflip.com/2bgazs.jpg

Really, can't stand them. the whole concept just irks me, and a couple times I have in fact banned them in games!

When you say this do you mean Half-Human Half-X, the front of an X and the back of a Y (which was what the quote referred to), or both?

AtlasSniperman
2018-06-01, 05:24 PM
When you say this do you mean Half-Human Half-X, the front of an X and the back of a Y (which was what the quote referred to), or both?

Centaurs and Half-Elves equally.

Bohandas
2018-06-01, 05:49 PM
Probably the only times I've seen it make sense are Discworld, where mages eventually get around to analysing the rules about how magic changes it's rules, and El Goonish Shive where those best placed to research magic have incredibly limited initial access but are noted to have a tendency to look into it anyway.

It's a game mechanic in the 4x games Warlock and Master of Magic

Doorhandle
2018-06-01, 07:42 PM
Centaurs and Half-Elves equally.

Why though? Is it the biological impossibility? The "special snowflake" syndrome? Or just the idea that "they should just let us play a full orc instead?"

Though I admit the waistline of a centaur would probably be massive weakpoint for them: kind of like having a second neck.

AtlasSniperman
2018-06-01, 08:19 PM
Why though? Is it the biological impossibility? The "special snowflake" syndrome? Or just the idea that "they should just let us play a full orc instead?"
Do I really need to expound when you easily list off the categories of problems that easily? :P
But yes, in order of least to most annoying about them imo are; Full Orc, Special Snowflake, Biological impossibility

Though I admit the waistline of a centaur would probably be massive weakpoint for them: kind of like having a second neck.
Mermaids are weird too

lightningcat
2018-06-02, 12:49 AM
https://i.imgflip.com/2bgazs.jpg

Really, can't stand them. the whole concept just irks me, and a couple times I have in fact banned them in games!

I don't have a problem with them in pure fantasy. Once you start adding science into the mix, my tolerance for them drops quickly. And in pure sci-fi? NO. Just NO.

Wtf star trek. Biology does not work that way. Spock is just bad science, and you should be ashamed of yourself. And worse you let it spread out from there. /rant

Anonymouswizard
2018-06-02, 01:54 AM
I don't have a problem with them in pure fantasy. Once you start adding science into the mix, my tolerance for them drops quickly. And in pure sci-fi? NO. Just NO.

Wtf star trek. Biology does not work that way. Spock is just bad science, and you should be ashamed of yourself. And worse you let it spread out from there. /rant

A friend of mine has a headcanon that Spock is not a natural child, but rather the end result of ten years work from the greatest Vulcan scientists. It makes a lot more sense, Star Trek technology is powerful enough that a rough hybrid could be genetically engineered.

Of course a Vulcan/Romulan child makes a lot more sense, as they're explicitly descended from the same species. Not complete sense, they've been seperated long enough that problem should arise, but more sense.

Luccan
2018-06-02, 02:37 AM
A friend of mine has a headcanon that Spock is not a natural child, but rather the end result of ten years work from the greatest Vulcan scientists. It makes a lot more sense, Star Trek technology is powerful enough that a rough hybrid could be genetically engineered.

Of course a Vulcan/Romulan child makes a lot more sense, as they're explicitly descended from the same species. Not complete sense, they've been seperated long enough that problem should arise, but more sense.

Are Vulcans and Romulans still in the same genus? Because then it shouldn't be too hard. Y'know, barring the whole hating each other thing.

Personally, I find hybrids fascinating and what bothers me in fantasy is that half-dwarves aren't (usually) a thing. I can think of two instances I've seen it, both in D&D. One is the Muls, who are the half-dwarf slave race of Dark Sun. The other is the Derro (specifically in 3.X, in 5e they're an offshoot of Duergar and I don't know what they were in other editions) who are all insane. Tolkien had a reason half-dwarves didn't exist, no other setting I've seen that includes human/other-humanoid hybrids do. Maybe I'm missing it somewhere.

Max_Killjoy
2018-06-02, 07:33 AM
Star Trek had the "amazing" retcon that all these humanoid and interfertile species were the result of a "progenitor" species seeding all these planets with life billions of years ago.

lightningcat
2018-06-02, 09:10 AM
A friend of mine has a headcanon that Spock is not a natural child, but rather the end result of ten years work from the greatest Vulcan scientists. It makes a lot more sense, Star Trek technology is powerful enough that a rough hybrid could be genetically engineered.

I had this same headcannon, and then they introduced the half-klingon character.


Of course a Vulcan/Romulan child makes a lot more sense, as they're explicitly descended from the same species. Not complete sense, they've been seperated long enough that problem should arise, but more sense.

As far as I know, they are only seperated by a few thousand years at most, so likely would be fully interfertile. Unless one side or the other did some genetic tinkering that would create a species break.


Star Trek had the "amazing" retcon that all these humanoid and interfertile species were the result of a "progenitor" species seeding all these planets with life billions of years ago.

While I see and understand your sarcasm here, it just means that someone in the writers room understood how dumb these cross-species character were. And tried to fix it, by making the science worse?

Anonymouswizard
2018-06-02, 10:47 AM
Are Vulcans and Romulans still in the same genus? Because then it shouldn't be too hard. Y'know, barring the whole hating each other thing.

Eh, I think the viability will depend on how large the two groups were when they seperated, but I certainly can see them having moved far enough apart that there may be side effects. Seperated by the void of space and all that.


Star Trek had the "amazing" retcon that all these humanoid and interfertile species were the result of a "progenitor" species seeding all these planets with life billions of years ago.

While as it has been pointed out that this means one of the writers noticed the problems, the science still makes no sense. It's not even worse science, because whether they were seeded by progenitors or not after billions of years they'll have different genetic structures.

Mokèlé-mbèmbé
2018-06-02, 11:10 AM
I think there's an element of functionality to cliche that often goes ignored. I think if you want to rely on shorthand, the kind of thing where you expect the audience to fill in the blanks, so as not to overburden your setting with pointless detail that's fine.

All that being said, broody misery-guts NPCs who spout macho one-liners and are so totally awesome in combat are done. It's not nearly as cool as some people think it is.

The Jack
2018-06-02, 03:40 PM
See, my question to such things is how much can convergent evolution work for this.

A lot of animals have organs that work the same as humans, and many of them are in the same relative places. Humans aren't perfect; we have vestigal features and I could talk about boobs for a bit, but our evolution is pretty logical and an advanced sentient race would surely follow at least a good portion of the same logic.

Really, I think some people try too hard to avoid the "humans with makeup" shtick. In doing so they might ignore the practicalities of form entirely or just use a single superficial reason to justify one of a dozen things. Halo does well, Mass Effect had a lot of very questionable aliens, not helping that a few of them were Humans with makeup.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-06-02, 08:05 PM
Something that was sparked by the hours of driving I've been doing recently, through heavily wooded areas--

All those depictions of "untouched" forests with tons of room between the trees, long sight lines, no underbrush, etc.

From what I can tell, forests that are left to their own devices tend to grow plants to catch every single possible photon. That means layers of canopies, trees real close together, underbrush, the whole bit. So much so that you might get 10 feet of clear vision before there's something in your path. I can't imagine that clearing a trail through those is much fun at all.

For game purposes, they'd probably be impassable (or at best very slow going), unless you find a game trail or are walking along a stream-bank.

There are pockets of meadow-land, but the forests (at least in the south US, mostly KY, TN, and GA) are really stinking dense.

I'd never really thought about it before. Gonna have to change that one in games I run from now on.

Luccan
2018-06-02, 08:52 PM
Something that was sparked by the hours of driving I've been doing recently, through heavily wooded areas--

All those depictions of "untouched" forests with tons of room between the trees, long sight lines, no underbrush, etc.

From what I can tell, forests that are left to their own devices tend to grow plants to catch every single possible photon. That means layers of canopies, trees real close together, underbrush, the whole bit. So much so that you might get 10 feet of clear vision before there's something in your path. I can't imagine that clearing a trail through those is much fun at all.

For game purposes, they'd probably be impassable (or at best very slow going), unless you find a game trail or are walking along a stream-bank.

There are pockets of meadow-land, but the forests (at least in the south US, mostly KY, TN, and GA) are really stinking dense.

I'd never really thought about it before. Gonna have to change that one in games I run from now on.

I know in 5e forests are difficult terrain. Halves move speed and overland travel. But yeah, most fantasy seems to imagine forests as fairly open spaces with a tree every 5-10 feet.

Max_Killjoy
2018-06-02, 10:58 PM
Something that was sparked by the hours of driving I've been doing recently, through heavily wooded areas--

All those depictions of "untouched" forests with tons of room between the trees, long sight lines, no underbrush, etc.

From what I can tell, forests that are left to their own devices tend to grow plants to catch every single possible photon. That means layers of canopies, trees real close together, underbrush, the whole bit. So much so that you might get 10 feet of clear vision before there's something in your path. I can't imagine that clearing a trail through those is much fun at all.

For game purposes, they'd probably be impassable (or at best very slow going), unless you find a game trail or are walking along a stream-bank.

There are pockets of meadow-land, but the forests (at least in the south US, mostly KY, TN, and GA) are really stinking dense.

I'd never really thought about it before. Gonna have to change that one in games I run from now on.


Those strereotypical open forests of England and other parts of Europe weren't untouched natural woodlands, they'd been managed and maintained with clear ground by the locals for millennia in some cases, the better to access trees for harvest, the better to see game for hunting, etc.

The Jack
2018-06-03, 04:08 AM
All those depictions of "untouched" forests with tons of room between the trees, long sight lines, no underbrush, etc.

From what I can tell, forests that are left to their own devices tend to grow plants to catch every single possible photon. That means layers of canopies, trees real close together, underbrush, the whole bit. So much so that you might get 10 feet of clear vision before there's something in your path. I can't imagine that clearing a trail through those is much fun at all.



Forests come in different types, and plants are competitive. In some forests, trees really do hog all the light so any underbrush can't really compete. The trees are tall, their bushes very thick, light doesn't really reach the surface.

Bohandas
2018-06-03, 04:59 AM
See, my question to such things is how much can convergent evolution work for this.

A lot of animals have organs that work the same as humans, and many of them are in the same relative places. Humans aren't perfect; we have vestigal features and I could talk about boobs for a bit, but our evolution is pretty logical and an advanced sentient race would surely follow at least a good portion of the same logic.

Really, I think some people try too hard to avoid the "humans with makeup" shtick. In doing so they might ignore the practicalities of form entirely or just use a single superficial reason to justify one of a dozen things. Halo does well, Mass Effect had a lot of very questionable aliens, not helping that a few of them were Humans with makeup.

Yeah, but most of the animals you're familiar with are all descended from the same primordial tetrapod. The differen't races in D&D and similar fantasy, on the other hand, generally aren't even all created by the same god.

8BitNinja
2018-06-03, 10:56 PM
I do not like mana or any concept of it. I will tolerate it in video games if the game itself is good, but if it used as a storytelling device it will annoy me. It almost completely demystifies magic and reminds me way too much of midichlorians.

Anonymouswizard
2018-06-04, 02:24 AM
Mana is much better when it's an area quality rather than a personal quality, so when it's low nobody can cast spells.

I have also got to admit I like it in tabletop games. But it should be low, able to be tapped out by a few spells. My current game gives mages ~10 points of mana at first level, sets the minimum cost for a spell at 2 mana, and gives a handful of mana per level. Because it represents your ability to cast without getting tired, cast beyond your limits and you'll rack up one level of exhaustion per point of mana (equivalent to being in combat). Do you really need to cast 'unstick gem'? I don't like the D&D model where you end up with hundreds of SP and low level spells cost under ten.

The Jack
2018-06-04, 09:40 AM
I don't mind more scientific magic, though I usually want to flip my **** at very gamey magic, with buffs like skyrim's "+15% one handed damage"
Dudes, just increase strength or give me power of some sort. No need to be so arbitrarily specific.

Max_Killjoy
2018-06-04, 09:54 AM
I don't mind more scientific magic, though I usually want to flip my **** at very gamey magic, with buffs like skyrim's "+15% one handed damage"

Dudes, just increase strength or give me power of some sort. No need to be so arbitrarily specific.

Agreed -- magic (and some other things) designed around the game mechanics just knifes any sense that it's magic in the gut.

Shulk
2018-06-04, 10:33 AM
The villain killing a beloved character or showing off his fancy new artifact to the heroes, and the heroes don't , or aren't allowed to, do anything about it, like attack the villain from behind or steal the plot artifact from their hands.

Arbane
2018-06-04, 11:01 AM
Forests come in different types, and plants are competitive. In some forests, trees really do hog all the light so any underbrush can't really compete. The trees are tall, their bushes very thick, light doesn't really reach the surface.

I believe that's how the Black Forest got its name - the trees are so dense, it's always dark at ground level.

BBQ Pork
2018-06-04, 11:25 AM
Something that was sparked by the hours of driving I've been doing recently, through heavily wooded areas--

All those depictions of "untouched" forests with tons of room between the trees, long sight lines, no underbrush, etc.

From what I can tell, forests that are left to their own devices tend to grow plants to catch every single possible photon. That means layers of canopies, trees real close together, underbrush, the whole bit. So much so that you might get 10 feet of clear vision before there's something in your path. I can't imagine that clearing a trail through those is much fun at all.

For game purposes, they'd probably be impassable (or at best very slow going), unless you find a game trail or are walking along a stream-bank.

There are pockets of meadow-land, but the forests (at least in the south US, mostly KY, TN, and GA) are really stinking dense.

I'd never really thought about it before. Gonna have to change that one in games I run from now on.
Forests grow in stages. An "Old growth" forest will be quite different from one that is just starting to regrow after a massive fire.

Fighting a forest fire might be an interesting challenge for a PC party, depending on their level and what nearby resources are available.

Blymurkla
2018-06-04, 12:57 PM
Forests grow in stages. An "Old growth" forest will be quite different from one that is just starting to regrow after a massive fire.
Nope.

Or rather, yes, there are forests like that. Most of northern and eastern Europe, north America, at least parts of Asia and every rainforest ever aren't like that at all when left to their own devices (industrial humans change everything).

Forest fires are made much more devastating by human activity. Every patch of forest in temperate climte used to burn something like once a century. But now we put out most fires before they become anything, which results in a build up of burnable materiel. And eventually, a fire burns rapidly enough to become unfightable. That superlarge fire is also super hot which kills the threes - see, many species are fully capable of surviving "normal" fires once they're fully grown. There was a red pine in the mountains fairly close to me that fell in a storm a decade ago. It turned out the damn tree was from the 16th century and had survived 7 forest fires.

Some forests, like red pine forests atop dry mountainous hills, naturally grow in cohorts - every tree is roughly the same age. Eventually, all trees dies in a short period of time, but it's more likely to be a storm than a fire (at least for red pines).

Most forests (in the areas I mentioned) will contain trees of different ages (and often species). When a tree dies, of disease, age, storm or fire, you get a clearing where new (or fairly old, but stunted and small by lack of sunlight) trees compete to fill its place.

One thing to keep in mind is the effect large herbivores; bison, elephants and the like, have on forest. They keep forests much, much more sparse than forests without them. Yellowstone was a wall of dense trees before bison was reintroduced, elephants in rainforests create and maintain huge clearings for themself. Domesticated cattle have a similar effect (but then, you usually also get humans gathering firewood and felling trees for construction and coal, so the two types of forests develop similarly but not identically).

Beleriphon
2018-06-04, 01:21 PM
One thing to keep in mind is the effect large herbivores; bison, elephants and the like, have on forest. They keep forests much, much more sparse than forests without them. Yellowstone was a wall of dense trees before bison was reintroduced, elephants in rainforests create and maintain huge clearings for themself. Domesticated cattle have a similar effect (but then, you usually also get humans gathering firewood and felling trees for construction and coal, so the two types of forests develop similarly but not identically).

The other thing to keep mind is climate. Forests in northern California mountains are dominated by giant redwoods that were saplings when Brutus murdered Caesar, but it also has relatively little rain compared to other areas of the world so massive trees capture the vast majority of the water before smaller plants can get any. This is very different and drier climate than you would find in say the Amazon basin, which really can have ground level be so dense a person couldn't see more than half dozen meters in front of them at best. South-east Asia and the Indian sub-continent can be similarly dense. You wouldn't think that bull elephant could hide in a forest but you would be wrong, forests can be so dense that something as big as a house hiding just by standing still is absolutely something that happens.

elanfanboy
2018-06-11, 11:49 AM
What if, hypothetically, somebody lives in perfect total seclusion? With no living beings around to harm nothing is evil

They would soon turn to suicide due to a complete perfect lack of something to do :smalltongue:

Anonymouswizard
2018-06-11, 03:10 PM
Another thing I really hate, specifically aimed at books.

When I read the description of a novel, or the novel itself, and don't encounter anything I wouldn't find in the D&D player's handbook (with an exception given to licenced novels, which have an excuse).

When did fantasy become so samey? I've almost entirely ditched the high fantasy genre because of it. I mean the last fantasy book I read, published something like six years ago, included a kung fu dude, a guy who could talk to cars, and a movie wizard. Now that's infinitely more cool than clerics and half elves and evil demons.

Beleriphon
2018-06-11, 03:49 PM
When did fantasy become so samey? I've almost entirely ditched the high fantasy genre because of it. I mean the last fantasy book I read, published something like six years ago, included a kung fu dude, a guy who could talk to cars, and a movie wizard. Now that's infinitely more cool than clerics and half elves and evil demons.

Dresden Files good sir, Dresden Files.

Luccan
2018-06-12, 02:15 AM
Another thing I really hate, specifically aimed at books.

When I read the description of a novel, or the novel itself, and don't encounter anything I wouldn't find in the D&D player's handbook (with an exception given to licenced novels, which have an excuse).

When did fantasy become so samey? I've almost entirely ditched the high fantasy genre because of it. I mean the last fantasy book I read, published something like six years ago, included a kung fu dude, a guy who could talk to cars, and a movie wizard. Now that's infinitely more cool than clerics and half elves and evil demons.

I mean, I don't want to write "but that's just like, your opinion man" but... I dunno, a lot of samey, crappy fantasy books do get published. But a lot of wholly original tales are also awful. I'd rather see familiar tropes in the hands of a skilled writer than original concepts written by a hack.

elanfanboy
2018-06-13, 02:22 PM
I mean, just stop reading the ones that seem d&d inspired. I agree with you, in that it’s a little bit of an overused idea, but how is your example of a good one different from a d&d party?

8BitNinja
2018-06-13, 03:15 PM
I mean, just stop reading the ones that seem d&d inspired. I agree with you, in that it’s a little bit of an overused idea, but how is your example of a good one different from a d&d party?

Maybe someone should write a Rhapsody of Fire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emerald_Sword_Saga) book. Although they have a lot of songs that seem very D&D inspired, but I think they have a lot of original content.

Archpaladin Zousha
2018-06-13, 04:20 PM
Maybe someone should write a Rhapsody of Fire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emerald_Sword_Saga) book. Although they have a lot of songs that seem very D&D inspired, but I think they have a lot of original content.
AND they got Sir Christopher Lee to sing with them! Some of it's cheesy as all get-out, but Christopher Lee, even in basically a Burger King crown, gives it a gravitas that just sucks you in! :smallcool:

Anonymouswizard
2018-06-13, 04:53 PM
Dresden Files good sir, Dresden Files.

Read a good deal of them. Also, Rivers of London.


I mean, I don't want to write "but that's just like, your opinion man" but... I dunno, a lot of samey, crappy fantasy books do get published. But a lot of wholly original tales are also awful. I'd rather see familiar tropes in the hands of a skilled writer than original concepts written by a hack.

I mean, the problem there is the skill of the author. But if given the choice between an inventive risk and a safe normal, I'd rather take the risk.


I mean, just stop reading the ones that seem d&d inspired. I agree with you, in that it’s a little bit of an overused idea, but how is your example of a good one different from a d&d party?

I don't read those books, but I see it all the time with wannabe authors. It also can sometimes make browsing the fantasy section hard.

I will admit, that there is a difference between 'like D&D' and 'has elves and dwarves'.

The way my example is different? Well I suppose I showed it poorly (the three aren't all on the same side), but the point is it's not something I tend to see.

Mr Beer
2018-06-13, 05:49 PM
It's hard to have a fantasy novel written now where there is zero input from D&D because the Tolkien -> D&D -> Fantasy genre cycle has been running for decades. But yeah any book which has a Dark Lord and dwarves and elves in it is going to get a hard pass from me unless someone I respect is making some inspiring recommendations.

Fiery Diamond
2018-06-13, 06:39 PM
I mean, the problem there is the skill of the author. But if given the choice between an inventive risk and a safe normal, I'd rather take the risk.

And, given that same choice, I'd rather take the safe normal. *shrug* Different strokes for different folks.

Spore
2018-06-13, 11:29 PM
I think that is a problem with high magic fantasy anyway. Conan is interesting because any injury is visceral and could lead to the character's downfall if not treated correctly. The Witcher has no insanely powerful wizards overlooking the land, dispatching the worst horrors of the monster world in 1-2 spells. Even Lord of the Rings is 70% travel RP, not big battles or wizard duels.

People and fantasy authors tend to forgot, stuff like Forgotten Realms or Eberron or [insert generic high fantasy setting] is fine as a roleplaying game that acts as escapism and power fantasy. But it is much less valid to tell a compelling story. (To be fair, Eberron did away with much high power shenanigans, with a world defining cleric being 1st level outside her keep, and with 70ish hit points being one-shot material even when near the source of her power).

Bohandas
2018-06-14, 09:30 AM
They would soon turn to suicide due to a complete perfect lack of something to do :smalltongue:

Let's assume they've got a bunch of books and computer games and DVDs; like really a lot of them

elanfanboy
2018-06-15, 04:54 PM
Let's assume they've got a bunch of books and computer games and DVDs; like really a lot of them

Then they would still have exposure to others, after all, who is giving them the books and magazines? In this case, they can perform evil acts. What if a magazine inspired them to summon a demon?

Bohandas
2018-06-16, 03:56 AM
Say that they live on a deserted island and some crates coincidentallywashed up with a TV and a dvd player and some solar panels and a buttload of DVDs

elanfanboy
2018-06-16, 03:40 PM
See the end portion of thestatement above

Yerok LliGcam
2018-06-18, 10:55 AM
people asking "what role does the party need?" and also players treating TTRPG like video games. they're COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. and so many people DM to accomodate video gamey folks rather than educate them that it just doesn't work and when people "game" the game. man it makes me annoyed.

just friggin enjoy yourself and stop trying to think like a video game where there's SO MANY limitations due to the fact that computers are the stupidest things ever (trust me i program them all day) and the fact that your brain is the most advanced cognitive thing in this universe.

man it annoys me.

Archpaladin Zousha
2018-06-18, 12:42 PM
people asking "what role does the party need?" and also players treating TTRPG like video games. they're COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. and so many people DM to accomodate video gamey folks rather than educate them that it just doesn't work and when people "game" the game. man it makes me annoyed.

just friggin enjoy yourself and stop trying to think like a video game where there's SO MANY limitations due to the fact that computers are the stupidest things ever (trust me i program them all day) and the fact that your brain is the most advanced cognitive thing in this universe.

man it annoys me.
I agree with you in principle, but I've found in practice that if you're trying to get into a play-by-post, you either try to submit as quickly as you possibly can so you can design the character you actually want to play, or you make a character to fill a gap in the party's capabilities so you're not competing with the other people who made a fighter or a wizard, and thus have more of a chance to still get picked. :smallfrown:

Luccan
2018-06-19, 11:09 PM
I agree with you in principle, but I've found in practice that if you're trying to get into a play-by-post, you either try to submit as quickly as you possibly can so you can design the character you actually want to play, or you make a character to fill a gap in the party's capabilities so you're not competing with the other people who made a fighter or a wizard, and thus have more of a chance to still get picked. :smallfrown:

Indeed. There's a 3.5 game I've played a couple times based on starting as NPC classes. I would absolutely love to play an adept for it, but both times I've seen it posted 2 or 3 people have already made adepts.

Also, some games actually do need certain gaps filled in order for the party to be able to take on certain tasks.

8BitNinja
2018-06-20, 03:06 PM
people asking "what role does the party need?" and also players treating TTRPG like video games. they're COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. and so many people DM to accomodate video gamey folks rather than educate them that it just doesn't work and when people "game" the game. man it makes me annoyed.

just friggin enjoy yourself and stop trying to think like a video game where there's SO MANY limitations due to the fact that computers are the stupidest things ever (trust me i program them all day) and the fact that your brain is the most advanced cognitive thing in this universe.

man it annoys me.

This is kind of a necessity for my group.

Since I am now playing with a group of people who are afraid to play outside of their comfort zones and play nothing but rogues (yes, all of them. In our first campaign, the former forum member Green Elf felt the need to play cleric in order to keep the party alive for more than one encounter because 1d6 HP and an AC of 12 doesn't keep you alive very long) even though many of them don't do rogue stuff and act like fighters. So in order to help them learn about races and classes they normally would never play, our DM has made a one class per party rule. However, we usually still get two rogues since rogue will almost always be the first class taken, and then the other be a ranger, but ignore ranger class abilities so it can be played like a rogue. We have yet to see any of them play wizard and keep track of spells and spell slots, even when our DM houseruled out material components and focuses to make it easier for them.

But I'm not the one complaining about everyone wanting to be Han Solo. While everyone is arguing about that, I can say without anyone being mad that I'm Luke Skywalker.

Arbane
2018-06-20, 03:59 PM
Since I am now playing with a group of people who are afraid to play outside of their comfort zones and play nothing but rogues (yes, all of them.

(SNIP)

But I'm not the one complaining about everyone wanting to be Han Solo. While everyone is arguing about that, I can say without anyone being mad that I'm Luke Skywalker.

You filthy optimizer. How dare you do anything that might outshine the least competent of your teammates! :smallwink:

That is a bit odd. Why rogues? (And why not play Blades in the Dark?)

Anonymouswizard
2018-06-20, 06:52 PM
people asking "what role does the party need?" and also players treating TTRPG like video games. they're COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. and so many people DM to accomodate video gamey folks rather than educate them that it just doesn't work and when people "game" the game. man it makes me annoyed.

just friggin enjoy yourself and stop trying to think like a video game where there's SO MANY limitations due to the fact that computers are the stupidest things ever (trust me i program them all day) and the fact that your brain is the most advanced cognitive thing in this universe.

man it annoys me.

I've seen it work.

My university group had one player who never learnt the system (and setting) beforehand. So while everybody else came with a character concept she always needed a bit of poking (except when we played M&M, she needed help building but had a firm concept that played well with the party). This meant she'd normally be pushed towards something the party needed, although she'd also bring in other stuff (one time we needed a dwarf because the entire game was set in a dwarf hold, so we ended up with an engineer/face*). It was more a case of needing a push or never being too attached to her race.

But yeah, it can be annoying, especially when applied to a 'do we have a fighter/mage/cleric/thief' setup. I do generally like to know if the party is missing somebody with scholar skills, or information gathering, or wilderness survival, because being able to tackle a range of obstacles makes for a better story, but few groups think that far ahead (my current group is rogueless, and very heavily oriented towards social skills with me packing most of the scholar stuff due to a +4 Int mod).

* Almost everybody in the group focused on face skills, we liked to avoid fights.

Bohandas
2018-11-03, 03:43 PM
Evil kings who are withered and twisted (Palpatine, Theoden prior to exorcism, etc.) and good kings who are hale and hearty. It should be the other way around. Putting in the time and effort to rule wisely and justly would be more likely to age you prematurely than presiding over some kleptocracy where you don;t spend time or effort on anything other than enriching yourself and indulging your own whims.

Spore
2018-11-04, 03:04 PM
Evil kings who are withered and twisted (Palpatine, Theoden prior to exorcism, etc.) and good kings who are hale and hearty. It should be the other way around. Putting in the time and effort to rule wisely and justly would be more likely to age you prematurely than presiding over some kleptocracy where you don;t spend time or effort on anything other than enriching yourself and indulging your own whims.

Because it then usually is the other trope. "Pretty rich (white) douchebag" and old wise king (mentor).

TripleD
2018-11-06, 06:35 AM
Religion =/= Mythology

Too many authors and world-builders come up with a bunch of myths and legends and say "that's what the people believe".

The problem is that a real life religion is more than the sum of its stories. It's a mishmash of interpretations that have been handed down over the years, disagreements over which rules are more important, festivals, rituals, and superstitions that may have no basis in the "canon" but are part of the background of everyday life.

Take Zeus for example. Most people today know him primarily as the guy who "throws thunderbolts and turns into a swan to have sex". To the peasants of Classical Greece though, he was the protector of travellers who came to their doors seeking shelter. He was the being they offered a sacrifice to in exchange for another good summer. They probably knew some of the ribald stories, but they were less important than his (perceived) impact on their day-to-day life. To put it another way, it's the difference between your friend's opinion of your boss, who only hears about them when you joke about the office Christmas party, as opposed to your opinion based on working with them on a daily basis.

One series I've seen handle this well is the Elder Scrolls. Most of the in-universe mythologies share the same beats: at some point in the past there were three being who formed the universe, a group of lesser spirits created the mortal plane, and another group of spirits chose not to help. Beyond that they differ wildly in how they interpret the stories. The rift between Altmer and Dunmer is less that the Dunmer believe that certain Daedra are worthy of worship, as why the Dunmer think that certain Daedra are worthy of worship. The belief that the Mundus is a prison is the core of Altmer faith, so when the Dunmer argue that it is actually a testing ground on the path to enlightenment it creates an irreconcilable rift between their religions.

Rebel4ever85
2018-11-06, 12:01 PM
people asking "what role does the party need?" and also players treating TTRPG like video games. they're COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. and so many people DM to accomodate video gamey folks rather than educate them that it just doesn't work and when people "game" the game. man it makes me annoyed.

just friggin enjoy yourself and stop trying to think like a video game where there's SO MANY limitations due to the fact that computers are the stupidest things ever (trust me i program them all day) and the fact that your brain is the most advanced cognitive thing in this universe.

man it annoys me.

No healer wouldn't be an issue?
No front line wouldn't be an issue?
Nobody that can deal with traps or spot them?

A good group needs to be balanced IMO...so asking what bases haven't been covered seems like a pretty reasonable thing to say. Example - 3 fighters go into a dungeon, then a rogue,cleric and fighter...the second is going to be able to deal with more problems than the first due to varied skill sets.

Anonymouswizard
2018-11-06, 12:51 PM
No healer wouldn't be an issue?
No front line wouldn't be an issue?
Nobody that can deal with traps or spot them?

Played in a party with no healer, worked well, we went down too quickly anyway.

Played in a party with no front liners. Game turned into rocket tag.

Played in a party with no rogue. Absolutely refused to go into dungeons and barded our way past everything (by which I mean we used social skills, not that we slept with somebody then escaped through the window).

Max_Killjoy
2018-11-06, 01:18 PM
No healer wouldn't be an issue?
No front line wouldn't be an issue?
Nobody that can deal with traps or spot them?

A good group needs to be balanced IMO...so asking what bases haven't been covered seems like a pretty reasonable thing to say. Example - 3 fighters go into a dungeon, then a rogue,cleric and fighter...the second is going to be able to deal with more problems than the first due to varied skill sets.

I think this assumes a dungeon-crawl- or hex-crawl-centric setup, where sequential combats of a specific sort will be the norm and make up the spine of the campaign. Many campaigns, many systems, many settings, do not really focus on this particular aspect of RPGing.

Spore
2018-11-06, 01:43 PM
Absolutely refused to go into dungeons and barded our way past everything (by which I mean we used social skills, not that we slept with somebody then escaped through the window).

Is that not the point of being a bard then?

Anonymouswizard
2018-11-06, 04:12 PM
Is that not the point of being a bard then?

I think you have misunderstood. The latter part didn't happen because, despite doing a lot of barding, none of us had gone to bard college and as such were deficiet in the required silly hats and pickup lines.

Spore
2018-11-06, 11:59 PM
None of my characters have hats. Except the ones with weird races choices, they got a Hat of Disguise. Or if you play in cold climate and still wanna show of these abs without freezing.

No seriously, at one point in our campaign, we had almost all player characters seduce every major NPC.

The fighter dated the daughter of the chieftain.
The paladin dated the important merchant.
The witch dated a wish-granting genie.
The monk dated the daughter of the chieftain first, but then selected a vow of celibacy mostly to show off his major dedication to his combat style. (along with what felt like 15 other vows essentially barring him from RPing with anyone ever!)

Sadly our Paladin went with the BBEG and was turned to HIS side (freeing the apocalyptic rider of death and turning undead).