I always liked the Icevale Elves from the Hollow World, and decided to create my own hill-dwelling cold-climate elves in The Setting for FtA!GN!.
In that same book, I mention a crew of Dwarf & Halfling pirates, who are not particularly seafaring peoples in The Setting.

The former is an example of portraying an entire racial group against type in a setting; the latter of playing a character (group of characters, in that case) against type in particular campaign.

So, when a setting portrays a demihuman race in this way, how do you think it has to be done to be a positive? Is it always better than just having elves be your standard forest-dwelling hippies-with-bows? Or can you end up making things worse by not making sense?

And in a game, when someone plays your bog-standard shire-halfling as a hardcore badass warrior, or a studious dwarf, etc, does that come off well to you? Have you done so as a player (if so, tell the story)?
Or does this choice of character tend to annoy you?

RPGPundit

I love playing demi-humans who break stereotypes because I really don't care how they "should" act.  Certain racial quirks make sense, particularly those based on lifespan.  Otherwise I don't like the notion that only humans are capable of being an individual.

I think playing against stereotype can be a wonderful thing until it is copied to death by the characters that follow.

Take a fictional character like Drizzt. Initially, I rather liked him as a great change of pace, even given all of the angst. But after everyone and their brother copied the same idea it became old and less appealing to me.

I think that the value for these types of characters comes from originality and a low frequency in any particular campaign. Repeat something too often and it becomes stale. By doing it once and doing it well, it helps make the character stand out and be something everyone will remember.

I think as long as you don't go crazy with it you can pull it off.  I mean, there's a reason we think of elves as elves and dwarves as dwarves and breaking convention just to change all of that - i.e., if the elves lived in underground cities and were dour armorsmiths and lapidaries and the dwarves were forest dwelling hippies in a given campaign then one hasn't really changed anything.  I guess what I'm trying to ineptly say is changing a thing just for the sake of changing a thing equates to no change at all.  

As to individual players, I generally ask them why their halfling (or dwarf, or elf, and so forth) is totally atypical.  I don't want a short fantasy novel, mind, just some thought behind why they did it beyond "because halflings get infravision under ground and can move silently better" etc.

Quote from: PaladinCA;302206I think playing against stereotype can be a wonderful thing until it is copied to death by the characters that follow.

Take a fictional character like Drizzt. Initially, I rather liked him as a great change of pace, even given all of the angst. But after everyone and their brother copied the same idea it became old and less appealing to me.

I think that the value for these types of characters comes from originality and a low frequency in any particular campaign. Repeat something too often and it becomes stale. By doing it once and doing it well, it helps make the character stand out and be something everyone will remember.

That's...see, that's what I was trying to say.  Thank you.

Quote from: PaladinCA;302206I think playing against stereotype can be a wonderful thing until it is copied to death by the characters that follow.

Take a fictional character like Drizzt. Initially, I rather liked him as a great change of pace, even given all of the angst. But after everyone and their brother copied the same idea it became old and less appealing to me.

I think that the value for these types of characters comes from originality and a low frequency in any particular campaign. Repeat something too often and it becomes stale. By doing it once and doing it well, it helps make the character stand out and be something everyone will remember.

So if we reduce restrictive demi-human stereotypes we also reduce a player's natural desire to play the rebel.

Quote from: Idinsinuation;302212So if we reduce restrictive demi-human stereotypes we also reduce a player's natural desire to play the rebel.

There could be some truth to that.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;302211That's...see, that's what I was trying to say.  Thank you.

We aim to please. :hatsoff:

My friend plays Dwarves as Jamaican stereotypes.   He has rasta dwarves with dreads instead of beards who call their ale "red stripe" and they are more about chilling, than vendetta.    We thought it was fun, but some players really freaked without the Scottish accents.   As one player said, his whole point of roleplaying is to play the hippy elf / dour dwarf and doesn't want anything to tamper with that.

So talk to your players before changing stuff.

As long as its logical in setting its fine, the cannibal/barbrian halflings in Dark Sun were a fresh and interesting idea that fit the setting, but dropping cannibal/barbarian halflings into Greyhawk (or similar vanilla fantasy world) wouldn't make much sense.

Quote from: RockViper;302247As long as its logical in setting its fine, the cannibal/barbrian halflings in Dark Sun were a fresh and interesting idea that fit the setting, but dropping cannibal/barbarian halflings into Greyhawk (or similar vanilla fantasy world) wouldn't make much sense.

Why?  This is a fantasy world with dark corners capable of housing a sinister halfling tribe as much as any other nasty culture.

Humans vary so widely across the globe in everything from culture, diet and religeon and more.  Why do we automatically assume that demi-humans would be so narrow in scope?

I'm not opposed to playing a stereo-typical ale chugging, beared warrior dwarf but at the same time I recognize that there's no need to force any particular stereotype.

Because when playing in a standard fantasy campaign I expect to be able to play a fat food loving halfling thief. If we are playing RIFTS then yea bring on the cannibal halflings

I played a dwarf 'ranger' in 1e AD&D.

Dwarf fighter/thief, with the (randomly rolled) "forester" secondary skill. Well, dwarves need wood, too, right? Timbers for mine supports, charcoal for forges, stuff like that.

I played him as the Gifford Pinchot of dwarves. Got on okay with elves, as long as they didn't get too tree-huggery on him - trees are something to be used as well as protected, right? Renewable resource and all that.

Dual-wielded a pair of hand axes in melee, and carried a shot bow as a missle weapon - liked to hunt, too. Fun character, while he lasted.

my old dm used to portray all his dwarves as loud boatwrecking irishmen and it made them alot more interesting in campaigns he ran than the usual dour scotsman type of your regular fantasy game(he aparently only made them irish coz he cant do a scotish accent, the boatwrecking bit he added on a mr T themed whim one day), his scouser halflings on the other hand are a tale for another day

Quote from: PaladinCA;302206I think playing against stereotype can be a wonderful thing until it is copied to death by the characters that follow.

Take a fictional character like Drizzt. Initially, I rather liked him as a great change of pace, even given all of the angst. But after everyone and their brother copied the same idea it became old and less appealing to me.

That's very true.  When every second FR campaign features a "good Drow", you know that its just gotten stupid.

RPGPundit