You just got me interested in starting another campaign. And I still haven't even finished writing my Serenity RPG campaign! DAMN YOU!!
Fantasy Cliches Are Both Good and Bad
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Umm...isn't a 'post-cataclysm' world what our world is then? xD Think about it, how many fallen ancient civilisations do we know about? A whole crapton that's how many. A while you might say that humanity carried on, and the world never really 'ended', try telling that to the Phoenicans, the Romans or the Huns, I'm pretty sure their worlds are fairly ended no? And we're the ones who got to dig up all the loot!
So really...it seems pretty silly, if technically true to call a fantasy world post-apocalyptic if the only reason it's called so is because it's got long dead powerful civilisations in it's history.
At least, post-apocalyptic setting says to me, a truly massive and world spanning destructive event, where few people survive has occured. Not: Two mighty civilisations have a massive war and then collapse into ruin.
So really...it seems pretty silly, if technically true to call a fantasy world post-apocalyptic if the only reason it's called so is because it's got long dead powerful civilisations in it's history.
At least, post-apocalyptic setting says to me, a truly massive and world spanning destructive event, where few people survive has occured. Not: Two mighty civilisations have a massive war and then collapse into ruin.
*ahem* Last paragraph of the article, "...rib your companions about what their missing from the dark side." Should be "...rib your companions about what they're missing from the dark side." I hate it when people get that sort of thing wrong. I may even rage about it. 
Interesting article, anyway. My homebrew setting arose from a desire to create a race of lizard people who weren't big, dumb and slow, and find somewhere for them to live. I also have elf-hate, so there are no elves, and dwarves have been replaced by social insects. Try doing a Scots accent through mandibles, I dare you!
One thing that does bug me is the concept of having sentient races that are ok to slaughter without thought because "they're all evil." Orcs and goblins typically fit this bill, and it's a boring reason to kill something(one) IMO. At least, it is when you're not given any reason as to why they're evil beyond "says so in the Monster Manual." I don't have a problem with the idea of conflict between sentient races (umm, in fiction, not in RL), but there are more interesting and complex reasons for it to occur (history shows us this). Maybe it has more to do with lazy GMs and my love/hate relationship with the D&D alignment system than anything else.....
Interesting article, anyway.
My homebrew setting arose from a desire to create a race of lizard people who weren't big, dumb and slow, and find somewhere for them to live. I also have elf-hate, so there are no elves, and dwarves have been replaced by social insects. Try doing a Scots accent through mandibles, I dare you! One thing that does bug me is the concept of having sentient races that are ok to slaughter without thought because "they're all evil." Orcs and goblins typically fit this bill, and it's a boring reason to kill something(one) IMO. At least, it is when you're not given any reason as to why they're evil beyond "says so in the Monster Manual." I don't have a problem with the idea of conflict between sentient races (umm, in fiction, not in RL), but there are more interesting and complex reasons for it to occur (history shows us this). Maybe it has more to do with lazy GMs and my love/hate relationship with the D&D alignment system than anything else.....
Yeah, David Jason's ok as an actor, but I much preferred him as Albert in Hogfather than as Rincewind in TCOM. He just wasn't Rincewind to me, mostly because I couldn't imagine him running a lot!GothmogII said:That was Josh Kirby's fault. (I actually love the Kirby Discworld covers though.) Paul Kidby is Pratchett's current go-to artist with regards to how many of the Discworld characters look, and Rincewind doesn't look like an old man:The Random One said:
Which is a shame seeing as they went with David Jason for the TV adaptation of The Color of Magic, who, well, -is- an old man. ^^'
Funny you mention Paladins serving deities of love and beauty... One of my favorite characters ever was a Paladin of Sune (Ruby Rose Knight, natch). Even though he didn't 'fornicate as much as possible', he acted more like the party Bard than the party Paladin in most situations (except in battle of course). Lawfully serving a Chaotic deity makes for some interesting role-playing as well.
Awesome article, been reading them for a while and I agree with most of what you write.
My first D&D character was a Paladin (which I was planning to, if possible turn into a Blackguard eventually I'm a sucker for "Light VS Darkness" stuff.) who was pretty much the definition of "goody-two-shoes", and through leadership he turned our party of mostly neutrals into mostly goods xD So that blackguard plan got scrapped.
Later on we started playing 4.0 and I made a Drow Rogue that was chaotic neutral, because while he wasn't evil he certainly wasn't good either and he stole everything he could get his hands on and lied whenever it benefited him (Charming Rogue or whatever it was called, with the... something power that allowed me to reroll a bluff check, though my luck with all the thievy stuff was shit.), though our group was a little more than a bit racist (probably partially due to our elven ranger) so he ended up being fed up about it and stole most of the elfs valuables and ran off. Yup.
Then I made a human wizard, lawfull evil, the manipulator kind (Also ridiculously arrogant. Since he was the son of a rather important Noble over in Neverwinter (my favourite D&D city, my paladin was also from there.) Wasn't able to really continue on that party though but we did make a new group where I redid the wizard, starting with us travelling to some... fort or castle I forgot to meet a guy for a job, and because he was too lazy to walk he had summoned a floating disc to sit on.
More than a bit cliche perhaps, though I don't get to do pen and paper RP's that often so I try to go with what I feel like at the time. I do a lot of forum RP'ing though, where I tend to try a ton of different ideas.
My first D&D character was a Paladin (which I was planning to, if possible turn into a Blackguard eventually
I'm a sucker for "Light VS Darkness" stuff.) who was pretty much the definition of "goody-two-shoes", and through leadership he turned our party of mostly neutrals into mostly goods xD So that blackguard plan got scrapped.Later on we started playing 4.0 and I made a Drow Rogue that was chaotic neutral, because while he wasn't evil he certainly wasn't good either and he stole everything he could get his hands on and lied whenever it benefited him (Charming Rogue or whatever it was called, with the... something power that allowed me to reroll a bluff check, though my luck with all the thievy stuff was shit.), though our group was a little more than a bit racist (probably partially due to our elven ranger) so he ended up being fed up about it and stole most of the elfs valuables and ran off. Yup.
Then I made a human wizard, lawfull evil, the manipulator kind (Also ridiculously arrogant. Since he was the son of a rather important Noble over in Neverwinter (my favourite D&D city, my paladin was also from there.) Wasn't able to really continue on that party though but we did make a new group where I redid the wizard, starting with us travelling to some... fort or castle I forgot to meet a guy for a job, and because he was too lazy to walk he had summoned a floating disc to sit on.
More than a bit cliche perhaps, though I don't get to do pen and paper RP's that often so I try to go with what I feel like at the time. I do a lot of forum RP'ing though, where I tend to try a ton of different ideas.
Loved the idea of the fornicating paladin - of course, I'm knee-deep in Jacqueline Carey's Kushiel's Legacy books right now so that's to be expected. For those that know the books, just imagine a Paladin of Kushiel. That would make for some freaky (in a good way) daily powers.
Yep, that pretty much nails it. With the slight difference that we're yet to find that +5 Sword of Ogre Decapitation or that doomsdayish Mighty Mug of Merry Madness. Most of the stuff we've been digging up was mostly boring, totally enigmatic or simply kaput. Keep digging though; sooner or later we simply have to find something suitable enough for our own destruction.GothmogII said:
BP did a pretty good job at that, last time I heard.
Great articles, Greg, they're fun and interesting to read and I can feel quite a lot of GMs nodding in agreement. Still, I think the most important question during character creation is not "how can I avoid becoming a walking cliché/dwarf" but rather "how can I get a shitload of fun out of my group". At least that worked well for me till now. I like to provoke reactions from my fellow companions and that works best (and with the funniest results) when they don't know what to think of my alter ego.
One of my favorite characters was a Rigger in our Shadowrun group (we were playing really low-tech; implants and such were really hard to come by, and to afford those ... well ...). He was a really low-life coward, dwelling in a run-down car workshop and constantly on the verge of financial ruin. The kinda guy who'd collaps if you whistled too hard at him. The only thing he had was a devilish amount of charisma and livesful of luck. The kind of luck that let's you roll three shots at three different targets and score deadly hits with each (even though you didn't have any real skill with weapons after all). Sheer luck but it somehow evolved into a real character trait.
Oh yes, and he was a hopeless drunk. And our only driver, of course. Soon as the rest of the party went out scouting, he'd be dead drunk in a minute. Almost drove them insane, but those were some adrenalin-boosted car chases, I tell you.
Tolkien did not write his dwarves as Scottish. The dwarven language he invented for them is based on Semitic tongues (so if anything Tolkien's dwarves are more Hebrew than anything else) and the dwarves themselves are based on their portrayal in Norse and Germanic mythology.Altorin said:
I don't know why dwarves are so often portrayed as Scottish in popular culture, but it was almost unheard of before the early 1990s. My theory is that Raymond Feist, the novelist who turned his D&D game into the Midkemia series of books in the early 1980s, made his dwarves Scottish, and Betrayal at Krondor was a well-received computer RPG adaptation of his books which set the bar for the RPGs that followed. The trope persists because D&D-style dwarves match a pile of Scottish stereotypes: a miserly approach to wealth, a strong work ethic, clannishness, an appreciation for strong drink, and a love of a good brawl [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ViolentGlaswegian].
EDIT: Fixed HTML on hyperlink.
Well for one you can still be Neutral as well Lawfullness isn't required for Scholarlyness or Lawful would be a requirement of The Wizard class and The Bard Class, which it is not. Similarly with a single skill point you can buy out your illiteracy and taking the Educated Feat pretty much makes one a scholar, especially if you have a decent Intelligence.Altorin said:
I did my first bearded wizard/pointy hat last saturday. Ofcourse there were some mitigating factors. To summarise in an adventure:
But anyway, people in my world who look like archetypical wizards are usually people who [strong]want[/strong] to look like archetypical wizards. Imposters, con-artists or low-level wizards who want to look more imposing.
The party meets a crying man dressed in a green robe and pointy hat adorned with a brown leaf patern, in his beard there clings a small bat, also crying. The man is riding a giant dung beetle with a little tent on top (it's a mobile alchemy lab). When the party shows interest, the man explains he was spurned by his lover of whom he can only say she is simply beautiful and can only describe her face and upper body. He asks the group to deliver a potion to his lover (it's a love potion), he promises them gold and potion as reward. The wizard is actually charmed by a vicious harpy/siren (looking like the greek creature) who nests atop a huge tree made of swords and daggers. Many dead victims are pinned into this tree.
When confronted, the harpy will usually attack the group unless they offer her jewelry or art and magic objects. It's quite hard to convince the harpy to drink the potion. If they kill the harpy and the wizard finds this out he will flip out. The harpy's eggs will dispel any enchantment magic when eaten (including the enchantment which is over the wizard).
When confronted, the harpy will usually attack the group unless they offer her jewelry or art and magic objects. It's quite hard to convince the harpy to drink the potion. If they kill the harpy and the wizard finds this out he will flip out. The harpy's eggs will dispel any enchantment magic when eaten (including the enchantment which is over the wizard).
But anyway, people in my world who look like archetypical wizards are usually people who [strong]want[/strong] to look like archetypical wizards. Imposters, con-artists or low-level wizards who want to look more imposing.
That paladin would be more the paladin of parties than the party's paladin.Hurr Durr Derp said:
I have actually run a campaign where the Dwarves spoke with a Russian accent, rather than generic scottish... now one of my friends accuses me of influencing him to make russian dwarves.
Eh.
Eh.
You call the conventions of fantasy "cliches" as if that's somehow bad. Your wacked out druggy wizard wouldn't be particularly funny, if it wasn't for the established conventions. They are the reason he works as a different type of character.
Groups also work for the same reasons society works. You must specialize to become really good at something. That's why there's room for each type of character in a group. If you had some demigod type guy who could do everything, it would ruin the fun entirely. Group games thrive on adversity and especially cooperation.
Groups also work for the same reasons society works. You must specialize to become really good at something. That's why there's room for each type of character in a group. If you had some demigod type guy who could do everything, it would ruin the fun entirely. Group games thrive on adversity and especially cooperation.
In Exalted, the typical sorcerer (as in a magician, not DnD's definition of a sorcerer) is in a big shiny armor with a big ass sword (at least, considering the trappings of the Sorcerer constellation). Also, exalts live thousands of year (2-3k for celestials, 5k for sidereals) without taking into account life extending charms, sorcery and artefacts.
In Mage, a good Life mage will keep his body young. Why wouldn't he? He's got the power to alter living things.
Fear the "young" mage in top physical shape, for he's surely a lot more powerful than the one that can't stay young.
The mechanical cliché about leveling and classes is really a bad one. You don't need levels and classes to railroad how you'll develop your character. I think it's as bad as story railroading. Multiclassing doesn't change that since it just gives you the choice of railroad you want to choose.
In Mage, a good Life mage will keep his body young. Why wouldn't he? He's got the power to alter living things.
Fear the "young" mage in top physical shape, for he's surely a lot more powerful than the one that can't stay young.
The mechanical cliché about leveling and classes is really a bad one. You don't need levels and classes to railroad how you'll develop your character. I think it's as bad as story railroading. Multiclassing doesn't change that since it just gives you the choice of railroad you want to choose.
Having played and STed a lot of Exalted games were players all play some kind of demigods rarely weak in a field and no perfect circles (one character for each role), I can say you're pretty wrong with that statement.znix said:
Some are better than others in some fields. The twilights (crafters/mages) have more technical knowledge than the dawn (warriors), but they can still fight pretty well. The dawn can still investigate better than your average joe. That doesn't mean there's no collaboration or adversity.
Players in a baseball game have a lot more skill in common than an average DnD party, but they still work together.
I think that party roles are an extension of the old adage "divide and conquer" - as in divide specialties and conquer challenges. If characters are truly random, some will be smart enough to figure out how magic works, and convince the others to use their shields while they work their magic. In 2nd ed D&D at least, stats were rolled, then you chose your class based on what the dice gave you (3d6 straight up, no tweaks or extra die to drop).
I've been working off and on on my own roleplaying system that eschews the idea of a class title as a stack of gained abilities. Instead, such titles can be gained or given by how the character acts, or what the character actually does. I had established barbarian as the active anarchists, wizards as mind-using (wit, intelligence, and concentration based) casters, and paladins as actively good characters (divorcing them from forcibly being lawful or religious - though they do support good churches as a local locus of good). These labels reinforce character actions without handing them particular abilities.
As for wizard robes, I think Rowling gave a good reason why they may like them in HP 4, just before the World Cup. Extra long tunics also don't require as much maintenance and are easier to clean. Wizards are busy people who would rather spend time researching than darning.
I remember reading somewhere that Salvatore made Drizzt quirky on purpose as a sidekick to Wulfgar, who was supposed to be the main character. However, it was written that he realized the true star of the story early on and adjusted the story to suit. Besides, Drizzt is awesome and deep as a character - who wouldn't want to be him (well, up and until the 4th ed setting anyway)? That and tabletop gamers are mainstream social outcasts so being the good outcast I think really resonates with us.
I've been working off and on on my own roleplaying system that eschews the idea of a class title as a stack of gained abilities. Instead, such titles can be gained or given by how the character acts, or what the character actually does. I had established barbarian as the active anarchists, wizards as mind-using (wit, intelligence, and concentration based) casters, and paladins as actively good characters (divorcing them from forcibly being lawful or religious - though they do support good churches as a local locus of good). These labels reinforce character actions without handing them particular abilities.
As for wizard robes, I think Rowling gave a good reason why they may like them in HP 4, just before the World Cup. Extra long tunics also don't require as much maintenance and are easier to clean. Wizards are busy people who would rather spend time researching than darning.
Agreed. My last name starts with Mac and I still like dwarves and dwarven characters. I have trouble imagining them with any other accent.Falseprophet said:
I remember reading somewhere that Salvatore made Drizzt quirky on purpose as a sidekick to Wulfgar, who was supposed to be the main character. However, it was written that he realized the true star of the story early on and adjusted the story to suit. Besides, Drizzt is awesome and deep as a character - who wouldn't want to be him (well, up and until the 4th ed setting anyway)? That and tabletop gamers are mainstream social outcasts so being the good outcast I think really resonates with us.