TheRPGSite

Poll time.

Do roll your eyes, groan in annoyance, rub your brow in frustration or make sarcastic remarks when one of your (potential) players states he/she wants to play one of the options above (remember it's multiple choice)?

Why?

There's no poll.

Options?

Now there are. Weird glitch in the submission.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;874152Why?

I voted: centaur and aquatic race, because they won't work with the usual settings (land based, and sooner or later climbing something a centaur can't); clinically insane person, because it's going to disrupt the game; and half-vampire, just because it will be irrelevant or take over the game - there's never a middle ground. Probably wouldn't bother me if there were rules for it that did hit that middle ground.

The others are all OK with me, at least enough that I won't roll my eyes at them alone. (Brooding loner has to be willing to brood with at least a small group of fellow party members, or it won't work for the game. I still won't roll my eyes.)

Centaur: Do you really want to be in the stable of the inn? I'm fine.
Pixie - Well, you're the first. Be my guest, hypothetical player. Just don't expect the game to be fair to your small stature.
Cat humanoid - Fine, I allow those and lizardmen by default. Certainly better than an elf!
Drow - If you tell me he's good, misunderstood and dual-wielding, it's a "no". If you're looking forwards to squicking the group with an evil drow in the wrong kind of campaign, it's a "fuck, no!"
Tiefling - fine!
Half-vampire - You don't get a katana. The other half is not a werewolf. If you're fine with paying the points, I'm fine with you getting the bonuses.
Aquatic race - You're the first, but as long as it's amphibious, be my guest.
Amnesiac - Didn't read the setting? I do that myself, no criticism. Be my guest.
Brooding loner - If you can work with others, I'm fine. If you can't but are fine with the consequences, I'm fine as well. Are you?
Dispossessed noble - Fine.
Paladin - You're very much welcome!
Druid - If you're planning to play a PETA, nature is going to turn on you. Otherwise, fine.
Monk, samurai or ninja in a non-Asian setting - Fuck, no.
Man/woman (opposite of their own gender) - No. Not unless you can persuade me you can roleplay it. To this day, 3 people have, and not a single one wants to actually do it when playing.
Clinically insane person - Unless you persuade me you understand what it really looks like, and explain how this one is going to function with others, it's a "fuck no!" Which means it's probably a "fuck no" to the absolute majority of people.

Hey, it shows I haven't voted for the druids? What? I'm more prone to believe that I've checked it twice!
Can a mod add a vote from me?

Quote from: AsenRG;874161Aquatic race - You're the first, but as long as it's amphibious, be my guest.

I read it as water breathing only; I guess I have no problem with an amphibious race.

Half-vampire just sounds like nonsense to me... go full vampire or go home.
I don't know what a Tiefling is and don't care enough to look 'em up... some sort of quasi-magical mouse people, yeah?

Otherwise, assuming a wide-open gonzo setting ala Arduin, I wouldn't outright forbid any of those but people asking for Cat people or Monks/Ninjas/Samurai are gonna be under suspicion for a while.

I haven't found Centaurs to work in games, but that's odd considering that I've seen Bariaurs work in Planescape and of course Vrusk in Star Frontiers.

Hmm...I gotta look into Centaur PCs for Mazes & Minotaurs.

Pixies are fine in Tunnels & Trolls. I haven't seen tiny PCs work great in other games.

Drow...nope. Same for Dark Elves in Warhammer.

Half-vampire? WTF? You are either undead or not.

Aquatic? There was an article about Dolphin PCs in Traveller. I used them in an Aliens one-shot and they were cool/weird, but I can't see them in a long term campaign. Maybe, I'm wrong.

Amensiac? Absolutely. Oops, did I mention that I'm a CoC GM, Chaos junkie and splatterpunk fiend?

Brooding Loner? Fuck off and die. RPGs are team games.

That said, I once had a player in a supers game who had a brooding loner who couldn't stand being by himself so he double-brooded as a point of levity. He was a Batman guy who would always find excuses why the other PCs needed him to stick with them. The player even paid for a second Secret Identity that the PC used to hang out with the team when they were not in costume. It allowed the player to make all the Batman/Wolverine speeches, but stay with the team.

Monk, samurai or ninja in a non-Asian setting? Depends. I would need to be convinced it made sense for the campaign.

Man/woman? So much depends on the player and the group.

Insane person? The Crazy is an OCC from Rifts! Outside of Rifts, I am hesitant. Are we playing something cartoon / cinematic where we can play the Funny Crazy (Murdock from A-team) or more realistic where mental illness can be squicky?

It's entirely system and setting dependent, so I'm not really sure how to vote:

centaur: If I'm running a dungeon crawl, yeah, I'd roll my eyes. If I'm running a game set in or around Dragon Pass, Glorantha, I'd be cool with it.

Pixie: What's a pixie in this setting? What's the tone of the game? In some settings, a pixie would be too goofy for a serious game. In others, a pixie would be too fucking scary for a light-hearted game.

Cat humanoid: If I'm running Atlantis: the Second Age, go for it. There are various options which fit the bill in Glorantha. I'd generally be cool with it, unless I'm running, say, a strictly human-centric swords-and-sorcery game, such as AS&SH.

Drow: While some of the settings I run have dark/underground dwelling elves, Drow as such don't exist in the settings I usually run. If I were to run a Forgotten Realms game, well, I don't know. I supposed I'd be cool with it, but I'd have to do more FR research.

Tiefling: Don't exist in the settings I usually run.

Half-vampire: Don't exist in the settings I usually run. I'm not familiar with a setting with half-vampires. You're either a vampire or you're not. If I was running Glorantha, I'd probably disallow it (not sure if that fits "roll your eyes" or not). If I was running Shadow of the Demon Lord, I'd almost encourage it.

Aquatic race: Assuming the campaign isn't aquatic, I'd allow it if the race was amphibious.

Amnesiac: If this is an excuse for a player to shout "PAY ATTENTION TO ME!" and step all over the other players lines, I'd disallow it (assuming I think a player inclined to do this shit is worth keeping around in the first place; I don't give a shit your parents didn't hug you enough, you don't have the right to stomp all over other people's fun time trying to get the attention from them your parent's never gave you). If the player wants to do something interesting with the concept, go for it.

Brooding loner: Generally disallow in games which assume the characters form a more-or-less consistent group. Otherwise, same answer as for Amnesiac.

Dispossessed noble: Sure.

Paladin: If they exist in the setting, and the player isn't going to play their character as Lawful Stupid (or nearest equivalent in that system/setting), I'm fine with it. I can often come up with a reasonable equivalent in systems/settings that don't have paladins as such.

Druid: If they exist in the setting, I'm fine with it. I can often come up with a reasonable equivalent in systems/settings that don't have druids as such. If I've prepped for and pitched a dungeon crawl, I'm not going to throw that out for one player.

Monk, samurai or ninja in a non-Asian setting: This is a pretty straight-forward disallow.

Man/woman (opposite of their own gender): If the player isn't an idiot/asshole, I'm fine with it. I they are an idiot/asshole, then I have to wonder why I'm wasting my time with them.

Clinically insane person: See answer under Amnesiac.

Drow and Half Vampire.

Drow because well I'm just sick of them after Drizzt books and all that.

Half Vampire because my thinking is that being half vampire is like being a little pregnant.

That said, since I moved the system completely behind screen I find that it's taken out a lot of the oomph behind these "I'm so special" characters.  While many players say they it's something story based that's motivating their choices, once they don't have the special mechanical benefits to directly handle, they seem to request these kinds of characters a whole lot less.

Nobody hates paladins and dispossessed nobles, but 80% of us hate [strike]Blade wannabes[/strike] half-vampires, it seems;)!

Quote from: AsenRG;874183Nobody hates paladins and dispossessed nobles, but 80% of us hate [strike]Blade wannabes[/strike] half-vampires, it seems;)!

Half-vampire is just a stupid concept, IMO. I wouldn't have them as PC, NPCs or furniture in any game I run. The rest all have their time and place.

It depends.

If I have the time to do like Gary did and run for multiple groups, go ahead and be whatever you want; if necessary I can always run your character solo.

Otherwise, I'm pretty skeptical about anything out of the mainstream.  "Work and play well with others" is the #1 rule of character creation in a world I'm running.

The most boring people in the world always play elves.

You left out Dragonborn.

Pretty much all of that stuff except druid makes me cringe because it reeks of special snowflakeness, but it's never really been an issue in any of my groups. I don't really run a game that attracts that kind of player, I guess.

Drow: Most of the people who want to play these that I have run across personally would do better with Vampire, any other World of Darkness or Fiasco. I think. (some were fantastic roleplayers) Quite frankly, they would have done better with any Storytelling game. I don't mean to disparage Storytelling games at all, it's just that people need to use the best game for what entertainment they want. All I'm saying is don't start fucking crying about how daddy was ashamed of you in the middle of the fucking Tomb of Horrors or White Plume Mountain.

@OP: You also left out elven bladesingers. Fuck them. (I may have a mid-level bladesinger in my binder :p)

Quote from: David Johansen;874193You left out Dragonborn.

Quote from: JasperAK;874201@OP: You also left out elven bladesingers. Fuck them. (I may have a mid-level bladesinger in my binder :p)

Thanks for making me realize what was unusual about this list. With the exception of Tieflings, this could be a list of cliches we were sick of in 1999. At least in my groups, these things have been overdone for so long they're just not seen. If someone were to actually suggest playing one now, I'd probably say, "okay, let's see where this is going..."

Except for drow, because drow just plain don't make a lick of sense.

Quote from: Simlasa;874185Half-vampire is just a stupid concept, IMO. I wouldn't have them as PC, NPCs or furniture in any game I run.

I could see using half-vampires as furniture.  As in "cut a vampire in half, then make furniture out of the halves."

Other than that, it all depends on the setting in question.  I don't generally run D&D or worlds where most of the things on the list exist, so they tend not to come up.  Although I did roll my eyes so hard I almost hurt myself when I was setting up a WFRP campaign and a player said she wanted to play a dark elf, only for it to become apparent that she was assuming that Warhammer's druchii were just renamed drow.

I'm surprised druids didn't score higher. Between their redundancy with clerics, trouble meshing with many settings, rarity in standard fantasy fiction, tendency to be run as unyielding eco-terrorists, and overpowered abilities (3e D&D and up) you'd think more people would have come to resent their presence in tabletop.

Quote from: rawma... and sooner or later climbing something a centaur can't

Most mentions of centaur here focused on the practical issues, which is fair. In many circle I moved through however there was something unsavory about requesting one as a PC. They had a reputation for provoking uncomfortable joking at the table and being a vehicle for deviant players to work out some of their... issues.

Too bad really, they are very human-like and genuinely grounded in ancient human mythology, which are usually assets in a fantasy PC race.

Quote from: David JohansenYou left out Dragonborn.

Damn it. Well, if they had been on the list, what would you have said?

Quote from: TrippyHippyThe most boring people in the world always play elves.

How so?

Quote from: Willie the Duck;874211At least in my groups, these things have been overdone for so long they're just not seen. If someone were to actually suggest playing one now, I'd probably say, "okay, let's see where this is going..."

Are you sort of saying that they've become comfortable cliches like elves and dwarves? :p

Quote from: Willie the Duck;874211Except for drow, because drow just plain don't make a lick of sense.

Could you explain? I've heard many good criticisms of drow, but incoherence is not usually one of them.

Centaurs, drow, tieflings and half-vampires don't exist so they're not an option, period. I'm unfamiliar with the D&D-ish version of pixies.

Brooding loners and clinically insane PCs are annoying and disruptive pretty much most of the time. I'm fine with players portraying a member of the opposite gender, though I generally don't find the result very convincing.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;874192The most boring people in the world always play elves.

:rolleyes: Yeah, elves were definitely missing from the list.

Half-Vampire would be nixed at my table. Clinically Insane at character generation? Nah, rather not deal with that. Though I have no problem with a character being driven to that point in the course of a game. That's half the fun of CoC, after all.

Centaurs and pixies are things that the PCs might meet, maybe, and would be very weird. Drow don't exist. I wouldn't want someone playing one even in Forgotten Realms. Half-vampire is a silly idea. Aquatic race? Rather daft.
To be honest, all my recent campaigns have been human-centric with either a Swords and Sorcery vibe, or something akin to a fairy tale atmosphere, where encountering the inhuman is either a source of horror or instills wonder, depending on which one it is. And I much prefer things that way. Tieflings scream angsty special snowflake. Now I might allow someone to have rumoured demon or Fae blood, but not for that to be a race, just a human with something weird about them. No Dragonborn either. I just don't get how you can get one of the ultimate thrills of the game finally encountering a dragon if you sort of are one.
So these days I add elves, dwarves, gnomes and halflings to the list of very rarely encountered NPCs, and if encountered probably more like unknowable, mysterious, possibly terrifying individual Fae creatures, rather than different looking people.

As for the others, I have druids and paladins in my campaign, but it's not D&D, so these are tied in deeply to the setting and not just classes with their attendant clichés.

Amnesiac, dispossessed noble, loner, and crazy person are all completely fine, as long as they're well thought out and the player pitches them in a way that makes sense, and that could function as an adventurer. And playing the opposite gender is completely fine. If that's fun for someone, I'm glad to allow it. I don't care how convincing it is. Most people aren't amazingly convincing actors as ANYTHING, so I don't see why this should be different. It's not an acting class, it's a fun game.

Oh I forgot cat humanoids, which is a "just no" from me.

And monks, samurai, and ninja in non Asian setting. Well, in my RuneQuest campaign there are orders that use the Mysticism rules to augment abilities, but are non Asian type characters. There are warrior monk inquisitors from the Order of the Crossed Keys, formed to seek out and persecute sorcery, or heroic warriors from the Company of the Stag who perform battle-feats based on the Fianna from Irish legends ...

But if you want to play an "Asian" character in my based-on-medieval-Ireland setting, you'd better have a great backstory!

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;874259I'm surprised druids didn't score higher. Between their redundancy with clerics, trouble meshing with many settings, rarity in standard fantasy fiction, tendency to be run as unyielding eco-terrorists, and overpowered abilities (3e D&D and up) you'd think more people would have come to resent their presence in tabletop.

In my O/AD&D games, we run druids as sorcerous pagan priests drawing on ancestral, animistic and elemental powers. They perform human sacrifices and other macabre rituals. If someone came to my table wanting to play a druid "eco-warrior" informed by modern environmentalist opinions and motivations, I'd tell them to pick something else or find another game. My druids aren't treehuggers who blow up oil pipelines.

I only put Centaur, Drow and Tiefling, because:

Centaur: Centaurs have never been part of the communities PCs have started in in my games, so I was imagining a PC wanting to be a Centaur and expecting everyone else to not have the reactions they'd have in the worlds we were playing in.

Drow: I almost never run D&D and don't often let D&D characters enter, though I have from time to time, and the Drow-wanting players I've met have seemed to be on a trip about their evil elves and how cool they think they are, but it seems to have just been a fetish without substance in play. And I've read and heard many stories of annoying Drow in D&D campaigns. Often involving "how do I hide that I'm Drow long enough to betray the party..." ::rolleyes::

Tiefling: Not only do I almost never run D&D, I never run Planescape or Shadowrun, which I take it is where these come from. Like many D&D races, my brain tends to forget what they are shortly after reading their description, and this is one of those. I get the idea and think it would be possible to play well and be interesting. I can also see how they would be yet another case of 1) reason/excuse for overall betterness and/or superhuman powers (i.e. superhero play, which genre is not usually my favorite) and 2) reason/excuse to be evil, betrayers, generic misunderstood evil (/teen angst?), hard to roleplay or excuse not to try, or just be reasonless generic evil. Moreover, another thing I generally don't include in my game universes is Biblical literalist Christianity, nor universal good/evil alignment/morality-axis and these seem at least in that direction. (i.e. if I have demons, they're not pseudo-Christian demons, more just magic beings.) So they probably don't make sense in my games, or if there was something like them, they'd be something else and not called Tieflings.

I didn't put Cat People, because even though I haven't had them in one of my fantasy worlds since Star Fleet Battles, Dominions, or make-believe games we made up about our cats which we stopped playing when I was 10, I can see them being done OK, just as I've played settings with various types of Reptile men. I can relate to them more than I do Dragonlings, or even Wolfen, which I've not used. But I have also heard/read people trying to do Cat People and doing them in ways that do have me rolling eyes :rolleyes:

My main examples of rolleyes race requests which has come up though are:

* Half-breeds (especially all the half-elves and half-orcs) from players who just want some fantasy spice but then don't seem to put any effort into background or roleplaying - in fact it mainly seems to genericize their roleplaying as they seem to be half-playing a stereotype they don't really relate to - they just seem to have some notion that it's an exotic idea and then get inhibited by it.

* Were creatures / infecteds. I've had players wanting this, and told them no. Especially the were-jaguarundi. Another "I want to have a super ability" that doesn't exist in my world, would get them treated as a monster and killed, and usually without really wanting to think it through or play it out. If I were running a weird superheroes or monsters game, maybe, but I'm generally not.

All my reactions boil down to one or more of:

* That doesn't exist or make sense in my world.
* In my world, those things almost certainly get treated as monsters. You're probably going to get hunted down, sooner or later or repeatedly, and possibly your PC friends too.
* I am dreading the player's attempt to roleplay that, or am pretty sure the player isn't really going to enjoy that the way they think they will.
* I don't want the players to feel artificial pressure to accept your unsympathetic PC freak into their party.
* I don't want to have to GM your unsympathetic PC freak, or to feel artificial pressure to not check for anyone who knows what you are, whether there will be an attempt to hunt you down.

I admit my POV's colored by many years in a combat fantasy LARP, where we had no defined "races," but you could pretty much play anything you could convince other people of -- and for which you had reasonably convincing props/makeup -- as long as you didn't claim any supernatural abilities you couldn't legally get through advancement in the game system.  A regular feature was the newbie who declared himself (to anyone in earshot, as often as possible) a half-elf, half-dragon, half-vampire ‡ who was the rightful Duke of Fnordia, and was in our lands to gain support to reclaim his throne.

‡ - Yes, I'm aware that's too many halves.  I'm not making up the example.

After enough indifference from the veterans, they either dropped the weirdness, changed characters, or left the game in a huff.

Beyond that, let's see:

* I have centaurish and felinoids as playable races on my world.  The centaurs (Amiths) are a bit of a pain in the ass for adventuring -- e.g., stairs and walls -- and no one's played one in the last 25 years.  I suppose someone playing a "pixie" would have the same problem as the PC who played a sentient housecat: one hit with a sword and you're a goner.

* Drow don't exist in my setting.  The point cost for playing a vampire would be all but impossibly prohibitive.  Cetaceans are sentient in my world, but even those adventures I have at sea take place on ships.

* Actually, a current PC is a recovering amnesiac (she bought it off, after a couple of years).  She did quite an excellent job of it.

* Monk, samurai or ninja in a non-Asian setting?  I'm not, per se, opposed; I have a quasi-Asian region in my world -- more Malaysian than Japanese -- and people travel.  Of course, that person would have to follow *my* cultural template and practices, and a pastiche of Warring States era is right out.

* Cross-gender.  Eh, people have done it.  I'm unsure what's considered so out of line with playing something you're not.  Isn't that what we play this game to do in the first place?

* Insanity: I'm generally opposed.  Like the brooding loner, only more so, the whackdoodle makes life very hard for the rest of the players, without any compensating factor.

Quote from: Ravenswing;874307* Cross-gender.  Eh, people have done it.  I'm unsure what's considered so out of line with playing something you're not.  Isn't that what we play this game to do in the first place?

Yeah, I don't know why this one is comparatively forbidden. As long as it's not some Pythonesqe falsetto and ridiculous stereotypes I'd have no issues with it.

Quote from: Simlasa;874172I don't know what a Tiefling is and don't care enough to look 'em up... some sort of quasi-magical mouse people, yeah?

First they were people with demonic blood who had a shadowy/demonic look about them. Then they were hot chicks with horns. Then after they were chicks with horns so grossly oversized it was disturbing and disgusting but still presented as if they were hot.

Pretty much just brooding loner. I mean, come on...it's a team game.

Quote from: Premier;874322First they were people with demonic blood who had a shadowy/demonic look about them. Then they were hot chicks with horns. Then after they were chicks with horns so grossly oversized it was disturbing and disgusting but still presented as if they were hot.

Oh yeah! They're the Draenei of World of Warcraft... or visaversa. I remember now!
What's annoying about them?

Brooding Loners. I don't run one on one games.

Added: Lesbian Stripper Ninjas - pick any one, and I am fine. Any two and I can deal with it. All three? No way.

Hermetically sealed characters - no family, no friends, no trust, no play.

Quote from: flyingmice;874333Lesbian Stripper Ninjas - pick any one, and I am fine. Any two and I can deal with it. All three? No way.

I played one of those in a game of Icons. Not what I set out to play at all... but she was randomly generated and when all the elements were there it's just what made sense (well, I tossed in 'lesbian' just to fill out the trope).

Almost all of the above if it is out of setting and campaign context.

Just listening to people at FLGS rattle off their Pathfinder characters to any exposed ear almost made me blind with permanently uprolled eyes.

If we're doing something where one of those elements is within justifiable context, then I am cool. Unless we're stacking them together like a Dagwood sandwich, and then I can't anymore. I'd rather listen to kindergarteners yammer on about the latest action figure dramas. (I'd prefer neither, but you understand...)

Quote from: Simlasa;874342I played one of those in a game of Icons. Not what I set out to play at all... but she was randomly generated and when all the elements were there it's just what made sense (well, I tossed in 'lesbian' just to fill out the trope).

HAHAHAHAHA! Somehow, I'm not surprised it was you that randomly rolled it, Simlasa! And if played the way I am sure you played it, it would be awesome! :D

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;874345HAHAHAHAHA! Somehow, I'm not surprised it was you that randomly rolled it, Simlasa! And if played the way I am sure you played it, it would be awesome! :D

-clash

Hmmm... do I have some reputation I'm not aware of? (she was kind of awesome, as a superhero oughtta be).

Quote from: Simlasa;874349Hmmm... do I have some reputation I'm not aware of? (she was kind of awesome, as a superhero oughtta be).

Reputation? Just for creativity, and a somewhat odd perspective. In other words, a good rep. :D

Quote from: flyingmice;874350Reputation? Just for creativity, and a somewhat odd perspective. In other words, a good rep. :D

Oh, hah... well, I'll happily wear that hat.

You know, I clicked on numbers in the poll to see who voted for what specifically...

We sure have a lot of lurkers around here. :hmm:
Chime in, folks, don't be shy.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;874369You know, I clicked on numbers in the poll to see who voted for what specifically...

We sure have a lot of lurkers around here. :hmm:
Chime in, folks, don't be shy.

I've been super lurky of late, but now that you've called me out on it... :o

On reflection, most of my eye-roll choices are based what may arguably been a few bad (from a "my tastes" perspective I guess) apples.

Cat-amites: A couple of cat worshippers, at least two of which have insisted on terribly twee/jokey cat names, have really rubbed my fur the wrong way.

I. Hate. Joke. Names. So. Hard.

Drow & Devilkin & Dracs: This well is so poisoned by munchkinry for me that I just can't.

Clinically Insane: I should have voted eye-roll for the clinically insane option, but at the time I voted I was having of some fond memories of players whose characters had interesting neuroses (e.g. OCD and agoraphobia) that didn't try to tank the game, but that's probably not what Shipyard was thinking with this option.  So if I had it to do over again, I'd vote for this one.


I'm generally a fan of re-interpretations of classes, so I'm not bothered at all by things like monks or samurai in non-asian settings, as long as whatever it is, reskinned to whatever degree, does somehow fit in the campaign setting.  It's annoying, however, when someone just wants to play a ninja cut-and-pasted into Greyhawk.

I dislike all on that list but cross-sex play, Druids, and Paladins- and the latter two depend on the maturity and wisdom of the individual. Lawful Fucktard and True Fucktard play gets you punted.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;874259Most mentions of centaur here focused on the practical issues, which is fair. In many circle I moved through however there was something unsavory about requesting one as a PC. They had a reputation for provoking uncomfortable joking at the table and being a vehicle for deviant players to work out some of their... issues.

The one guy who played a centaur (way back in the 1970s, before I was aware that centaurs could be about deviancy) was a centaur only because we had really random results for the reincarnation spell (it always worked, but getting an unplayable race was the equivalent of a failed raise dead). He tried to make it work but the practical issues ultimately proved too much (we were rather dungeon focused then).

The only player I've known since who wanted a centaur character is a woman who had a neat centaur miniature, and had done a really nice centaur costume for an amateur video long ago; besides the practical issues, I also described the unsavory reputation and I'm not sure she believed me. Since we were playing D&D 5e in organized play, it wasn't possible anyway then, and she hasn't had the time to take part in another campaign since.

So, I don't know if the unsavory reputation really far exceeds its justification. How come anthropomorphic animal races don't have the same or worse reputation? (Or do they, and I am blissfully ignorant of it? Maybe I should not have asked.)

Quote from: rawma;874403So, I don't know if the unsavory reputation really far exceeds its justification. How come anthropomorphic animal races don't have the same or worse reputation? (Or do they, and I am blissfully ignorant of it? Maybe I should not have asked.)

Thank you for subscribing to our monthly slash-fic journal Chimeric Charisma.   We hope you enjoy the this month's issue featuring the star-crossed love of a bold wemic and a saucy sahaugin. Parts is parts, and you can't tell besotted hearts otherwise.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;874408Thank you for subscribing to our monthly slash-fic journal Chineric Charisma.   We hope you enjoy the this month's issue featuring the star-crossed love of a bold wemic and a saucy sahaugin. Parts is parts, and you can't tell besotted hearts otherwise.

Yep, I shouldn't have asked.

Quote from: markfitz;874271No Dragonborn either. I just don't get how you can get one of the ultimate thrills of the game finally encountering a dragon if you sort of are one.

But it could end with the most amazingly epic reveal: "OK, going left to right, I am your father, and your grandfather, and your half-nephew, and your great-great-uncle, and, you in the back, I'm your second cousin once removed, and ..." (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=33758).

honestly none of the above
i see no issue with any of those choices hell my 1st pc was a pally and he was cool never the so called lawful stupid he made sane choices the bigest thing is he was a little quicker to tell some dude he caved the nose in of to "drop the sword and never try that again" and that was cuz he didn't believe that every transgression should be met with death

Quote from: rawma;874403So, I don't know if the unsavory reputation really far exceeds its justification. How come anthropomorphic animal races don't have the same or worse reputation?

Cat people are a notorious red flag from what I've heard. Dog people less so for some reason (probably because they are super rare as an option and a request). Minotaurs and bird people don't seem to ring any alarm bells at all, and judging from my recent thread on lizard people, neither do they.

I wonder what makes the difference.

"Clinically insane person" IME is usually code for "fishmalk" which is really annoying attention whoring by way of trying to be funny and failing miserably.

Another one: "my character is a little kid" (anything under, I dunno, 16) is usually the same thing.

Drow, centaur, catfolk? Please. If Gary had a balrog PC, I suppose I can handle your snowflakiness. I'll still bust your balls about it, though. ;)

Quote from: The Butcher;874420Another one: "my character is a little kid" (anything under, I dunno, 16) is usually the same thing.

My main PC in our DCC campaign is a bratty orphan girl who's studying sorcery by mail-order. I try to be very mindful of 'less is more' with her...

Quote from: The Butcher;874420If Gary had a balrog PC, I suppose I can handle your snowflakiness.

You'd have to be a total wanker to want to play a Balrog.

A woman in our Pathfinder group chose to play a 'dragon fairy' or 'fairy dragon'... or something... a kind of fae. She said it was a 'trickster' and played it as kind of annoying.
I think we ended up giving her so much shit about it (I started calling it 'bug' and name stuck) that she ended up letting it get killed off and made something more mainstream last session.
Thing is, I liked the character and I thought she played it just right... but characters like that do tend to end up being the butt of a lot of jokes and I guess she got tired of it.

I still feel a bit guilty though.

I almost selected cat humanoid but though better of it,  

So long as the furversion stays away I have no issue with cat people or other anthros as  context they can be pretty fun.

I've played cat folk now and again myself.

The poll doesn't let me select none.

It's all about context, in my opinion. In a decent setting with a decent player, any of these can be good concepts. However, they can often easily be done badly. I can think of characters I like for almost all of these.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;874438You'd have to be a total wanker to want to play a Balrog.

You'd be one to know. :D

Anything could work...typically though it doesn't, which is why I put everything but Paladin/Druid (if we're doing AD&D you'd have to roll those stats.)

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;874259Are you sort of saying that they've become comfortable cliches like elves and dwarves? :p

More like they are clichés from so long ago that someone actually playing them isn't doing so for the same fanboy-ism that they would have back in the heyday. Sure in 1996 someone wanting to play a vampire named "Lestat II" would make me want to throw them out of my gaming group. If they were to do it now, my mind would go, "wait, huh? Are you doing this ironically? Because if so, that ship has also sailed. Some weird joke or commentary? Nostalgia? Let's see what you're thinking of."  

QuoteCould you explain? I've heard many good criticisms of drow, but incoherence is not usually one of them.

Mostly I was being, "I have no problem with any of them. Except drow... because screw drow!" silliness. But in all seriousness, underground creatures who are deeply black skinned (instead of morlock-white to translucent like real cave creatures) who have elven lifespans and reproduction, yet have a 'abandon infirm babies' and 'backstab your way to the top' social success strategies do not make a lick of sense.

Quote from: The Butcher;874465You'd be one to know. :D

I was honestly worried nobody would catch that.

Lets see. As others have noted. System dependant. But assuming all were open to use. And AD&D and BECMI opened up a-lot of options. Here goes.

Centaur: Dragon article allowed them. Notes the various drawbacks. Ok for dungeoncrawling as most dungeons are built to accomodate large creatures. But the PC has to be aware that there are places they cannot go without magic. 2e allowed Wemics too so theres Lion-taurs. And Planescape had the goat-taurs.

Pixie/Faerie: Allowable in 2e D&D and T&T. Obvious advantages and disadvantages. Paul Kidd showed just how effective a Faerie can be as an adventurer.

Cat humanoid: Rakasta from Red Steel were playable race, and turtle people and others. Long as it isnt a power play then sure. Much like drow and tieflings, etc. Presentation as a viable character.

Drow & Tieflings: Like any other overall average demi-human race. Depends greatly on how the player present it as a character.

Half-Vampire: All the strengths and just about none of the weaknesses? Then no. Add in some notable drawbacks and tone down the strengths and might work.

Aquatic: As in non-amphibious? No if there is no way for them to function on land/out of water unless the campaign is geared to this undersea setting. BX/BECMI presented exactly that.

Amnesiac: Metamorphosis Alpha had that as a possible start option for cryo-sleep crew awakened. Really depends on what the character has forgotten? How extensive is the amnesia? Taken too far then the character may be useless. Hit a good balance and sure.

Brooding Loner: As in doesnt work with a group at all? Then no. But if can function fine in a group then ok. IE: coming out of their shell.

Dispossessed Noble: Another one of those. "Depends on the presentation" moments. Fairly common to see and when played well does not impact play.

Paladin/Druid/Monk: These all work when played well. But like the Thief class when played badly they can become a total problem. But that is not a factor of the class. ANY class played badly can be a problem.

Player gender opposite character gender: Who cares as long as they can play well. Another one of those "Problem only if someone makes it a problem".

Crazy: How insane? That is the big factor. Call of Cthulhu and Paranoia pretty much run on crazy. Like with Amnesia or a Thief. Can the character function with the group and not be disruptive? No? Then No. Not allowed.

And as mentioned above. You can apply this to the Thief/Rogue too. And the Assassin, and Half-Orcs, and Gnomes, and pretty much any class-race. Its a factor of play rather than the subject itself sometimes.

Are they going to be a problem? Can they function in a group? Can they function at all?

A simple bog standard Fighter in a group can be really disruptive in the wrong hands.

Quote from: Simlasa;874317Yeah, I don't know why this one is comparatively forbidden. As long as it's not some Pythonesqe falsetto and ridiculous stereotypes I'd have no issues with it.

It's happened three times in my campaign over the years.  The first was a guy who did, indeed, play a sex bomb courtesan type, but he wasn't obnoxious about it.  The second two were women who habitually played male characters because they were used to cementhead gaming circles where female characters turned out to be hassles.  The other women in my campaign explained "No, you don't need to, Bob isn't like that."  One switched, the other didn't.

Some of these I'm okay with, most... eye rolling. And usually for the same reasons already given.

Centaur, Pixie: No one has ever asked, too many inherent problems.

Drow: Sure, I enjoyed the Drizzt books too. But he's a special one-of-a-kind character that doesn't need a mob of clones following him.

Tiefling: if you want to play evil, don't openly advertise it. If you don't want to play evil, why choose a tiefling?

Half-Vampire: Agree, doesn't make sense. Are you or aren't you?

Aquatic Race: Meh, I'm just not sea-centric. Cute idea but more trouble than they are worth.

Amnesiac: I hate the idea of amnesia and say it is far too over used in literature and TV shows/movies. I'll most likely say NO to it. That said, this past week I've been watching the show Dark Matter and it works there. If the whole group was amnesiac that can be an interesting game.

Brooding Loner: Agree, it's a team game. I've been in a campaign where a PC was in constant "Don't F--- with me!" mode. It got old fast. And yes, he did end up betraying the party.

Clinically Insane: 90% No. If the right player I knew and trusted picked the right condition... maybe.

I'm okay with Cat people, dispossessed nobles, paladins, druids, monks and cross-sex characters.

Quote from: Simlasa;874185Half-vampire is just a stupid concept, IMO. I wouldn't have them as PC, NPCs or furniture in any game I run. The rest all have their time and place.

Dhampire have folkloric roots and played correctly are pretty interesting. I'm of course the 20% of gamers who don't mind them so go figure,

Most of those are just kind of cliche.  The brooding loner guy is an active pain in my ass.

I haven't voted in the poll as I don't mind what my players roll up.

Regarding centaurs, I spent a few happy years playing Shergar Sunhoof, Centaur Extraordinaire. He was fine outside, struggled a bit with stairs and carried a block and tackle system for climbing up and down cliffs etc. He worked really well, as he was a tank in combat, so other PCs helped him with climbing in return for his ability to take on and devastate 5 minions at a time.

Quote from: Chainsaw;874197Pretty much all of that stuff except druid makes me cringe because it reeks of special snowflakeness, but it's never really been an issue in any of my groups. I don't really run a game that attracts that kind of player, I guess.

Paladins, too?

Quote from: nDervish;874258I could see using half-vampires as furniture.  As in "cut a vampire in half, then make furniture out of the halves."

Wouldn't those vampires just turn into dust:)? Other than that, I can see such furniture getting fashionable in some settings.

Quote from: Chainsaw;874277In my O/AD&D games, we run druids as sorcerous pagan priests drawing on ancestral, animistic and elemental powers. They perform human sacrifices and other macabre rituals.

Isn't that what they are anyway?
(I don't talk about "druids in D&D", mind).

Quote from: Ravenswing;874307Cross-gender.  Eh, people have done it.  I'm unsure what's considered so out of line with playing something you're not.  Isn't that what we play this game to do in the first place?

Quote from: Simlasa;874317Yeah, I don't know why this one is comparatively forbidden. As long as it's not some Pythonesqe falsetto and ridiculous stereotypes I'd have no issues with it.

Well, some people just suck so badly at it - even when they can convincingly represent someone who is different in other aspects - so I roll my eyes. But at least it's not an automatic "no". Some people aren't bad at it, at all (those seem to be just the more skilled players).
Maybe it was just my luck with the players that did request cross-dressing characters. Over half of my players have never even considered it, as far as I know;).

I don't really care what other people play, as long as it fits the collective tone of the game. I'm opposed to anything that actively harms the fun at the table, or immersion if that's what we're going for, but in my experience that tends to be people rather than character types.

For example, Earthdawn had pixies (windlings) -- I encountered some players who made them fit into the group and others who would make me roll my eyes and think "fuck, not again".

So, while certain options do lend themselves to people who want to be a special snowflake (*looks at drow*), people can play whatever they like as long as they contribute to the fun. But some people are dicks and I'll roll my eyes at whatever they choose. That probably makes me a dick.  :D

Quote from: AsenRG;874661Paladins, too?

Yeah, though I did allow one in my last AD&D campaign. As I suspect may be the case with many or most or possibly all of the others, I find that people want all of the benefits without any material drawbacks. So, when someone picks a paladin, I kind of groan a little, but I don't forbid it.

Quote from: AsenRG;874661Isn't that what they are anyway?
(I don't talk about "druids in D&D", mind).

Oh I agree, but in talking about D&Dish games online, I feel like I need to explicitly differentiate it from the modern militant environmentalist or eco-terrorist concept that often pops up these days. In my home game the distinction's well known, so when someone wants to play a druid, it doesn't raise any eyebrows. I should have been clearer.

I'm pretty open-minded about letting players play whatever they want, provided the race/class is of the sort that actually exists in my campaign, and is comparable in powers and abilities to the other PCs.

So 1st-level parties could include non-standard creatures like lizard men, goblins -maybe even a young ogre. Whatever benefits might come with the higher HD will be offset by penalties, the most common of which is fear, distrust and hatred from the overwhelmingly human population.

What usually happens over the course of an adventure is that a monster joins the group for one reason or another, and a player who has lost his or her main PC is allowed to take over one of the NPCs or monsters. The rebel bugbear in Keep on the Borderlands comes to mind, as well as dissident dark elves and half-breeds in Vault of the Drow.

As a DM, I save myself a lot of time and headache by simply taking one of these oddball selections, finding something fairly close in the game, and making a nip here and a tuck there.

Want to be a ninja? Fine, you have the thief class and you're free to wear a stupid black jumpsuit and mask while using retarded weapons. Knock yourself out. Monks and samurai are covered under fighter.

The last eight items on the list are almost purely role-playing choices, and I leave those up to the players. If a PC is being more trouble than they're worth, the other PCs can deal with it.

I ref OD&D: * In all cases where the creature is more than 1st level I would scale it to first level and that is where the player would start. If it is pretty odd, I hope you are entertaining.

centaur: Sure *

Pixie: Sure

Cat humanoid: Sure  *

Drow: Don't exist in my world, but why not, just be prepared for the other players to kill your evil character.  *

Tiefling: Don't know what this is - See drow  *

Half-vampire: Sure *

Aquatic race: Sure *

Amnesiac: Sure

Brooding loner: Sure

Dispossessed noble: Sure
 
Paladin: Make me proud - play him like Solomon Kane

Druid: Sure

Monk, samurai or ninja in a non-Asian setting: Sure  *

Man/woman (opposite of their own gender): Sorry I don't play with perverts

Clinically insane person: Sure

Quote from: Crimhthan;874891Man/woman (opposite of their own gender):  Sorry I don't play with perverts

What exactly is perverted about it?

I didn't check any of these (though I came close to checking "clinically insane"), because none of these character types bother me in-and-of themselves.

What drives me nuts is when players pick a character type that's wildly out of whack with the rest of the setting. Our GM once ran a gothic horror-style campaign in his homebrew, high-fantasy world. Despite knowing this, two of the players decided that they wanted to play a pair of luchador wrestlers, one of whom used faux-Spanish and the other of whom talked like Hulk Hogan.

The GM was a nice guy, and didn't disallow their characters, which was considerably more lenient than I would have been.

Quote from: Elfdart;874893What exactly is perverted about it?

Do you really need someone to explain that?:banghead:

Quote from: Crimhthan;874901Do you really need someone to explain that?:banghead:

"I'm a misogynistic assbucket but can't get away with saying that any man who wants to play a woman is automatically a pansy so I'll distract the conversation by pretending the point is obvious."

Elfdart, don't take the bait.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;874916"I'm a misogynistic assbucket but can't get away with saying that any man who wants to play a woman is automatically a pansy so I'll distract the conversation by pretending the point is obvious."

* Orson Welles slow clap  *

:hatsoff:

I went for drow, but only if they are attempting to be Drizzit clone, or a Drizzit variety.  Same deal goes for Victoria.

Look just show me a drow that is a fucking drow.  Show me a smirking bastard that doesn't give a shit about alignment.  Show me exotic primal elf that never had to take other races shit.  Show me a Lolth priestess in their most chaotic element.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;874916"I'm a misogynistic assbucket but can't get away with saying that any man who wants to play a woman is automatically a pansy so I'll distract the conversation by pretending the point is obvious."

Elfdart, don't take the bait.

Ah, the arrogant know it all again. You may very well be a

Quotemisogynistic XXXbuck

, but that does not change the fact that the point is obvious and should not have to be explained. Not a pansy, the correct term is mentally ill. All sexual deviates are mentally ill; however, not all mentally ill people are pansies i.e. cowards. And yes, it is deviate to want to play the opposite sex as your character for years at a time.

Also you arrogant know it all, misogyny is dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women which is entirely different from the dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against male or female perverts who are sexual deviates that want to pretend that they are the opposite sex on a long term ongoing basis. These perverts can find someone elses game to disrupt, they will not do it in mine.

I have nothing against women at all and women are a great plus to have in any game not just OD&D. Women change the dynamics in a very postiive way. Where there is nothing positive about sexual deviates.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;874916"I'm a misogynistic assbucket but can't get away with saying that any man who wants to play a woman is automatically a pansy so I'll distract the conversation by pretending the point is obvious."

Elfdart, don't take the bait.

Ah, the arrogant know it all again. You may very well be a

Quotemisogynistic XXXbuck

, but that does not change the fact that the point is obvious and should not have to be explained. Not a pansy, the correct term is mentally ill. All sexual deviates are mentally ill; however, not all mentally ill people are pansies i.e. cowards. And yes, it is deviate to want to play the opposite sex as your character for years at a time.

Also you arrogant know it all, misogyny is dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women which is entirely different from the dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against male or female perverts who are sexual deviates that want to pretend that they are the opposite sex on a long term ongoing basis. These perverts can find someone elses game to disrupt, they will not do it in mine.

I have nothing against women at all and women are a great plus to have in any game not just OD&D. Women change the dynamics in a very postiive way. Where there is nothing positive about sexual deviates.

Someone tell this knuckle-dragging idiot never to watch the hundreds of plays, operas and films with female actors cast into male roles and vice versa. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;874916"I'm a misogynistic assbucket but can't get away with saying that any man who wants to play a woman is automatically a pansy so I'll distract the conversation by pretending the point is obvious."

Elfdart, don't take the bait.

Quote from: Bren;874917* Orson Welles slow clap  *

:hatsoff:

Both of you can go fuck yourselves.

If you as a DM have not ever had to deal with some neckbearded basement dweller who wanted to play a lesbian stripper ninja stereotype, then you are either very sheltered or just haven't been gaming for that long.

Guy thinks its perverted, then he thinks its perverted. No more, no less. You want to be judgmental assholes who worship at the altar of Social Justice, then take it to RPGNet where that bullshit belongs.

Best not to feed the troll I imagine.

Where's my popcorn, while Gronan tears this guy a new one?

Quote from: Crimhthan;874891Man/woman (opposite of their own gender): Sorry I don't play with perverts

Perverts is rather strong, don't you think?

If I'm honest, I also tend to prefer that people play characters of their own gender, as I'm fundamentally a bit dim. That makes it difficult for me to track the multitude of variables at play in any given session without also ensuring that my pronoun use is also correct. Do you have that problem too? Are you also a bit dim?

Quote from: The Butcher;874973Someone tell this knuckle-dragging idiot never to watch the hundreds of plays, operas and films with female actors cast into male roles and vice versa. :rolleyes:

I've often seen people outraged over an actor playing a different ethnicity than their own, but not gender. Have there been complaints about 'gender misappropriation' regarding females playing Peter Pan?

Quote from: Majus;874996Perverts is rather strong, don't you think?

If I'm honest, I also tend to prefer that people play characters of their own gender, as I'm fundamentally a bit dim. That makes it difficult for me to track the multitude of variables at play in any given session without also ensuring that my pronoun use is also correct. Do you have that problem too? Are you also a bit dim?

* mic drop *

Wow.

I thought all the Social Justice Warriors were at RPGNet.

Has this place become RPGNet Lite?

Quote from: Crimhthan;874891I ref OD&D

snip

QuoteMan/woman (opposite of their own gender): Sorry I don't play with perverts

Clinically insane person: Sure

Quote from: Crimhthan;874970And yes, it is deviate to want to play the opposite sex as your character for years at a time.

So it would be OK for a one-shot or short campaign?

If a GM tells me to choose my character based on expecting to play that character for years at a time, then I'm going to roll my eyes as a player. And I'll probably bow out of a game that can't muster even the threat of my character dying within a few months, or that won't let me retire a character after a year.

And why is playing a clinically insane person for years at a time just fine, but playing someone different than you (kind of the point of role-playing), but less different than all those non-human races would be, is beyond the pale?

Do you view the Girdle of Femininity/Masculinity and "a room that causes a sex to change" as a fate worse than death, or even expect player characters to kill themselves because of such a curse? Or is that acceptable as long as the players insist they hate it? [OK, that's only in Greyhawk, so it might or might not apply to someone playing OD&D.]

QuoteAlso you arrogant know it all, misogyny is dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women which is entirely different from the dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against male or female perverts who are sexual deviates that want to pretend that they are the opposite sex on a long term ongoing basis. These perverts can find someone elses game to disrupt, they will not do it in mine.

So this guy is a homophobe or just a transphobe, not a misogynist. Please revise your subsequent posts accordingly, Gronan! No response on the assbucket part, so I guess qui tacet consentire videtur and all that.

Quote from: Crimhthan;874891Man/woman (opposite of their own gender): Sorry I don't play with perverts

Clinically insane person: Sure

Dr. Bodak writes carefully in his notebook:

QuoteSubject finds cross-gender role play perverted, but role play as a cannibalistic pedophile acceptable.

"Describe, in single words, only the good things that come to mind about your mother."

Quote from: jeff37923;875014Has this place become RPGNet Lite?

Nope, because he can still post what he thinks. Freedom of speech only entitles you to being heard, not taken seriously.

If he wants to start a calm conversation on the subject and present rational arguments he's welcome to try. Being a betrayed apostate of the authoritarian left, I'm more open to actually listening to right-wing POVs than I used to be - who knows, maybe he has a really compelling, non-emotional argument against transgenderism, although I doubt it.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;875038Nope, because he can still post what he thinks. Freedom of speech only entitles you to being heard, not taken seriously.

This.

"I have a right to my opinion" does not equal "you must treat my opinion as something worth considering."

What always struck me as really stupid about not allowing people to play characters of genders different than their own is that GMs do it all the time.  Does that make them mentally ill?  So ridiculous.

I have had a player that has totally burned me out on daywalker trenchcoat wearing ninja biker psionic something or others. And Gambit.

Quote from: NathanIW;875048What always struck me as really stupid about not allowing people to play characters of genders different than their own is that GMs do it all the time.  Does that make them mentally ill?  So ridiculous.

Maybe his settings don't have female NPCs in them...? :idunno:

Quote from: NathanIW;875048What always struck me as really stupid about not allowing people to play characters of genders different than their own is that GMs do it all the time.  Does that make them mentally ill?  So ridiculous.

What is appropriate for an NPC is fundamentally a different question than what is appropriate for a PC.  For example, a passivist PC would make a terrible fit for any of the games that I run (heavy on the action/adventure), but there are certainly passivist NPCs in my game world.

Note that I certainly have no issue with a player having a different gender than their PC (which is a nonissue from where I sit).

Quote from: jeff37923;875014Wow.

I thought all the Social Justice Warriors were at RPGNet.

Has this place become RPGNet Lite?

It doesn't take being a SJW to tell somebody "what you do in a stupid elfgame has no bearing on your real self, unless you choose something that actually corresponds to the real self".

In fact, what it takes for someone to do so is not being SJW. Since it's mostly the SJWs at RPG.net that think that it what you do in games corresponds to your actual wishes in reality, you'd have to be one of them to support that stance.

That's why they hate games like LotFP, remember? Are you trying to prove them right:D?

Coincidentally, that stance of theirs is also why I hang on this board much more than on RPG.net;). Well, that, and the fact that the experienced players here are answering questions, but the two synergise nicely.

I'm not even touching his assumption that playing another gender is perverted (meaning a great many actors have to be perverts in order to play some roles:D). That's equally moronic, but I don't even want to discuss it.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;875046"I have a right to my opinion" does not equal "you must treat my opinion as something worth considering."

Gronan, can I sig this at RPG net and/or elsewhere:D?

Quote from: Bren;874917* Orson Welles slow clap *

(applauds in stereo) :cheerleader:

Quote from: 3rik;875053Maybe his settings don't have female NPCs in them...?

Not ones he actually has to roleplay, anyhow, beyond "Hooters Chick #2" or "Whore #11."  His kind generally think their penises will fall off if they ascribe actual dialog to them.

No need to ask him, though.  What, beyond "Get fucked, you cockgobbling troll" would be appropriate?

Quote from: jeff37923;875014Wow.
I thought all the Social Justice Warriors were at RPGNet.
Has this place become RPGNet Lite?

What the hell, Jeff?  Are you really so out there that your reaction to people objecting to being called perverted for playing a character of a different gender is to scream "SJW!  SJW!!! ESS JAY DOUBLE-YEW!!!!"

This seems to fit your post admirably:

(https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/12494887_1181781961851067_2671138473433279736_n.jpg?oh=9f7cab5ece9404b32f397e5454e0786b&oe=57352F4C)

Quote from: NathanIW;875048What always struck me as really stupid about not allowing people to play characters of genders different than their own is that GMs do it all the time.  Does that make them mentally ill?  So ridiculous.

I do not care what gender my players play. That was for Gronan's benefit. Over at Fins forum, he has a well-earned reputation of a bully that has run over a dozen young people into deleting their profiles. That makes him a valid traget as far as I am concerned. He is almost as big of a jerk as T Foster, if that were possible.

My players can play whatever they want, after all we are all over 70 and it is not like we are going to listen to anyone telling us we can not do something.

Monk, usually in the attempt to make a Ninja.

You want to play a Ninja in D&D, make a Rogue.  You want to play a Ninja in a setting that doesn't support them?  That gets the eye roll.

Quote from: AsenRG;875071Gronan, can I sig this at RPG net and/or elsewhere:D?

Please do, though remember that at RPGnet I'm still using "Old Geezer."

Quote from: Ravenswing;875073His kind generally think their penises will fall off if they ascribe actual dialog to them.

:hmm: I thought his was the kind who ascribed a nickname* to their penis. And I figure once you give your member a name having it talk back to you is a pretty short step.



* Like Mr. Winky or something. Also, it is remotely possible that I confused Ravenswing's use of the pronoun "them."

Quote from: Crimhthan;875080My players can play whatever they want, after all we are all over 70 and it is not like we are going to listen to anyone telling us we can not do something.

Your rpg group is entirely septegenarians or older?  That is pretty awesome.

I found it odd that more classes weren't included in the poll. Specifically, my eyes roll when a player wants to play a Wild Mage/Sorcerer. Take your "wild magic surges" and GTFO.

You left out "multiclass."

You're against multiclass characters?

Discuss!!!

Back when I first started gaming I read a hell of a lot of S&S, not just Tolkien.  Conan was my favorite for years.  I want my fighters to fight, my magic users to use magic, my thieves to thieve, and my clerics to cler.

Also, my early experiences with people who wanted to multiclass was that they invariably wanted all the advantages of both classes but no disadvantages.

Arseholes to that, says I.

Quote from: Spinachcat;875109You're against multiclass characters?

Discuss!!!

Not me.  Point-buy, baybee!

Because my rebuttal to Gronan is that -- to paraphrase -- I prefer to have my characters char.  When Conan and Fahfrd are referred to as "thieves," when Gandalf swings a sword, when the Grey Mouser dabbles in magic, and when all of the above describes Elric, I humbly submit that you can make at least as good a case against pigeonholing than for.

That, in D&D, multi-classing is often the refuge of the minimaxers is a failure of game mechanics, not of the premise that archetypes shouldn't be as rigid as all of that.

I chose Aquatic because there would be one guy who wants to play one in a game where few aquatic scenarios come up. I guess that I'm pretty weird that none of the other stuff honestly bothers me as character options. Mostly though a LOT of them suck mechanically (v3.5 speaking) and I don't want to hear bitching that their character sucks after a few sessions.

As for Multiclassing, there's really no other way a character can change how they act in the game that expresses different archtypes. Can it be abused? Sure. Should a DM allow that? No, I wouldn't advise it. But in my experience most people who multiclass often do their character a disservice.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;875086Please do, though remember that at RPGnet I'm still using "Old Geezer."

Thanks, I'll make sure to remember to use the name the locals know you under:)!

Quote from: Ravenswing;875113Not me.  Point-buy, baybee!

Because my rebuttal to Gronan is that -- to paraphrase -- I prefer to have my characters char.  When Conan and Fahfrd are referred to as "thieves," when Gandalf swings a sword, when the Grey Mouser dabbles in magic, and when all of the above describes Elric, I humbly submit that you can make at least as good a case against pigeonholing than for.

That, in D&D, multi-classing is often the refuge of the minimaxers is a failure of game mechanics, not of the premise that archetypes shouldn't be as rigid as all of that.

You forgot that Gandalf also sneaks around and stabs lethally a warchief;).

But other than that, my opinion of multiclassing is exactly the above, no need to write it again.

Quote from: Alzrius;874895What drives me nuts is when players pick a character type that's wildly out of whack with the rest of the setting. Our GM once ran a gothic horror-style campaign in his homebrew, high-fantasy world. Despite knowing this, two of the players decided that they wanted to play a pair of luchador wrestlers, one of whom used faux-Spanish and the other of whom talked like Hulk Hogan.

The GM was a nice guy, and didn't disallow their characters, which was considerably more lenient than I would have been.

Santo vs. las Mujeres Vampiro

(http://images.moviepostershop.com/samson-vs-the-vampire-women-movie-poster-1962-1020543328.jpg)

Quote from: NathanIW;875048What always struck me as really stupid about not allowing people to play characters of genders different than their own is that GMs do it all the time.  Does that make them mentally ill?  So ridiculous.

I've lost track of the post as I never want to seen the insane asylum escapee ever again. But someone once said flat out that DMs who roleplay villainous NPCs are "mentally sick."

And another one where a DM was decrying players playing opposite gender as "sick" who went totally off his rocker when we pointed out he himself had just got done describing himself DMing a a female NPC.

I feel very sorry for any unfortunate players, or DMs, who end up with one of these loons at the table.

Quote from: Omega;875123Santo vs. las Mujeres Vampiro

Awesome!

(http://iv1.lisimg.com/image/1855927/500full-santo-y-blue-demon-vs-dr%C3%A1cula-y-el-hombre-lobo-poster.jpg)

Quote from: Ravenswing;875077What the hell, Jeff?  Are you really so out there that your reaction to people objecting to being called perverted for playing a character of a different gender is to scream "SJW!"

No, I'm commenting on the rabid overreaction from people. Makes me imagine that you all want a fucking hugbox so you do not have to deal with opinions that may be outside of your comfort zone. You know, the internet and the outside is world is absolutely full of people who don't think like you do.

Also, lets face it, if you as a GM have never had to deal with a neckbearded basement dweller who insisted on playing a lesbian stripper ninja just to squick out the rest of the table with character antics then you are either incredibly sheltered in your gaming or you just haven't gamed that much.

Quote from: Ravenswing;875077This seems to fit your post admirably:

(https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/12494887_1181781961851067_2671138473433279736_n.jpg?oh=9f7cab5ece9404b32f397e5454e0786b&oe=57352F4C)

Are you sure this doesn't apply to your own posts? Or is your constant use of the color blue text just your way of getting attention? Oh, wait, am I oppressing you now?

Quote from: jeff37923;875152Also, lets face it, if you as a GM have never had to deal with a neckbearded basement dweller who insisted on playing a lesbian stripper ninja just to squick out the rest of the table with character antics then you are either incredibly sheltered in your gaming or you just haven't gamed that much.

Nope. Never, ever had to deal with anyone even remotely like that in any game I ran or played in. Now in theory I suppose that could mean that I've led a sheltered gaming existence for over 42+ years of gaming in three countries and twice that number of US states, at high school and college game clubs, in game stores, at cons, and among many, many friends. But I find it far more likely that it means that I'm not a spineless idjit who chooses to spend his free time indulging morons and wackos and then whining about their awful behavior.

Quote from: Bren;875158Nope. Never, ever had to deal with anyone even remotely like that in any game I ran or played in. Now in theory I suppose that could mean that I've led a sheltered gaming existence for over 42+ years of gaming in three countries and twice that number of US states, at high school and college game clubs, in game stores, at cons, and among many, many friends. But I find it far more likely that it means that I'm not a spineless idjit who chooses to spend his free time indulging morons and wackos and then whining about their awful behavior.

So, in the midst of all that masturbatory exposition, you admit that those players do exist. You just don't tolerate them. Thank you.

Quote from: jeff37923;875152Also, lets face it, if you as a GM have never had to deal with a neckbearded basement dweller who insisted on playing a lesbian stripper ninja just to squick out the rest of the table with character antics then you are either incredibly sheltered in your gaming or you just haven't gamed that much.

Anecdotally, I have noticed this to be far more prevalent with female gamers than with male gamers.  All in all, rare enough to not worry about it unless it happens.  Though, I am very probably sheltered by your definition, primarity having gamed with friends over the years.

Quote from: jeff37923;875160So, in the midst of all that masturbatory exposition, you admit that those players do exist. You just don't tolerate them. Thank you.

I did not admit they exist. As I said, I've never experienced the problem you find of such great concern. If they exist, I haven't seen them. So from my perspective they are much more rare than murderers and serial killers, both of which I have met. So if those players exist, as you claim, then you seem to be attracting them. For some reason. Make of that what you will.

Quote from: jeff37923;875152Also, lets face it, if you as a GM have never had to deal with a neckbearded basement dweller who insisted on playing a lesbian stripper ninja just to squick out the rest of the table with character antics then you are either incredibly sheltered in your gaming or you just haven't gamed that much.

Having gamed for an average of 2+ sessions a week in the last 16 years, with dozens or over hundred of people, including some I never knew before meeting them, at cons, at boardgame stores* and at home...
I have never met those players, and I find your assertion disproven.

*Because an RPG store is something that simply doesn't exist in my city of roughly 1 500 000 people, but boardgame stores do offer RPGs and space to play.

Quote from: jeff37923;875160So, in the midst of all that masturbatory exposition, you admit that those players do exist. You just don't tolerate them. Thank you.

Why the fuck would anyone tolerate gaming with people he doesn't like? Is it some kind of charity, or social movement:)?

Do you feel like you owe them for the injustice of being classified as neackbearded basement dwellers:D?

Quote from: 5 Stone Games;874629Dhampire have folkloric roots and played correctly are pretty interesting. I'm of course the 20% of gamers who don't mind them so go figure,

Interesting! I'd heard 'Dhampire' before but assumed it was some bit of RPG chicanery... not an actual creature from folklore.
It also pushes the modern idea of seductive vampires back a lot further than I'd assumed... though from what I've read Dhampires have some pretty gnarly drawbacks as well.

Quote from: jeff37923;875160So, in the midst of all that masturbatory exposition, you admit that those players do exist. You just don't tolerate them. Thank you.

I don't admit they exist.  To me, they're legendary.  As in you hear about them, but you'll likely never meet one.

In the past 31 years of conventions and gaming with over a hundred other gamers, I've never seen (or smelled) one, but I always hear about them in the third degree, like "I know a guy who knows a guy, whose third cousin in law knows a guy who may have played a game of Carcassone with one."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;875111I want my fighters to fight, my magic users to use magic, my thieves to thieve, and my clerics to cler.

I get that.

Quote from: Ravenswing;875113When Conan and Fahfrd are referred to as "thieves," when Gandalf swings a sword, when the Grey Mouser dabbles in magic, and when all of the above describes Elric, I humbly submit that you can make at least as good a case against pigeonholing than for.

I get this too.

D&D classes don't emulate many characters in fiction.

I am not a fan of 3e multi-classing, and I agree with Gronan that too many players want a mega-class character, not a mixed class one where they have to accept some downsides.

Quote from: Omega;875123Santo vs. las Mujeres Vampiro

OMG, I saw that last month!!!

There's a heavy metal burger joint in LA called Grill'em All and they crank out metal while old weird movies play on the big screens.

I had my favorite, the Napalm Death burger and High on Fries!

I am surprised Hollywood hasn't jumped on the Wrestlers vs. Monsters genre, either as action movies or as comedies.

Quote from: Omega;875128But someone once said flat out that DMs who roleplay villainous NPCs are "mentally sick."

How weird! Where would anyone get such a ridiculous idea?

I'm totally gonna stalk that guy and bring him to my stabby dungeon.  

Quote from: jeff37923;875152Makes me imagine that you all want a fucking hugbox

A fucking hugbox? Sounds kinky. Betcha Venger Satanis put one of those in his Alpha Blue supplement.

Quote from: jeff37923;875152Also, lets face it, if you as a GM have never had to deal with a neckbearded basement dweller who insisted on playing a lesbian stripper ninja just to squick out the rest of the table with character antics then you are either incredibly sheltered in your gaming or you just haven't gamed that much.

Jeff, have you met a lot of those freaks?

Like others in this thread, I've got multiple decades of convention gaming where I've gamed with 1000s of strangers I never met before they showed up at my table to toss dice.

I've met some weirdos. I've met some freaks who disrupted the game with their freakshow. I've met the creepy stinky dudes - although I personally haven't seen any since the advent of WoW and the rise of online games.

But they represent a meaningless handful compared to the 100s of people who I would love to game with again and again because they brought awesome fun to table of strangers.

Moreover, I've met far more freaks in grocery stores than in game stores because sadly the freaks still must crawl out of their weirdo caves for food.

Right after 4E came out, I played in a Living Forgotten Realms RPGA game on Tuesdays. So-called "organized play" consisting of cookie cutter, self-contained, four-hour "adventures" where you show up, do your time on the railroad (pretty much impossible to die), get your mandatory rewards of XP and a magical item of your choice. Anyway, different people came from week to week. Once, this older white guy showed up, told us his character was a beautiful woman and spent way too much time describing her and doing it in a very sexually nuanced way while looking deep into people's eyes. Everyone was creeped out, including the host, who was extremely liberal.

My point is not that any guy who chooses to make his PC female is necessarily a perv, but only to say that I have seen it happen. It's not an internet forum myth devised by reactionary conservatives.

If somebody were to have overreacted to the assertion that anyone who would play a PC of a different gender is necessarily a sexual pervert, I'd say shame on them. At this point we should all be inured to that kind of trolly stupidity, right?

Quote from: AsenRG;875121You forgot that Gandalf also sneaks around and stabs lethally a warchief;).

But other than that, my opinion of multiclassing is exactly the above, no need to write it again.

Nice, but it has owt to do with MY opinion on multiclassing, which is what I was asked about.

Once again I know I'm probably a minority opinion, and once again I'm OK with that.

Quote from: Bren;875172I did not admit they exist. As I said, I've never experienced the problem you find of such great concern. If they exist, I haven't seen them. So from my perspective they are much more rare than murderers and serial killers, both of which I have met. So if those players exist, as you claim, then you seem to be attracting them. For some reason. Make of that what you will.

:popcorn:

You know, the issue I have is that some Sword and Sorcery Characters are claimed to be something they are not.

Take Conan for example.  He's been a thief, a pirate, a reaver and a king.  Which of those could be considered D&D classes?  A pirate?  Not really, it's just a subset of nautical skill, nothing you design an entire class around.  A reaver?  What is that?  I suppose, we could call it a fighter, he uses weapons, he kills people at the slightest provocation...  Yeah, let's go with that.  King?  Not a class.  Never has been, as you can have warrior kings, wizard kings, priest kings...  Which leaves 'Thief'.  Right, so he's a Fighter/Thief.

Is he really, though?  He doesn't pick pockets, he doesn't pick locks, he doesn't encounter any major mechanical trap that he can't defeat by being physical, and backstab/sneak attack is a contentious power.  A lot of people don't bother reading it and assume it's some sort of ambush strike, but if you do read it, it's more of a precision, anatomy based strike that requires the enemy to be unaware or distracted.  Conan never did that, he sort of ambushes his foes at best, and faces them with steel more often.

So is he a Thief?  The only thing he does that works in the older editions of D&D that would require any Thief ability is climbing. And in later editions, like 3.x on up, it's either it's own selectable ability or part of the Athletics skill package.

OK, so what about his being a 'Barbarian'?  Well, in D&D it's all about the Rage, the ability to work yourself up into a lather and become more powerful.  But in his entire listed career, Conan has 'raged' all of maybe twice, and each time, it was naught but a single strike to smite some eldritch beastie, not the battle long anger fueled massacre that D&D claims that Barbarians do.  And worse, just as often, that trigger, buried so deep within him has been nothing more than a flight or fight response mechanism, that's worked 50/50.  God in The Bowl, for example, it came up and instead of raging, he fled like a chicken (which frankly, was the smart thing to do.)

The only thing that marks him a Barbarian is that he comes from the perceived primitive culture of Cimmeria.  Which is not really quantifiable as a class.  So, in the end Conan is nothing but a Fighter, if you really break down what he does and has done.  Most of you won't though, hung up you are on labels.

As for Fafhrd and The Grey Mouser, I'm a tad hazier.  I would grant that the could have some multiclassing, but they don't use magic in a traditional wizard sense, really.  As the 'true' wizards in the few stories I've read were actually alien beings.  And it's not like they summon massive storms of arcane energy, or summon otherworldly beings.  But like I said, I've not read a lot of Leiber's stuff, so I could be wrong.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;875203Nice, but it has owt to do with MY opinion on multiclassing, which is what I was asked about.

Once again I know I'm probably a minority opinion, and once again I'm OK with that.

We may not agree on much, but it's been my personal experience that most people who want to multiclass locally have all been for having all the upsides, and none of the downsides for multiple class use.  Just like yours.

Is it fact?  Fucked if I know, just that this has been my personal experience.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;875203Nice, but it has owt to do with MY opinion on multiclassing, which is what I was asked about.

Once again I know I'm probably a minority opinion, and once again I'm OK with that.

Heres some backup.

So Gandalf and Conan sneaked. SO FUCKING WHAT? Anyone can sneak. Can they sneak as well as someone trained to it? Can they pickpocket as well as someone trained to it? Probably not. Everyone called Bilbo a burglar. But he was not a thief and had no clue. But he snuck around. Guess that makes him a thief! Yeah riiiight.

And Chris sums it up even better. :thanx:

Quote from: Spinachcat;875197Moreover, I've met far more freaks in grocery stores than in game stores because sadly the freaks still must crawl out of their weirdo caves for food.

Even for that there is Peapod.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;874916"I'm a misogynistic assbucket but can't get away with saying that any man who wants to play a woman is automatically a pansy so I'll distract the conversation by pretending the point is obvious."

Elfdart, don't take the bait.

I'm betting my 50 pesos on "I got my ass kicked by a girl in the 6th grade and never lived it down".

Seriously though, I can think of three times I played a female PC. The first was an NPC who joined the party and when my original PC got killed, she was the handy replacement. The second was to deliberately piss off a player who bitched about male players with female PCs, because pissing off palm-fuckers always makes me happy. The fact that she rose to high enough level as a cleric (eventually to 16th, while his character was stuck at 10th) to raise his PC from the dead only gave him a bigger case of red ass.

The third was kind of a two-fer: a female Drow who used her hand crossbows like six-shooters in a B-western (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=580232).

Quote from: Omega;875123Santo vs. las Mujeres Vampiro

(http://images.moviepostershop.com/samson-vs-the-vampire-women-movie-poster-1962-1020543328.jpg)

That is so fucking awesome I'm going to include it in all my games!

:popcorn:

I'm joining Gronan in the stands. The "No True Cat Piss Man" debate, the gender troll beatdown, and the classic multiclassing argument (dare I say multiclassic?) make for a most entertaining triple feature.

Quote from: Omega;875219Heres some backup.

So Gandalf and Conan sneaked. SO FUCKING WHAT? Anyone can sneak. Can they sneak as well as someone trained to it? Can they pickpocket as well as someone trained to it? Probably not. Everyone called Bilbo a burglar. But he was not a thief and had no clue. But he snuck around. Guess that makes him a thief! Yeah riiiight.

And Chris sums it up even better. :thanx:

Well, there is that.

DAMMIT I wish Gary had spent an extra 200 words explaining the Thief in Greyhawk.

Quote from: jeff37923;875152No, I'm commenting on the rabid overreaction from people. Makes me imagine that you all want a fucking hugbox so you do not have to deal with opinions that may be outside of your comfort zone. You know, the internet and the outside is world is absolutely full of people who don't think like you do.

(http://www.doyouevengamebro.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/image-54fcc7d4623b6-137335.jpg)

Quote from: jeff37923;875152Also, lets face it, if you as a GM have never had to deal with a neckbearded basement dweller who insisted on playing a lesbian stripper ninja just to squick out the rest of the table with character antics then you are either incredibly sheltered in your gaming or you just haven't gamed that much.

Yes, I've had dumb male players playing lesbian stripper ninja PCs, and it gets old real quick. Doesn't mean that players playing characters of a different gender than their own are "perverts" or "deviates" — not even the lesbian stripper ninja short bus.

Quote from: Simlasa;874432My main PC in our DCC campaign is a bratty orphan girl who's studying sorcery by mail-order. I try to be very mindful of 'less is more' with her...

sounds like a cool pc nice idea

Quote from: The Butcher;874973Someone tell this knuckle-dragging idiot never to watch the hundreds of plays, operas and films with female actors cast into male roles and vice versa. :rolleyes:

i was going to say some thing and you beat me to it

Quote from: Christopher Brady;875211Most of you won't though, hung you are on labels.

True. Hung I am.

Quote from: Spinachcat;875252True. Hung I am.

Gah, I knew that would happen.  My brain runs faster than my hands, and I often 'see' words on the screen/page and move on to the next word.

I meant, and I apologize if this is offensive, but, 'Hung up on'.

[Edit] And edited.

Quote from: Omega;875219Heres some backup.

So Gandalf and Conan sneaked. SO FUCKING WHAT? Anyone can sneak. Can they sneak as well as someone trained to it? Can they pickpocket as well as someone trained to it? Probably not. Everyone called Bilbo a burglar. But he was not a thief and had no clue. But he snuck around. Guess that makes him a thief! Yeah riiiight.

And Chris sums it up even better. :thanx:

I've been using variations of that argument for the past 15 years of D&D gaming (other fantasy games are often more lenient in how abilities are chosen) ever since I too realized that Conan really doesn't do anything other than be a Fighter.

But we all like our names and labels, and he's often been used as the poster child for multiclassing, which frankly, honestly drives me up a wall.  And given my mass, that's a good trick.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;875257Gah, I knew that would happen.  My brain runs faster than my hands, and I often 'see' words on the screen/page and move on to the next word.

I meant, and I apologize if this is offensive, but, 'Hung up on'.

[Edit] And edited.



I've been using variations of that argument for the past 15 years of D&D gaming (other fantasy games are often more lenient in how abilities are chosen) ever since I too realized that Conan really doesn't do anything other than be a Fighter.

But we all like our names and labels, and he's often been used as the poster child for multiclassing, which frankly, honestly drives me up a wall.  And given my mass, that's a good trick.

true Gandalf is a beater example

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;875203Nice, but it has owt to do with MY opinion on multiclassing, which is what I was asked about.

I wasn't trying to change your opinion on multi-classing, Gronan. I just gave my own, 'cause it was asking for it as well:).
If it was in the "Questioning the Glorious General" thread, I would have abstained, of course.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;875211You know, the issue I have is that some Sword and Sorcery Characters are claimed to be something they are not.

Yeah, that's called "not knowing the source material" IMNSHO.
Conan utilises precision attacks on a monster in "Hour of the Dragon", same place where he reads a thousands years old script. He also performs a magical ritual in "Beyond the Black River". And Aristocrat is a class. I've used it as my main class for a PC.

The Grey Mouser, best swordsman in the world, almost kills a Duke from distance, with evil magic, is captured, and escapes torture by means of a spell.

Tell me how a D&D fighter does that, or how a wizard gets to be best swordsman in the world. I'm all ears:D!

But really - play single-classed characters all you want. Just don't excuse yourself with readings of the source material from which you conveniently ignored the parts that didn't suit you;)!

Quote from: AsenRG;875267Yeah, that's called "not knowing the source material" IMNSHO.
Conan utilises precision attacks on a monster in "Hour of the Dragon", same place where he reads a thousands years old script.

That doesn't make him a Thief.  That makes him literate and able to follow instructions.  In fact, depending on how you want to rule it, it might give the PC an auto critical on a hit, a backstab/sneak attack bonus, or simple allows the player to hit the monster in the first place by lowering it's AC.

Quote from: AsenRG;875267He also performs a magical ritual in "Beyond the Black River".

Literate and able to follow instructions.  Does not make him into a full wizard, even most other character interpretations of Conan doesn't put that into his character build up.

Quote from: AsenRG;875267And Aristocrat is a class. I've used it as my main class for a PC.

This I can't help you with.  It was designed in 3.x to be an NPC class, specifically to answer that dreaded question of how to make Kings, Queens, Dukes and Duchesses et al. without giving them character classes, and maybe make them too powerful to be killed by assassins (Also known as Your Player Characters.)  When in fact, you could easily just sat that your character is a noble and leave it at that, maybe taking a NWP or Background (Except for 3rd edition D&D because the designers, Monte Cook and all, decided that Skills were just as powerful as Feats and Spells, and thus a Fighter must be limited.  Or maybe given how Mr. Cook loves his Wizards and Magic, decided to relegate the Fighter to Jock Class and believed the hype that Fighters are dumb because they're athletic.)

Quote from: AsenRG;875267The Grey Mouser, best swordsman in the world, almost kills a Duke from distance, with evil magic, is captured, and escapes torture by means of a spell.

Best 'swordsman' doesn't make you a Fighter.  Some variant rules in AD&D allowed non-Fighters to specialize in weapon(s), but yes, I will grant that I know little from The Grey Mouser.

Quote from: AsenRG;875267Tell me how a D&D fighter does that, or how a wizard gets to be best swordsman in the world. I'm all ears:D!

No one is the 'best swordsman' in D&D, you just hit better then others by taking a weapon specialization ability, which exist in most editions, but again, I never claimed to know much about Leiber's work.  You may be right about Fafrhd and The Grey Mouser, I will grant you that.

BUT!  Let me repeat myself:

One shot abilities does not a class make.  It depends on how lenient the GM is, I suppose for older D&D.  You're obviously stretching to get Conan to fit into as many labels as you want because you have this misconceived notion that him being able to use ONE spell ONCE, or be able to precisely hit a target ONCE, automatically means he's a fully trained assassin and wizard.

As part of a plot and adventure, other classes have been able to read scrolls, or gain some abilities that are not available to them normally, this showed up a few times in AD&D, if I recall correctly.

But hey, stick to your labels!  It allows you to convince other GMs to allow you to multiclass with all the benefits after all!

Quote from: Christopher Brady;875284That doesn't make him a Thief.  That makes him literate and able to follow instructions.

What instructions, "how to kill giant humanoid monsters":D? Don't be funny.

QuoteIn fact, depending on how you want to rule it, it might give the PC an auto critical on a hit, a backstab/sneak attack bonus, or simple allows the player to hit the monster in the first place by lowering it's AC.

As it is described, it is exactly the "attack first, get him flatfooted, apply sneak attack damage" routine. And you just proved that you haven't checked the source material before replying;).

QuoteLiterate and able to follow instructions.  Does not make him into a full wizard, even most other character interpretations of Conan doesn't put that into his character build up.

Yes, exactly. But the problem is, most D&D variants prohibit a literate fighter character, able to follow instructions, from achieving any kind of magical effect!
So, in order to preserve the class-based structure, we need multi-classing. That, or we can go point-buy.

QuoteThis I can't help you with.  It was designed in 3.x to be an NPC class, specifically to answer that dreaded question of how to make Kings, Queens, Dukes and Duchesses et al. without giving them character classes, and maybe make them too powerful to be killed by assassins (Also known as Your Player Characters.)

Why do you think I'd need help with? He was then appointed party leader, and scored the most downed enemies in their first big fight.
Yes, I took him for the skill points, access to all martial weapons and at least average armour, access to class skills I wanted, and starting funds. I kept promoting him as Aristocrat on purpose, since all of these were part of my character concept.
My point is, Conan has probably acquired a couple levels of Aristocrat, and dumped all the points into being able to deal with rulership.

QuoteBest 'swordsman' doesn't make you a Fighter.  Some variant rules in AD&D allowed non-Fighters to specialize in weapon(s), but yes, I will grant that I know little from The Grey Mouser.

The odds of any GM allowing multi-classing are higher than allowing variant rules IME. And "best swordsman" who can successfully compete with Fafhrd in damage output means that you're a fighter-based class.

QuoteNo one is the 'best swordsman' in D&D, you just hit better then others by taking a weapon specialization ability, which exist in most editions, but again, I never claimed to know much about Leiber's work.  You may be right about Fafrhd and The Grey Mouser, I will grant you that.

And we have an agreement:).

QuoteBUT!  Let me repeat myself:
One shot abilities does not a class make.  It depends on how lenient the GM is, I suppose for older D&D.

Yes. They make for "spending a couple points on an ability". A class would be at least a dozen points.
But class systems don't allow that. Which is, simply put, a failure of the class-based mechanics.
And of course, the Grey Mouser's skills wouldn't be covered adequately by a couple points. He's an wizard's apprentice, FFS!

QuoteYou're obviously stretching to get Conan to fit into as many labels as you want because you have this misconceived notion that him being able to use ONE spell ONCE, or be able to precisely hit a target ONCE, automatically means he's a fully trained assassin and wizard.

QuoteAs part of a plot and adventure, other classes have been able to read scrolls,

Thief.

Quoteor gain some abilities that are not available to them normally, this showed up a few times in AD&D, if I recall correctly.

No idea. I don't read adventures.

QuoteBut hey, stick to your labels!  It allows you to convince other GMs to allow you to multiclass with all the benefits after all!

Actually, I tend to stick to single-class characters* when playing class-based games. The above just explains why I prefer point-buy systems:D.

*If I liked playing magic users, that would have made me a powergamer, too, obviously.


Disclaimer: me and CB have had this discussion before. I might get bored with the repetition and stop replying to him at a randomly selected point from now on. Do not be surprised, nor assume I haven't found an argument;).

Yeah, I'm done.  I've made my point, it's up to everyone else to accept or refute them as personal preference.

To be fair the Aristocrat NPC class was probably the best of all of them: d8 HD, avg. BAB, good Will save, proficiency with ALL types of armor and shields (didn't exclude the Tower shield, so I guess that counted too) and all simple and martial weapons. Plus they had 4 + Int. mod skill points and a nice selection of Charisma-based and adventure-based skills to choose from. Not a terribly bad 1st-level dip if you were going to go Fighter or Paladin anyways.

Quote from: AsenRG;875319Yes, exactly. But the problem is, most D&D variants prohibit a literate fighter character, able to follow instructions, from achieving any kind of magical effect!
So, in order to preserve the class-based structure, we need multi-classing. That, or we can go point-buy.

Or a referee who isn't an utter moron.

Once again, the rules can't fix stupid and the rules can't fix asshole.

Quote from: Batman;875328To be fair the Aristocrat NPC class was probably the best of all of them: d8 HD, avg. BAB, good Will save, proficiency with ALL types of armor and shields (didn't exclude the Tower shield, so I guess that counted too) and all simple and martial weapons. Plus they had 4 + Int. mod skill points and a nice selection of Charisma-based and adventure-based skills to choose from. Not a terribly bad 1st-level dip if you were going to go Fighter or Paladin anyways.

I agree, but again, it was meant primarily (as it was suggested that you could use them as pre-adventurer classes in certain types of adventures, if I remember correctly, but they were never meant to be used in place, or part of, the basic 'four food groups') as an NPC resource, for when players wanted to interact with a skilled individual who wasn't one of them.  A high level Aristocrat for a powerful, socially acceptably trained Duke or King, for example, a good fight, but not a fellow professional soldier.  A high level Expert could with the right skills pass off as a mastersmith of any race.  A Commoner would be the farmhands who have to fend off goblin attacks, but never get the weapon training to actually become anything more.

The fact that some people feel the need to use them as a buffer for some other classes only shows the failure (in MY opinion) of the 3.x belief that Fighters should only ever get two skills in it's entire path.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;875336Or a referee who isn't an utter moron.

Once again, the rules can't fix stupid and the rules can't fix asshole.

"Sticking to the rules we agreed to play by"=/="stupid or asshole", Gronan.

Quote from: AsenRG;875347"Sticking to the rules we agreed to play by"=/="stupid or asshole", Gronan.

But sometimes, bending the rules makes the game more fun.  And let's face it, the 'rules' are not laws, they're meant as guidelines at best.  Most D&D editions have said so, even the we don't mention 4e had 'Page 42' in the DMG which pretty well meant 'Wing it.'

Quote from: Christopher Brady;875349But sometimes, bending the rules makes the game more fun.

Depending on who you're playing with, how and other stuff like "what I find fun about playing RPGs", this might range from true, to the stupidest thing ever uttered about RPGs, and everything in-between.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;875324Yeah, I'm done.  I've made my point, it's up to everyone else to accept or refute them as personal preference.

As one of those people who wrote a Conan themed RPG. Here. I'll dissect him for you. :teehee:

Quote from: AsenRG;875267Yeah, that's called "not knowing the source material" IMNSHO.

Conan utilises precision attacks on a monster in "Hour of the Dragon",

same place where he reads a thousands years old script.

He also performs a magical ritual in "Beyond the Black River".

And Aristocrat is a class. I've used it as my main class for a PC.

The Grey Mouser, best swordsman in the world, almost kills a Duke from distance, with evil magic, is captured, and escapes torture by means of a spell.

Tell me how a D&D fighter does that, or how a wizard gets to be best swordsman in the world. I'm all ears:D!

But really - play single-classed characters all you want. Just don't excuse yourself with readings of the source material from which you conveniently ignored the parts that didn't suit you;)!

1: Yeah you sure know yours. Not.

2: Precision attacks? You mean he hit it at the right spot at the right time. Like a fighter does? :D

3: So he can read. In BX anyone with an INT over 5 can read and write. Conan is most assurely better than 5 INT. AND. Considering the setting and the locale. Who is to say that the ancient writing was not enchanted to allow anyone to read it?

4: I dont have the book or my research notes on hand but you mean the symbol? The one he mentions seeing repeatedly in his adventures? The one he just scratches in the ground? Oh yeah. That is so totally a ritual spell. For Crom's sake can you grasp at straws any more feeble?

5: The NPC class? You are really using a class not meant for PC play as backing up your claims? Really?

6: Grey Mouser. The wizards apprentice turned Thief? That one? The one that is not Conan? The one that D&D even lists as a MU/Thief?

7: How? Because Howard's magic system maps closer to his friend Lovecraft's magic system. One where power is ascribed to symbols simply because of their inherint history and who they represent. Because some magic in both their settings can be utilized by about anyone. It maps not at all to Vancian magic. And there you go. Now you know how they can do these things and still be just a single class.

8: You should practice what you preach since you just paraded your ignorance of the things you claimed to be knowledgeable of and willingness to fabricate "proof" to back your flawed arguments for all to see.

X: And just to drive this fun fact home. Howardian/Lovecraftian magic does not = Vancian magic.

Wait, Omega, you wrote a Conan RPG?  Can I have the name, if you've sold it as a product.

Quote from: jeff37923;875152Are you sure this doesn't apply to your own posts? Or is your constant use of the color blue text just your way of getting attention? Oh, wait, am I oppressing you now?

Nope, you're just being an asshole.  Kinda habitual with you, but complaining about your dickery is like bitching about cold weather in January.

For a while, I had a .sig suggesting that losers who felt the need to take potshots at the freaking colors VBulletin allows posters to use -- something I've been doing for decades now, as a couple other posters on this site have -- did so because hurling insults masked their inability to formulate rational arguments on the merits.  People seemed mature enough here not to bother, any more than than they take potshots at .sigs, usernames or avatars, so I dropped it.  As it happens, only one person's ever just come out and ask "Just curious, why do you do it?"

Apologies to the non-losers for the digression.

But ... but ... Conan has official-ish DnD stats in some old edition of Dragon.  Conan has some special abilities in DnD that the DM gave him.  The DM was probably hot for Conan's player and kept giving out special stuff in some kind of creepy, sad flirtation.  It would have sucked to be one of the other players in that game.  :p

Ah, found it.  Issue 36.  Conan is a fighter/thief with psionics and all kinds of special abilities.  Keeps dropping in level as he gets older, which does not normally happen with aging rules so the player probably broke up with the DM at some point in the campaign and it was all undead level drain from there.

I leave you all alone for three days... now just look at this place! :mad:
/starts cleaning up the red plastic cups

Quote from: Christopher Brady;875349But sometimes, bending the rules makes the game more fun.  And let's face it, the 'rules' are not laws, they're meant as guidelines at best.  Most D&D editions have said so, even the we don't mention 4e had 'Page 42' in the DMG which pretty well meant 'Wing it.'

Not only p. 42 but liberal use of their abilities outside of combat and encouraging unique ways of applying them overall. I really wouldn't say this is "bending" the rules, just applying adjudication where necessary

Of course, this all goes away when playing something like RuneQuest, where you can be thiefy and cast spells, or be wizardy and hold a sword.

Quote from: soltakss;875523Of course, this all goes away when playing something like RuneQuest, where you can be thiefy and cast spells, or be wizardy and hold a sword.

Yeah, I really wish we could have a Conan supplement for RuneQuest. It would be nice to pull it out and smile when this old chestnut comes up!

"Decide how you would like it to be, and then make it just that way."

Original D&D, very last page.

Quote from: markfitz;875528Yeah, I really wish we could have a Conan supplement for RuneQuest. It would be nice to pull it out and smile when this old chestnut comes up!

Perhaps someone can convert all the 2d20 stuff to BRP family systems as a stretch goal in the upcoming Kickstarter... I'd personally like a CoC-compatible Conan/Hyboria product but would happily settle for OpenQuest as well.

Quote from: 3rik;875534Perhaps someone can convert all the 2d20 stuff to BRP family systems as a stretch goal in the upcoming Kickstarter... I'd personally like a CoC-compatible Conan/Hyboria product but would happily settle for OpenQuest as well.

Yeah I've gotten the impression that this 2d20 malarkey isn't looking great. Not looked at it myself mind you, just heard others talk about it.

But back to the topic at hand; all this talk of Conan, but does no one roll their eyes when someone wants to play a Barbarian who is basically him (whether multiclassed or not, whatever), or is he just so much the archetypal "find loot, tread jeweled thrones beneath sandalled feet" out-and-out adventurer that we kind of wish all our players wanted to play variations on Conan all the time?

I'm just reading the stories again, and it would actually be nice to have a group whose motivations were as GM friendly as his; whether it's loot, lust, revenge or rule he's after, most of the time it can pretty much be summed up as "have adventures" ...

Quote from: markfitz;875540Yeah I've gotten the impression that this 2d20 malarkey isn't looking great. Not looked at it myself mind you, just heard others talk about it.

But back to the topic at hand; all this talk of Conan, but does no one roll their eyes when someone wants to play a Barbarian who is basically him (whether multiclassed or not, whatever), or is he just so much the archetypal "find loot, tread jeweled thrones beneath sandalled feet" out-and-out adventurer that we kind of wish all our players wanted to play variations on Conan all the time?

I'm just reading the stories again, and it would actually be nice to have a group whose motivations were as GM friendly as his; whether it's loot, lust, revenge or rule he's after, most of the time it can pretty much be summed up as "have adventures" ...

I never roll my eyes at people wanting to play 'Conan' because that's exactly why I run any game, to 'Have Adventures!'

Quote from: Opaopajr;875481I leave you all alone for three days... now just look at this place! :mad:
/starts cleaning up the red plastic cups

What? Show's not over yet. Have a seat.



We'll help you clean up later. There's lots more....

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

Quote from: markfitz;875540I'm just reading the stories again, and it would actually be nice to have a group whose motivations were as GM friendly as his; whether it's loot, lust, revenge or rule he's after, most of the time it can pretty much be summed up as "have adventures" ...

I' be never had any other kind of players.  What kind of players are you talking about?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;875561I' be never had any other kind of players.  What kind of players are you talking about?

Good for you! I wish all my players were as goddam lusty about it though. This is why, on rereading them this time, I'm really feeling Conan as D&D precursor so hard. He just really wants to kill shit, steal shit, drink shit, and fuck ... women. He's perfect as a PC. Constantly looking for trouble, riches, and ways to squander them. Disrespect him and he'll go all out for revenge. Offer him danger, and he'll jump right in. If players took Conan as their example, as you say yours do, there'd never be any problem motivating them for adventure.

Note that my own players do usually bite when I offer them an adventure, but they're never quite as full on as Conan ....

Quote from: markfitz;875528Yeah, I really wish we could have a Conan supplement for RuneQuest. It would be nice to pull it out and smile when this old chestnut comes up!

TSRs Conan RPG. No classes. You are simply the sum of your talents.

5e actually allows for a good Conan simulation via the proficiencies. Take a straight up Fighter and apply what you want. Pick up the rest as you go.

Quote from: markfitz;875564Good for you! I wish all my players were as goddam lusty about it though. This is why, on rereading them this time, I'm really feeling Conan as D&D precursor so hard. He just really wants to kill shit, steal shit, drink shit, and fuck ... women. He's perfect as a PC. Constantly looking for trouble, riches, and ways to squander them. Disrespect him and he'll go all out for revenge. Offer him danger, and he'll jump right in. If players took Conan as their example, as you say yours do, there'd never be any problem motivating them for adventure.

Note that my own players do usually bite when I offer them an adventure, but they're never quite as full on as Conan ....

We played OD&D much more influenced by Conan
 and Fafhrd & the Mouser than anything else.  Hell, look at my name.

Well Centaurs at least tend to be somewhat...distracting (https://video.yahoo.com/centaur-job-interview-000000292.html).

Quote from: Ravenswing;874307A regular feature was the newbie who declared himself (to anyone in earshot, as often as possible) a half-elf, half-dragon, half-vampire ‡ who was the rightful Duke of Fnordia, and was in our lands to gain support to reclaim his throne.

‡ - Yes, I'm aware that's too many halves.

But royalty always half a lot compared to the half-nots.

Quote from: Simlasa;875004I've often seen people outraged over an actor playing a different ethnicity than their own, but not gender. Have there been complaints about 'gender misappropriation' regarding females playing Peter Pan?

Not that I know of, but there has been regarding actual Trans(vestite/sexual/gender) folk, often from people who are ostensibly on their side in the LGBTQ communities.

Quote from: AsenRG;875069In fact, what it takes for someone to do so is not being SJW. Since it's mostly the SJWs at RPG.net that think that it what you do in games corresponds to your actual wishes in reality, you'd have to be one of them to support that stance.

That's easily the scariest part of this whole SJW nonsense to me. However, many times the reason these particular archetypes are icky is precisely because certain players really DO want to engage on a level beyond the tabletop, and that comes through in play.

That's the problem with this sort of thing: All you need is ONE example to support your premise and you can start making claims that anyone who embodies some of those traits embodies ALL of those traits.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;875086Please do, though remember that at RPGnet I'm still using "Old Geezer."

Considering how you treat each other, why do you keep crawling back?

Quote from: Omega;875128I've lost track of the post as I never want to seen the insane asylum escapee ever again. But someone once said flat out that DMs who roleplay villainous NPCs are "mentally sick."

In the grim darkness of the far future, there is only My Little Pony.

Quote from: Omega;875128And another one where a DM was decrying players playing opposite gender as "sick" who went totally off his rocker when we pointed out he himself had just got done describing himself DMing a a female NPC.

This is indeed bad, but I remember a time when sitting around a table pretending to be someone else as adults was considered sick. So we're making progress dammit!

Quote from: Ravenswing;875459As it happens, only one person's ever just come out and ask "Just curious, why do you do it?"

I posted in blue for a time, but that was during my blue period

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;875607Considering how you treat each other, why do you keep crawling back?

I haven't posted there in months.  Asen said he wanted to quote me there.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;875555I never roll my eyes at people wanting to play 'Conan' because that's exactly why I run any game, to 'Have Adventures!'

For the first couple decades of my campaign, the most powerful PC ever was one of the original characters: my brother, a decided S&S devotee, deliberately sought to pattern his career after Conan's, and did a pretty good job of it.

The distinction is that he didn't figure he was going to be a King and a legend fifteen minutes in, and I expect that's what's really behind character types at which we roll eyes.  We don't roll eyes because there's anything by-definition objectionable about someone saying "I want to play a X!"  We roll eyes because experience tells us that's a reliable flake detector.

Somewhat odd that some 45% of folks seem fine with a brooding loner.  That is perhaps the worst archetype for a team oriented game, perfectly suited to grind the adventure game to a halt.  There have been times when I've just told the player to have fun sitting there by themselves while everyone else keeps on with the game.

Quote from: Old One Eye;875641Somewhat odd that some 45% of folks seem fine with a brooding loner.  That is perhaps the worst archetype for a team oriented game, perfectly suited to grind the adventure game to a halt.

I read it as being like those 'mysterious strangers' who turn up in spaghetti westerns and wuxia movies to save the town. Not outright anti-social, despite a dark and painful past... they take up a cause, and with the love of a good woman, learn to trust again.

Brooding Loners rarely stay loners, most games I've run.  They might be 'anti-social' but they play nice with the rest of the PC's in my experience.

Quote from: Simlasa;875647I read it as being like those 'mysterious strangers' who turn up in spaghetti westerns and wuxia movies to save the town. Not outright anti-social, despite a dark and painful past... they take up a cause, and with the love of a good woman, learn to trust again.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;875671Brooding Loners rarely stay loners, most games I've run.  They might be 'anti-social' but they play nice with the rest of the PC's in my experience.

So, sounds like y'all have not had brooding loner in play, just a PC with a backstory but is actually a team player willing to adventure?  

Brooding loner in actual play is a headache best ignored by the GM until the player learns this is a team game, IMO.

Quote from: Simlasa;875647I read it as being like those 'mysterious strangers' who turn up in spaghetti westerns and wuxia movies to save the town. Not outright anti-social, despite a dark and painful past... they take up a cause, and with the love of a good woman, learn to trust again.

Yeah, same here, though "the love of a good woman" is often replaced by the cameraderie of one's brothers-in-arms. Wolverine is a more recent example that's very relevant to my thirty-something crew; full of secrets, often goes off on his own, but can also be trusted to function as part of a team.

It's interesting to see the most (or should I say least) popular options in the poll are all emo/dark/gothy stuff. Seems like all the annoying players should join up and play World of Darkness together.

Quote from: markfitz;875564Good for you! I wish all my players were as goddam lusty about it though. This is why, on rereading them this time, I'm really feeling Conan as D&D precursor so hard. He just really wants to kill shit, steal shit, drink shit, and fuck ... women. He's perfect as a PC. Constantly looking for trouble, riches, and ways to squander them. Disrespect him and he'll go all out for revenge. Offer him danger, and he'll jump right in. If players took Conan as their example, as you say yours do, there'd never be any problem motivating them for adventure.

Note that my own players do usually bite when I offer them an adventure, but they're never quite as full on as Conan ....

Your players sound like bad actors who keep asking "What's my motivation?"

Quote from: Old One Eye;875641Somewhat odd that some 45% of folks seem fine with a brooding loner.  That is perhaps the worst archetype for a team oriented game, perfectly suited to grind the adventure game to a halt.  There have been times when I've just told the player to have fun sitting there by themselves while everyone else keeps on with the game.

As with team sports, a party will often tolerate a pain-in-the-ass member as long as he or she is good at something: the better the athlete/PC, the more shit they're willing to put up with. Now a pain-in-the-ass PC who offers nothing of value to a party will soon find himself kicked to the curb or dead.

Quote from: Omega;875219Heres some backup.

So Gandalf and Conan sneaked. SO FUCKING WHAT? Anyone can sneak. Can they sneak as well as someone trained to it?

Bwahahaha:D!
For reals?
Go read "Beyond the Black River" again. Conan sneaks in chain armour. Everybody else can only sneak in leather, including the colonists and the locals who have lived in those woods their whole lives.
He doesn't sneak "as well as someone trained to it", he sneaks better than those people (and BTW, if you assume the locals wouldn't study sneaking, you're stupid or consider REH to be stupid - not sure which would be worse, frankly).
And, for that matter, Conan sneaks better than a Rogue, who expressly can't sneak when armoured in chain.

QuoteCrouching behind a thick stem, his sword quivering in his fingers, he saw the bushes part, and a tall figure stepped leisurely into the trail. The traveller stared in surprise. The stranger was clad like himself in regard to boots and breeks, though the latter were of silk instead of leather. But he wore a sleeveless hauberk of dark mesh-mail in place of a tunic, and a helmet perched on his black mane. That helmet held the other's gaze; it was without a crest, but adorned by short bull's horns. No civilized hand ever forged that head-piece. Nor was the face below it that of a civilized man: dark, scarred, with smoldering blue eyes, it was a face as untamed as the primordial forest which formed its background. The man held a broad-sword in his right hand, and the edge was smeared with crimson.


(...)

Turning, he stepped back to the hushes and pulled them apart. Still not certain just what had happened, the wayfarer from the east advanced and stared down into the bushes. A man lay there, a short, dark, thickly-muscled man, naked except for a loin-cloth, a necklace of human teeth and a brass armlet. A short sword was thrust into the girdle of the loin-cloth, and one hand still gripped a heavy black bow. The man had long black hair; that was about all the wayfarer could tell about his head, for his features were a mask of blood and brains. His skull had been split to the teeth.

(...)

The wayfarer was staring wide eyed at the larger man, dumbfounded by the realization that the man had actually tracked down one of the forest devils and slain him unsuspected. That implied woodsmanship of a quality undreamed, even for Conajohara.

QuoteEveryone called Bilbo a burglar. But he was not a thief and had no clue. But he snuck around. Guess that makes him a thief! Yeah riiiight.

You're the one who brings up Bilbo, so the assertions are up to you. To me, he's the Halfling class. OD&D got that part right.

Quote from: Omega;875362As one of those people who wrote a Conan themed RPG. Here. I'll dissect him for you. :teehee:

Oooh, nice! I haven't minced and sliced an author of any games over the material he's writing with since...
Wait, since the last time there was a point in discussing Exalted3e:p! Whatever! Any pause is too long, given that I picked up this habit when I was 16 years old!

Let me warn you, this might hurt your feelings...:)

Quote1: Yeah you sure know yours. Not.

I sure do, yeah. Prove otherwise, or STFU.
So far? Setting knowledge fail as regards Conan sneaking.

Quote2: Precision attacks? You mean he hit it at the right spot at the right time. Like a fighter does? :D

Before we continue, explain the difference between a sneak attack and "hitting the right spot at the right time".

Quote3: So he can read. In BX anyone with an INT over 5 can read and write.

Everyone can read old, half-forgotten scripts? Really?
But this was explicitly used as a basis for the "Use arcane device" skill in 2e and forward. It's also called several times as the ability of "NPC thieves" in Conan stories.

QuoteConan is most assurely better than 5 INT.

That's about the only time you're right.

QuoteAND. Considering the setting and the locale. Who is to say that the ancient writing was not enchanted to allow anyone to read it?

First, the text does, mentioning that Conan is only able to read a name due to his knowledge of half-forgotten scripts. Go read it for a change!
Second, do you even understand the stylistic differences between REH-style Swords and Sorcery and High Fantasy? Utility magic is a high fantasy thing, and not even popular in Tolkien. The teapot that prepares tea is part of the Pyromancer series, not Conan.

Quote4: I dont have the book or my research notes on hand but you mean the symbol? The one he mentions seeing repeatedly in his adventures? The one he just scratches in the ground? Oh yeah. That is so totally a ritual spell. For Crom's sake can you grasp at straws any more feeble?

Oh yeah. Every time I scratch a symbol used by the Wiccas on the ground, people that see it have crawling sensations across their spines, and any beast that's chasing me is going to bow to the symbol and go back! Right. That's totally not a ritual spell! I should use the emblem of Mercedez-Benz next time, because what does it matter, obviously, if it's not magic at all?

Quote from: Beyond the Black RiverThen with a slight shaking of the leaves, the bushes parted and a magnificent panther came into view. The moonlight dappling through the leaves shone on its glossy coat rippling with the play of the great muscles beneath it.

With its head low it glided toward them. It was smelling out their trail. Then it halted as if frozen, its muzzle almost touching the symbol cut in the mold. For a long space it crouched motionless; it flattened its long body and laid its head on the ground before the mark. And Balthus felt the short hairs stir on his scalp. For the attitude of the great carnivore was one of awe and adoration.

Then the panther rose and backed away carefully, belly almost to the ground. With his hind-quarters among the bushes he wheeled as if in sudden panic and was gone like a flash of dappled light.

Right. Totally not magic, who might have thought otherwise:D?

Setting material knowledge failure: 2nd

Quote5: The NPC class? You are really using a class not meant for PC play as backing up your claims? Really?

Yes. I've used it, and others have, when the campaigns had more politics and less dungeoncrawling. I guess that makes us inferiour roleplayers or something?

Quote6: Grey Mouser. The wizards apprentice turned Thief? That one? The one that is not Conan? The one that D&D even lists as a MU/Thief?

I don't care what D&D lists him as, frankly. The fact is, he's presented as totally the equal of Fafhrd the Barbarian, and called "the best swordsman in the world" in his own setting material. If D&D can't reflect this, well, though luck for D&D.
But to sum it up... D&D admits he's a Thief and a MU. His skill at arms makes him equal to an obvious fighter, so he obviously has the better BAB/THAC0/table progression than the Thief - random attribute rolls only get you so far. So, at least elements from at least three classes...
At this point, what's the point for a class system?

BTW, not sure why you're so upset that he's not Conan. Obviously he wasn't Conan. For that matter, Fafhrd is not Conan, either. Doesn't mean they're not all three S&S heroes.

Quote7: How? Because Howard's magic system maps closer to his friend Lovecraft's magic system. One where power is ascribed to symbols simply because of their inherint history and who they represent. Because some magic in both their settings can be utilized by about anyone. It maps not at all to Vancian magic.

Yeah, I know - and I've always been on the same opinion. That could be the second time you're kinda right. Except you seem to haven't considered the consequences.

Since "it maps not at all to Vancian magic", do I take it that you believe classes using Vancian magic have no place in Conan-style setting? That's also something I've believed since day one;).

But it kinda becomes a problem if you're trying to represent a Conan-styled setting with D&D. Which is what some people are trying to do in this thread.
I'm not one of those, so I'm fine with this conclusion:).

After all, you said it yourself, "some magic in both their settings can be utilized by about anyone". So, the RQ approach of Common Magic and Schools by Temple is, unsurprisingly, the best emulation of this!

Of course, it also means that if knowing the symbols is all it takes, all it takes to become effectively a ritual caster on top of a Fighter or Thief.

QuoteAnd there you go. Now you know how they can do these things and still be just a single class.

Grey Mouser is still not a single class, by your own words. Conan sneaks better than the Thief in D&D, and I sure hope you wouldn't tell me the Thief has Conan's combat ability.
So, no. You haven't proven any such thing. You only managed to explain one thing...and by doing so, inadvertently proved that Runequest would be a better choice.
Congratulations!

Quote8: You should practice what you preach since you just paraded your ignorance of the things you claimed to be knowledgeable of and willingness to fabricate "proof" to back your flawed arguments for all to see.

I quoted relevant parts of the text in the thread, and they show what I said they would.
You did no such thing.
So off the high horse with you, and go reread your source material, too!

QuoteX: And just to drive this fun fact home. Howardian/Lovecraftian magic does not = Vancian magic.

Yeah, I keep repeating this to D&D fans;)!

Quote from: Elfdart;875803As with team sports, a party will often tolerate a pain-in-the-ass member as long as he or she is good at something: the better the athlete/PC, the more shit they're willing to put up with. Now a pain-in-the-ass PC who offers nothing of value to a party will soon find himself kicked to the curb or dead.

Of course, that's assuming that there is a party to begin with, which isn't a given;). Sometimes it's just a band of PCs assembling for a particular mission.

Quote from: Elfdart;875802Your players sound like bad actors who keep asking "What's my motivation?"

No, my players are cool. They're just not quite at Conan levels of " make your own adventure". They pretty much always go for adventure hooks I dangle at them. I think it's more on the character level rather than player level that I see the lack. It would be nice to have a bunch of characters who had Conan-like lust for adventure. Obviously, sometimes a campaign calls for characters with more specific motivations, but I hanker after a long-running Swords & Sorcery campaign with a group of really great players who had all designed bloody rogues who would travel the world seeking thrills, spoils, spills, kills, and headaches just like Conan does. Maybe that's the default for some people, but I don't think I've ever encountered it in its pure form in a whole group of PCs.

Quote from: AsenRG;875880Bwahahaha:D!
For reals?
-snip-

Yeah I think Asen does a pretty good demolition job here ... I've just been rereading all of the Conan stories, and while I was mentioning earlier that I find his motivation to be great inspiration for D&D, the ability of the system to actually emulate his antics is very much in doubt. In any case, sometimes I just say D&D around here because it's the lingua franca, but in terms of games I GM, it's all RuneQuest these days.

And really, when it comes to playing Swords & Sorcery, RQ is the way to go. To be honest, class and level just don't cut it when you're trying to emulate Conan. As demonstrated above, Conan as Fighter doesn't really capture his abilities, never mind as Barbarian. I think you'd have to go the multi-class route, and even go so far as something as outré as Barbarian/Arcane Trickster or something to get close, if that were allowed. Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser equally need several classes to cover them, and for my money Fighter/Sorcerer doesn't even do Elric justice. You need pacts, Passions, and the ability to learn spells from different sources, to summon and bind demons, to be an astonishing swordsman as well as a sneaky bastard and speak several ancient and modern languages to boot. May as well go the whole hog and use a system actually designed for this.

Quote from: markfitz;875883No, my players are cool. They're just not quite at Conan levels of " make your own adventure". They pretty much always go for adventure hooks I dangle at them. I think it's more on the character level rather than player level that I see the lack. It would be nice to have a bunch of characters who had Conan-like lust for adventure. Obviously, sometimes a campaign calls for characters with more specific motivations, but I hanker after a long-running Swords & Sorcery campaign with a group of really great players who had all designed bloody rogues who would travel the world seeking thrills, spoils, spills, kills, and headaches just like Conan does. Maybe that's the default for some people, but I don't think I've ever encountered it in its pure form in a whole group of PCs.

But that's the default I require from my players:).
Let me tell you an easy trick. Require them to have a motivation spelled out on the character sheet. Even better, borrow from Reign and have them write a Motivation, a Duty and a Vice.
When they arrive in a new place, describe and ask them "what do you do to further these goals? Or do you have any other ideas?"
Point to the goals they had spelled out. That's why it's important to have it on the character sheets;).
I can report that using this simple trick has allowed me to teach people "weaned on MMOs and Adventure Paths" a pro-active style of playing. So it's worth trying, at least!

Quote from: AsenRG;875894But that's the default I require from my players:).
Let me tell you an easy trick. Require them to have a motivation spelled out on the character sheet. Even better, borrow from Reign and have them write a Motivation, a Duty and a Vice.
When they arrive in a new place, describe and ask them "what do you do to further these goals? Or do you have any other ideas?"
Point to the goals they had spelled out. That's why it's important to have it on the character sheets;).
I can report that using this simple trick has allowed me to teach people "weaned on MMOs and Adventure Paths" a pro-active style of playing. So it's worth trying, at least!

Yeah I'm having quite good results with RQ 6 Passions. The fact that you can then use them to augment skills is pretty cool, as is rolling them versus Willpower if in doubt. It's also nice to have characters develop them in play. I do try to have them be a bit more motivating than just Feeling towards Person, though there's a place for that too. I try and have each character have at least one Passion that's more abstract and one that's potentially negative, like a vice. I really like the way you can acquire a Passion through Oaths or Geases as well. Just have to remember to incorporate them in play as much as possible. Your "when they arrive in a new place" idea is a good one.

Quote from: markfitz;875897Yeah I'm having quite good results with RQ 6 Passions. The fact that you can then use them to augment skills is pretty cool, as is rolling them versus Willpower if in doubt. It's also nice to have characters develop them in play. I do try to have them be a bit more motivating than just Feeling towards Person, though there's a place for that too. I try and have each character have at least one Passion that's more abstract and one that's potentially negative, like a vice. I really like the way you can acquire a Passion through Oaths or Geases as well. Just have to remember to incorporate them in play as much as possible. Your "when they arrive in a new place" idea is a good one.

Passions are indeed the way to go! After all, it works for Pendragon, and in his way Conan is as passionate about wine, women and the blood of his enemies, as any knight would be about his honour...:p

Regarding the "when they arrive" suggestion, don't limit yourself to these moments, any lull in the action would do:D!

Quote from: AsenRG;875880Bwahahaha:D!
For reals?
Go read "Beyond the Black River" again. Conan sneaks in chain armour. Everybody else can only sneak in leather, including the colonists and the locals who have lived in those woods their whole lives.
He doesn't sneak "as well as someone trained to it", he sneaks better than those people (and BTW, if you assume the locals wouldn't study sneaking, you're stupid or consider REH to be stupid - not sure which would be worse, frankly).
And, for that matter, Conan sneaks better than a Rogue, who expressly can't sneak when armoured in chain.

Exactly, which means he was never a Thief, nor a Rogue.  Congrats, you figured it out.  He got a great roll on his Stealth check, and did it untrained!

Your entire argument just fell apart.  But stick to your labels.

Obligatory post that books and ttrpgs are completely different mediums.  What works for a good S&S book is not necessarily the same as what will work for a good ttrpg.  Attempts to perfectly map one to the other will end in disappointment.  It is a waste of time trying to exactly recreate Conan in DnD or whatever game.  Use REH or whatever other author as inspiration, not as a guidebook for what a ttrpg must include.

All of the following are fine for DnD Conan:

fighter
fighter/thief
barbarian
probably plenty more if I spent the time to brainstorm

WTF is a thiefling? A halfling thief?

Quote from: Matt;875984WTF is a thiefling? A halfling thief?

tiefling = half-demon, half-man

Been a standard race option in each of the past few editions of DnD.  My experience is every player that has chosen it were the type who were incapable of making a normal character that was interesting due to its personality, but rather, seemed to expect everyone at the table to think their character was cool simply because half-demon.  Hopefully others have had better experiences.

tiefling = half-special snowflake, half-special snowflake

Quote from: Matt;875984WTF is a thiefling? A halfling thief?

A Thiefling is a Tiefling with a lisp.

Someone unfairly left Kender off this poll. Not only do my eyes roll, but I get some unusual twitches whenever a player announces they are playing a Kender in any of my games.

I'll usually allow it, but I'm just in it to see the other players hogtie, defeather, then cook the Kender. The Drumsticks are sooo tasty, you know?

Tieflings, and other mixed races including half-elves and half-orcs don't make it into my games often at all. ...and some of the other gay WOTC races as well. I don't introduce them into my games either, even as NPCs, making them instead very, very rare.

I do like Feline/humanoid and Saurian races, but don't see them in my games, or it's extremely rare, mostly cause the players have almost zero interest in playing them.

Quote from: GameDaddy;876012...
Tieflings, and other mixed races including half-elves and half-orcs don't make it into my games often at all. ...and some of the other gay WOTC races as well. I don't introduce them into my games either, even as NPCs, making them instead very, very rare.

This was an option I needed on the poll.  In my worlds if a human and an Elf (or demon) do each other, the result will at most be a good (or bad) time.  It will never result in a half-anything baby.  To get that you need serious genetic magic or engineering and a setting that includes one or the other.  I'm not saying a character can't ever play a half-elf, but they need a good story and are probably the only one.

Quote from: Old One Eye;875674So, sounds like y'all have not had brooding loner in play, just a PC with a backstory but is actually a team player willing to adventure?  

Brooding loner in actual play is a headache best ignored by the GM until the player learns this is a team game, IMO.

Yeah. I've run into your verion more than their version.

Four types.

BROODING LONER: Bleak Anti-Social Fuck who wont even join the group. Essentually you end up running two games in tandem or god knows what. Tend not to live long. Tend to be told "Not at my Table" when I'm DMing unless they plan on defrosting ASAP.

BROODING Loner: Grim characters who begrudgingly join the group. May defrost. May not. These can be alot of fun to RP with with the right player.

Brooding LONER: Not so bleak. But bitchingly hard to get to work with the group. Usually tols "No" as well unless they are planning to defrost ASAP.

Brooding Loner: Player watched the Batman cartoons. Thought it was cool.

And to head off Gronan at the pass.

There is also the...

Looting Boner: Player read Conan comics. Thought it was cool. :cool:

Quote from: GameDaddy;876012Someone unfairly left Kender off this poll. Not only do my eyes roll, but I get some unusual twitches whenever a player announces they are playing a Kender in any of my games.

Please, if I had put kender on the list I would have gotten 200+ posts of pure kender bitching that everyone's heard before. :D I hesitated to put the drow on for similar reasons.

Quote from: AsenRG;875880Bwahahaha:D!
For reals?
Go read "Beyond the Black River" again. Conan sneaks in chain armour. Everybody else can only sneak in leather, including the colonists and the locals who have lived in those woods their whole lives.
He doesn't sneak "as well as someone trained to it", he sneaks better than those people (and BTW, if you assume the locals wouldn't study sneaking, you're stupid or consider REH to be stupid - not sure which would be worse, frankly).
And, for that matter, Conan sneaks better than a Rogue, who expressly can't sneak when armoured in chain.

*snip feeble attempts at trolling.*

Keep struggling. This is entertaining to watch the latest addition to the village idiot brigade practicing.

And since you are so obsessed with Black River and seem to enjoy being dissected.

The colonist, Balthus, is noted as being young. But he is probably about the same age as Conan. Possibly a year or two less depending on how you read it. Conan notes his people make good foresters.

Which brings up a very old discussion.
Some have pointed out that Conan maps best to a Ranger instead of a Fighter. But that is a story for another day, and thread.

As for moving quietly in chain. So? PCs move quietly in full plate, or at least try to, as a matter of course in D&D. In fact the slow movement rate in a dungeon is because the PCs are all sneaking to one degree or another.

And so on and so fourth. We've been over this before ad nausium.

Quote from: Matt;875984WTF is a thiefling? A halfling thief?

Tiefling. Was a planescape race. Half human half demon or devil. A Cambion by any other name. EG: A Half-Demon/devil. This was 2e where TSR was trying to be "non-Satanic" by renaming all the demonic stuff. And probably market branding.

For some reason WOTC likes them alot and keeps adding them as a PC race with some odd background. Descended of a race cursed. Descended of a race that interbred, child of a human and infernal pairing, etc. Much like the Dragonborn have had theire backgrounds redone about every edition. Humans metamorphed, Human and dragon offspring, deformed dragon offspring, blessed dragon offspring, descended from one of the above, and so on.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;876087Please, if I had put kender on the list I would have gotten 200+ posts of pure kender bitching that everyone's heard before. :D I hesitated to put the drow on for similar reasons.

...Hey, I LIKE Drow in my campaigns!

Not the Namby-pamby magic using spider loving Drow from TSR and into the Third Edition era, but the true much earlier Dark Elves who were a touch more mysterious such as the Avari, the Moriquendi, from J.R.R. Tolkien stories and the Moredhel from Raymond Feists Riftwar Saga... ...Now those were some bad ass Drow!

Try the Norse elves from Poul Anderson's "Broken Sword."

They were just plain motherfuckers.

"Elves are wonderful. They provoke wonder.
Elves are marvellous. They cause marvels.
Elves are fantastic. They create fantasies.
Elves are glamorous. They project glamour.
Elves are enchanting. They weave enchantment.
Elves are terrific. They beget terror.
The thing about words is that meanings can twist just like a snake, and if you want to find snakes look for them behind words that have changed their meaning.
No one ever said elves are nice.
Elves are bad."

-- Terry Pratchett

Quote from: Majus;876151"Elves are bad."

Don't SAY that! Elves are good. Of course they are good. Elves are very good.

As a kid, my formative experience with elves was that they make toys and cookies.  Still have a hard time taking them seriously.  

Maybe it would have helped if elves were in Bulfinch.

Quote from: markfitz;875891Yeah I think Asen does a pretty good demolition job here ... I've just been rereading all of the Conan stories, and while I was mentioning earlier that I find his motivation to be great inspiration for D&D, the ability of the system to actually emulate his antics is very much in doubt. In any case, sometimes I just say D&D around here because it's the lingua franca, but in terms of games I GM, it's all RuneQuest these days.

And really, when it comes to playing Swords & Sorcery, RQ is the way to go. To be honest, class and level just don't cut it when you're trying to emulate Conan. As demonstrated above, Conan as Fighter doesn't really capture his abilities, never mind as Barbarian. I think you'd have to go the multi-class route, and even go so far as something as outré as Barbarian/Arcane Trickster or something to get close, if that were allowed. Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser equally need several classes to cover them, and for my money Fighter/Sorcerer doesn't even do Elric justice. You need pacts, Passions, and the ability to learn spells from different sources, to summon and bind demons, to be an astonishing swordsman as well as a sneaky bastard and speak several ancient and modern languages to boot. May as well go the whole hog and use a system actually designed for this.

Yes. I'd add Savage Worlds and BoL as options for S&S, but RQ6 would be my choice, in all likelyhood:).

Quote from: Christopher Brady;875934Exactly, which means he was never a Thief, nor a Rogue.  Congrats, you figured it out.  He got a great roll on his Stealth check, and did it untrained!

Your entire argument just fell apart.  But stick to your labels.

He keeps getting those rolls during the whole story. And in other stories as well.
I got it, your idea of Conan is "strong Commoner that persistantly gets good rolls while fighting":D! It's just not my idea of the character.

Quote from: Omega;876089Keep struggling. This is entertaining to watch the latest addition to the village idiot brigade practicing.

I agree it's entertaining:). Glad the mirror in front of you is showing the new village idiot addition well;).

QuoteAnd since you are so obsessed with Black River

No, it was just easiest to keep pulling examples from it when I opened it.
And no, Conan is closer to a ranger, but he puts on full plate as soon as he can - that is, when a princess provides it, after naming him commander of her army by a god's advice. That's not exactly a ranger.

QuoteAs for moving quietly in chain. So? PCs move quietly in full plate, or at least try to, as a matter of course in D&D. In fact the slow movement rate in a dungeon is because the PCs are all sneaking to one degree or another.

PCs try to...and only manage something close to quiet when there isn't anyone around in the same room. Good luck persuading your GM to allow you sneaking in full plate next to a good forester!
And Picts are born foresters in Conan stories;).

But that discussion is indeed repetitive. So I'm planning to discontinue it.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;876119Try the Norse elves from Poul Anderson's "Broken Sword."

They were just plain motherfuckers.

Well, yeah. Those would be fun.
Also, they'd make great Elric-style additions to an S&S party.

Quote from: Majus;876151"Elves are wonderful. They provoke wonder.
Elves are marvellous. They cause marvels.
Elves are fantastic. They create fantasies.
Elves are glamorous. They project glamour.
Elves are enchanting. They weave enchantment.
Elves are terrific. They beget terror.
The thing about words is that meanings can twist just like a snake, and if you want to find snakes look for them behind words that have changed their meaning.
No one ever said elves are nice.
Elves are bad."

-- Terry Pratchett

Those are my kind of elves, too.
Though they look nice...right until you get to know them;)!

Quote from: Old One Eye;876167As a kid, my formative experience with elves was that they make toys and cookies.  Still have a hard time taking them seriously.  

Maybe it would have helped if elves were in Bulfinch.

They are. Try Project Gutenberg (http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/4928/pg4928-images.html), Chapter XL.

QuoteTHE ELVES

The Edda mentions another class of beings, inferior to the gods, but still possessed of great power; these were called Elves. The white spirits, or Elves of Light, were exceedingly fair, more brilliant than the sun, and clad in garments of a delicate and transparent texture. They loved the light, were kindly disposed to mankind, and generally appeared as fair and lovely children. Their country was called Alfheim, and was the domain of Freyr, the god of the sun, in whose light they were always sporting.

The Black or Night Elves were a different kind of creatures. Ugly, long-nosed dwarfs, of a dirty brown color, they appeared only at night, for they avoided the sun as their most deadly enemy, because whenever his beams fell upon any of them they changed them immediately into stones. Their language was the echo of solitudes, and their dwelling-places subterranean caves and clefts. They were supposed to have come into existence as maggots produced by the decaying flesh of Ymir's body, and were afterwards endowed by the gods with a human form and great understanding. They were particularly distinguished for a knowledge of the mysterious powers of nature, and for the runes which they carved and explained. They were the most skilful artificers of all created beings, and worked in metals and in wood. Among their most noted works were Thor's hammer, and the ship "Skidbladnir," which they gave to Freyr, and which was so large that it could contain all the deities with their war and household implements, but so skillfully was it wrought that when folded together it could be put into a side pocket.

See? You can struggle. Keep practicing.

Quote from: AsenRG;876172I agree it's entertaining:). Glad the mirror in front of you is showing the new village idiot addition well;).


No, it was just easiest to keep pulling examples from it when I opened it.
And no, Conan is closer to a ranger, but he puts on full plate as soon as he can - that is, when a princess provides it, after naming him commander of her army by a god's advice. That's not exactly a ranger.

Funny. I said maps closer to a ranger. I didnt say he maps exactly to a ranger. And the AD&D ranger could wear any type of armour and they can sneak up on people in any type of armour. They do not have the Thief's limitation.

And yet again you miss the point that Conan is NOT D&D. D&D is NOT Conan.

Quote from: Omega;876090Tiefling. Was a planescape race. Half human half demon or devil. A Cambion by any other name. EG: A Half-Demon/devil. This was 2e where TSR was trying to be "non-Satanic" by renaming all the demonic stuff. And probably market branding.

For some reason WOTC likes them alot and keeps adding them as a PC race with some odd background. Descended of a race cursed. Descended of a race that interbred, child of a human and infernal pairing, etc. Much like the Dragonborn have had theire backgrounds redone about every edition. Humans metamorphed, Human and dragon offspring, deformed dragon offspring, blessed dragon offspring, descended from one of the above, and so on.

WOTC probably keeps doing that because fuckloads of D&D players like to play Tiefling characters.

Quote from: Bren;876162Don't SAY that! Elves are good. Of course they are good. Elves are very good.

Here, have a horseshoe.

"Elves making toys?  Nobody'd give an Elf a chisel, unless you want him to carve his initials in your forehead."

-- Hogfather

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;876119Try the Norse elves from Poul Anderson's "Broken Sword."

They were just plain motherfuckers.

Beating and raping a troll in order to beget a changeling and kidnap a human baby...

Sounds like something out of a Swords & Sorcery version of True Detective.

Quote from: Bren;876162Don't SAY that! Elves are good. Of course they are good. Elves are very good.

*Talks to the camera, eyes focused off slightly to one side* Yes, comrade Bren is quite right. I was completely and foolishly mistaken. I wish to apologise for any confusion that I may have created. Elves are entirely fictional and are synonymous with good things, like Father Christmas and nursery rhymes. Ha. Ha. Ha. Please ignore anything else I say.

Just keep in mind that álfar does not = fairies. Term drift be damned!

ahem.

I thought it was bemusing that the Kender have not gotten an entry in the DMG or UAs so far as some expected to see. Whereas the Eladrin and Aasimar got entries in the DMG instead and the Warforged, Shifter and Changelings finally in UA articles and so on.

Quote from: Old One Eye;875641Somewhat odd that some 45% of folks seem fine with a brooding loner.  That is perhaps the worst archetype for a team oriented game, perfectly suited to grind the adventure game to a halt.  There have been times when I've just told the player to have fun sitting there by themselves while everyone else keeps on with the game.

I was OK with brooding loner on the condition that they would brood with a small group of fellow party members; being totally unable to join a party would probably put them closer to the clinically insane person category, which would be a worse archetype for disrupting the game.

So, pretty much Omega's BROODING/Brooding LONER/Loner distinctions (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=876084#post876084).

Quote from: rawma;876288I was OK with brooding loner on the condition that they would brood with a small group of fellow party members; being totally unable to join a party would probably put them closer to the clinically insane person category, which would be a worse archetype for disrupting the game.

So, pretty much Omega's BROODING/Brooding LONER/Loner distinctions (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=876084#post876084).

yah i mean the batman esc arc type can work quite well in an rpg and thats the definition of a brooding loner

Quote from: kosmos1214;876299yah i mean the batman esc arc type can work quite well in an rpg and thats the definition of a brooding loner

Batman, when not written by idiots, tends to actually be fairly not a loner. He works with groups overall fairly well. Especially pre-90s. Its when the writers toss all that out the window and ramp up the brooding and loner part till there is nothing left that things fall apart.

Now if you are playing a system like Mythic or FU solo then the extreme brooding loner works.

Quote from: Omega;876377Batman, when not written by idiots, tends to actually be fairly not a loner. He works with groups overall fairly well. Especially pre-90s. Its when the writers toss all that out the window and ramp up the brooding and loner part till there is nothing left that things fall apart.

Now if you are playing a system like Mythic or FU solo then the extreme brooding loner works.

Thanks, I agree. Working with a group, though shortly, is often a smarter tactic than doing so out of some misguided bravado. Especially when other people can be used as distractions or have valuable Intel about a target.

Quote from: Omega;876176See? You can struggle. Keep practicing.



Funny. I said maps closer to a ranger. I didnt say he maps exactly to a ranger. And the AD&D ranger could wear any type of armour and they can sneak up on people in any type of armour. They do not have the Thief's limitation.

And yet again you miss the point that Conan is NOT D&D. D&D is NOT Conan.

Yawn. Watch closer in that mirror, I think you're losing sight of the practice.

And no, I'm not missing the point that Conan=/=D&D. That it doesn't map well is exactly the point I was trying to hammer home in the head of the poster you decided to "help against me". Your defence...amounted to admitting I was right.
Great, I'm fine when my opponents get such help.
Next step, we just need you to admit that there are other systems that do map better to Conan...oh wait, you did admit that already:p! TSR's Conan is a great option for Conan, it seems (though I only know it from having read ZeFRS, and an Actual Play review).
Yeah, I don't need to add anything:D.

Struggle on little man. Struggle on.

Back on topic.

Did anyone ever use the Bariaur outside Planescape? They are smaller than centaurs and would be less of a problem in dungeons.

* stations archers covering all exits *
* sets thread on fire *

*Ambles by exit with cart full of hay*
/raises eyebrow
/rolls Ambling skill
*Ambles faster, trying to avoid notice*

Quote from: Omega;876377...
Now if you are playing a system like Mythic or FU solo then the extreme brooding loner works.

Wait, there's an RPG system called "FU solo" which works well for extreme brooding loner characters?

Quote from: Omega;876532Struggle on little man. Struggle on.

Nope, I give up on communicating with you - it's just no longer fun:).

Quote from: Skarg;876611Wait, there's an RPG system called "FU solo" which works well for extreme brooding loner characters?

It's called just FU, Free Universal.
Play it solo with the GM, and it works for extreme brooding loner characters, indeed;).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;876119Try the Norse elves from Poul Anderson's "Broken Sword."

They were just plain motherfuckers.

I read the book last year.

It is good stuff!

Quote from: Skarg;876611Wait, there's an RPG system called "FU solo" which works well for extreme brooding loner characters?

Both Mythic and FU (Free Universal) work with a group or solitaire. "No GM" systems.

Quote from: Opaopajr;876577*Ambles by exit with cart full of hay*
/raises eyebrow
/rolls Ambling skill
*Ambles faster, trying to avoid notice*

Keep moving, goodman, nothing to see here.

* stirs the boiling oil *

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;876980Keep moving, goodman, nothing to see here.

* stirs the boiling oil *

I prefer burning pitch. Like oatmeal, it sticks to your ribs.

Quote from: Bren;876986I prefer burning pitch. Like oatmeal, it sticks to your ribs.

Yeah.  Oil is frigging expensive -- they sure wouldn't waste whole cauldrons of it at castles.  Burning sand, now ... sand is cheap, and when that shit gets into your armor ...

*Summons a Dragon, does barnstorming passes.*

Quote from: AsenRG;876615Nope, I give up on communicating with you - it's just no longer fun:).

And another troll bites the dust.

Back on topic. Like that will last.

In Gamma world you could actually end up with a character that could be insane, or flip out under stress. Had one for a long campaign was GMing and played well it can be ok. But it tends to not.

Quote from: Ravenswing;876996Yeah.  Oil is frigging expensive -- they sure wouldn't waste whole cauldrons of it at castles.  Burning sand, now ... sand is cheap, and when that shit gets into your armor ...

Burning sand. Now that would be a feat. How about we just get it really hot instead? :-P

Quote from: Willie the Duck;877040Burning sand. Now that would be a feat. How about we just get it really hot instead? :-P

What, you've never heard of the burning sands of the desert?

Quote from: Ravenswing;876996Yeah.  Oil is frigging expensive -- they sure wouldn't waste whole cauldrons of it at castles.  Burning sand, now ... sand is cheap, and when that shit gets into your armor ...

I care enough to give the very best.

(Boiling water works a treat too)

Quote from: Bren;875158Nope. Never, ever had to deal with anyone even remotely like that in any game I ran or played in.

My experience is very close to yours, with a few exceptions.

(1) A younger player (HS gaming club) who played a sort of "lethal maiden" type, I think because he thought it'd be cool to be a hot chick who kills people. (but that dude, honestly, comes up with weird shit all the time).

(2) Current party has a male playing a female halfling, but gender makes no difference, because he's a very quiet player. I'm not entirely sure why he went with a female, exactly, as if has, to this point, had zero effect on the game at all. Maybe as we continue. Not that it has to make any difference, but I assumed there was a reason. If there is, I haven't seen it yet.

(3) Years ago, a player played a female warrior passing herself off as a man as a means of escaping a horrible past. Great character, especially when the teenaged tagalong caught her undressing. She damn near killed him, but got him to swear secrecy. Made for some interesting moments in the game. That player was pretty awesome with concepts, though. He also one ran a Minotaur "Scholar" named Rosethorn who was based on Ferdinand the Bull.

Quote from: cranebump;877055My experience is very close to yours, with a few exceptions.

(1) A younger player (HS gaming club) who played a sort of "lethal maiden" type, I think because he thought it'd be cool to be a hot chick who kills people. (but that dude, honestly, comes up with weird shit all the time).

(2) Current party has a male playing a female halfling, but gender makes no difference, because he's a very quiet player. I'm not entirely sure why he went with a female, exactly, as if has, to this point, had zero effect on the game at all. Maybe as we continue. Not that it has to make any difference, but I assumed there was a reason. If there is, I haven't seen it yet.

(3) Years ago, a player played a female warrior passing herself off as a man as a means of escaping a horrible past. Great character, especially when the teenaged tagalong caught her undressing. She damn near killed him, but got him to swear secrecy. Made for some interesting moments in the game. That player was pretty awesome with concepts, though. He also one ran a Minotaur "Scholar" named Rosethorn who was based on Ferdinand the Bull.

Those aren't exceptions to what I said.

(1) The "lethal maiden" is extremely common in media these past two decades. (Even longer in Anime.) Heck, the "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" franchise was built on that trope. River Tam in Firefly/Serenity would fit the trope even using the more restricted definition of maiden as a virginal young woman. And while this trope may not be older than dirt it has been around at least since the Amazon women warriors of Greek myth and Brunhilda of the Norse Edda poems, the Vǫlsunga saga, and the German Nibelungenlied. Unless the player is using his "lethal maiden" to create squick, that doesn't fit the example. Though it obviously fits what are now fairly common fantasies of young men and women.

(2) A character whose gender not only doesn't matter, but doesn't even common up at all in play is an antithesis to the "lesbian stripper ninja" where gender is key to two out of the three key character elements.

(3) "Great character", "Made for some interesting moments in the game." when said unsarcastically, and "That player was pretty awesome with concepts" all tell me that the player of the female warrior used the common trope of woman dressed as man (which was a staple of 16th and 17th century comedy) for good effect in your game. And that character does sound interesting and would fit in marvelously well in the 17th century Honor+Intrigue campaign that I run. In fact there was an NPC who more or less did that for a time in my game (Chapter III: The Road to Florence (http://honorandintrigue.blogspot.com/2015/06/adventure-03-man-behind-mask-chapters-i.html)).

None of these three characters are examples of a "lesbian stripper ninja" run by "a neckbearded basement dweller" to "squick out the rest of the table with character antics". Nor do they support the claim by jeff39723 that we have all actually encountered such a legendary beast in his bearded flesh. Much less that such encounters are so frequent that they should be a cause of concern to a GM.

Quote from: Bren;877070None of these three characters are examples of a "lesbian stripper ninja" run by "a neckbearded basement dweller" to "squick out the rest of the table with character antics". Nor do they support the claim by jeff39723 that we have all actually encountered such a legendary beast in his bearded flesh. Much less that such encounters are so frequent that they should be a cause of concern to a GM.

You know, your pretentious wankery borders on the idiotic. You have to start picking a better class of coffee shop to be a pseudointellectual at, the one you go to is teaching you bad habits.

I never said that they were frequent (nice obfuscation by you), but you don't need to run into too many of them to become wary. It is a Player type that exists. If you never play in public or have an open table set-up, you will probably never encounter one.

However, I know that disrupts your treasured narrative, so please continue.

Jeff, my use of the word frequent in the phrase "so frequent that they should be a cause of concern to a GM" has confused you. I said that you are claiming the frequency of encounters with neckbearded, basement dwelling lesbian, ninja stripper is sufficient that it causes you concern.

Well doesn't it?

You've said words to that effect on multiple occasions. Here, read the bold part of your reply to my last post.

Quote from: jeff37923;877184I never said that they were frequent (nice obfuscation by you), you don't need to run into too many of them to become wary.

Yes you said that those encounters don't occur often (you used the word "frequent") but then you said that you have run into neckbearded, basement dwelling lesbian, ninja strippers enough times (i.e. sufficiently often or with sufficient frequency) for you to have become wary of them when GMing.

You are, in fact, confirming what I said. Which is that you think neckbearded, basement dwelling lesbian, ninja strippers occur often enough at open tables for the number and frequency of their occurrence to make you wary, i.e. to cause you concern.

Moreover, once you understand what I wrote you will see that what I said about frequency was the same thing you said (albeit using slightly different words). What I said was not at all obfuscated. Anyone with a college reading level ability ought to be able to easily parse the grammar used and arrive at the intended meaning of the word "frequent" in my phrase was frequent enough to cause concern.

Now if the possibility of running into a neckbearded, basement dwelling lesbian, ninja stripper at your gaming table doesn't actually cause you concern, great let's move on to talk about gaming. But if, in fact, it does cause you concern then stop bullshitting about what I said and how confused by it you are and own up to your own fears about the people you choose to game with.

QuoteIt is a Player type that exists. If you never play in public or have an open table set-up, you will probably never encounter one.

Earlier you claimed virtually everyone who GMed must have encountered the neckbearded, basement dwelling lesbian, ninja stripper. Now you are dialing that back to only everyone who has ever gamed in public or had an open table set up. That's some small progress at least.

Now I've personally done both. It's not my favorite style of gaming, but I've run some open game tables at a few cons and clubs. And I've sat in on some open games at cons and clubs. But even so I still haven't encountered these legendary neckbearded, basement dwelling lesbian, ninja strippers whose presence has made you so wary in your GMing. But if it makes you feel better for me to agree with you in part, sure Jeff those guys may be out there somewhere. But see they don't worry me because in my experience they are more rare than serial killers. Now I hope most of us don't spend a lot of energy being wary about whether or not the people we play elf games with are going to drug us, torture us, kill us, cut us up and stick us in garbage bags, and then toss us in the trash or bury us underneath their gaming room. Because I think spending much more than zero energy on that would be kind of crazy.

But maybe I am grossly underestimating the deadly perils of open gaming. Good thing I do it infrequently.

"Too many of them to become wary?"  Oh give me a frigging break.

Over the course of 39 years, I've had exactly one player do a cross-gendered courtesan ninja.  (Not a stripper, and as far as I recall, not a lesbian.)  He wasn't obnoxious or creepy about it.

That was in 1979 through to the next year, and that was the only one out of the 316 PCs in my campaign's history that was.

But even if he HAD been obnoxious about it ... hell, I remember completely obnoxious characters in my campaign, ones that caused problems and where the players were soon turfed out.  One was an assassin.  One was a sailor.  One was a spy.  One was a necromancer.  Two were archers.  Jesus Christ, two archers?  Damn, archers must be trouble!  I should ban them from my table!

See, what I figure is that most GMs have a bit of drama queen in them.  (Hell, if we didn't, we wouldn't be behind the dice in the first place.)  We inflate snarks into incidents, incidents into dramas, dramas into catastrophes, isolated occurrences into syndromes, and rumors into catchphrases.  We revel in turning "Jeez, that guy who did that character for three sessions in 1982 was a pain in the ass" into "OMG LESBIAN STRIPPER NINJAAAAA!!!"

And you'd think we'd have learned by our hobby's own experiences.  How much damage did the Satanic Panic do gaming?  Hell, the Secret Service raid took money out of my own pocket (a book I had in galleys at SJG wound up being delayed for over a year).  All because outsiders had their own unfounded knee-jerk stereotypes.

I've run into one guy who played a Lesbian Stripper Ninja(literally Lesbian, figuratively Ninja, no Stripper) in Shadowrun.  Wasn't a basement dwelling neckfatbeard though, he kinda looked like bald Billy Corgan.  Little creepy.

I've run into one catpissman (as in literally smelled of catpiss).  He was a fatbeard at a LGS.  Didn't play with him, he was at a different table.

Lots of players over the years have had cross-gender characters (tends to be women playing men more than men playing women).

At most gameshops that have tables where people are playing RPGs, I find at every table at least one or two people I would never invite to my home because they are just "weird gamer people".  When I play at gameshops I do so as recon and recruiting.

Hey, I play a "bi-sexual stripper luchadora-with-a-sword" in DCC. I just ended up with her due to the funnel, and mostly modeled her on characters I've seen my female players have been playing:). Her fighting style just flowed naturally from her background and DCC's system, so I actually can claim almost nothing about the character was contributed by me.
I'm pretty sure that she doesn't make people wary by her habit of picking up the nicest-looking ass in the crowd when relaxing. I have been told that some of the guys were weirded out by her being more than ready to go into killing mode on a suspicion;).
That describes an awful lot of the above characters, however, and it just makes sense for her background. So it's a trait that's going to stay.
In fact, this trait would still be there even if she was neither bi-sexual, nor prone to sexual escapades and flaunting her body (which she would gladly use as a distraction). So, why the prejudice towards LSNs:D? Maybe it's better to judge all PCs on a case-by-case basis?

Jacqueline In Detail

And she's managed to get us out of some tight spots so far. Even when she was at 3 HP and 5 Luck, she didn't even hesitate to engage a giant who turned out to be regenerating, and was decimating a crowd of NPCs (who had tried to kill her before, but who were of the same tribe as a late PC she kinda liked - so she sided with them without thinking). She attacked by herself, survived by hit-and-run bolstered by combining terrain and the use of Deeds, and the NPCs managed to run away. Meanwhile, the party managed to use a found magic item on the giant, and then we killed it, and found the source of its regeneration, and exposed it to the sun - which we knew the giant hated - and it stopped the process.
If we don't survive the current encounter, it's going to be too bad, of course!

Then again, maybe we all are simply wary of what brought us negative experiences in the past. Which would also explain why I don't have an issue with LSNs, and do have a problem with totally emotionless characters:D!

Quote from: Ravenswing;877209"Too many of them to become wary?"  Oh give me a frigging break.

Over the course of 39 years, I've had exactly one player do a cross-gendered courtesan ninja.  (Not a stripper, and as far as I recall, not a lesbian.)  He wasn't obnoxious or creepy about it.

That was in 1979 through to the next year, and that was the only one out of the 316 PCs in my campaign's history that was.

But even if he HAD been obnoxious about it ... hell, I remember completely obnoxious characters in my campaign, ones that caused problems and where the players were soon turfed out.  One was an assassin.  One was a sailor.  One was a spy.  One was a necromancer.  Two were archers.  Jesus Christ, two archers?  Damn, archers must be trouble!  I should ban them from my table!

See, what I figure is that most GMs have a bit of drama queen in them.  (Hell, if we didn't, we wouldn't be behind the dice in the first place.)  We inflate snarks into incidents, incidents into dramas, dramas into catastrophes, isolated occurrences into syndromes, and rumors into catchphrases.  We revel in turning "Jeez, that guy who did that character for three sessions in 1982 was a pain in the ass" into "OMG LESBIAN STRIPPER NINJAAAAA!!!"

And you'd think we'd have learned by our hobby's own experiences.  How much damage did the Satanic Panic do gaming?  Hell, the Secret Service raid took money out of my own pocket (a book I had in galleys at SJG wound up being delayed for over a year).  All because outsiders had their own unfounded knee-jerk stereotypes.

I laugh because the "little bit of drama queen" part is so true for most Referees I know, that I should either laugh, or cry. And it's more fun to laugh:D!

Quote from: Bren;877070Those aren't exceptions to what I said.

(1) The "lethal maiden" is extremely common in media these past two decades. (Even longer in Anime.) Heck, the "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" franchise was built on that trope. River Tam in Firefly/Serenity would fit the trope even using the more restricted definition of maiden as a virginal young woman. And while this trope may not be older than dirt it has been around at least since the Amazon women warriors of Greek myth and Brunhilda of the Norse Edda poems, the Vǫlsunga saga, and the German Nibelungenlied. Unless the player is using his "lethal maiden" to create squick, that doesn't fit the example. Though it obviously fits what are now fairly common fantasies of young men and women.

(2) A character whose gender not only doesn't matter, but doesn't even common up at all in play is an antithesis to the "lesbian stripper ninja" where gender is key to two out of the three key character elements.

(3) "Great character", "Made for some interesting moments in the game." when said unsarcastically, and "That player was pretty awesome with concepts" all tell me that the player of the female warrior used the common trope of woman dressed as man (which was a staple of 16th and 17th century comedy) for good effect in your game. And that character does sound interesting and would fit in marvelously well in the 17th century Honor+Intrigue campaign that I run. In fact there was an NPC who more or less did that for a time in my game (Chapter III: The Road to Florence (http://honorandintrigue.blogspot.com/2015/06/adventure-03-man-behind-mask-chapters-i.html)).

None of these three characters are examples of a "lesbian stripper ninja" run by "a neckbearded basement dweller" to "squick out the rest of the table with character antics". Nor do they support the claim by jeff39723 that we have all actually encountered such a legendary beast in his bearded flesh. Much less that such encounters are so frequent that they should be a cause of concern to a GM.

I was merely saying that playing against actual gender has been pretty rare in my campaigns. And agreeing I haven't seen much crazy shit. The exceptions were in my campaigns. Wasn't trying to argue with you, so how about you put the kendo stick away?

Honestly?

Anything outside the core genre. Anything "abnormal". I'm just sick to death of anything that reeks of special snowflakes.

Quote from: Ravenswing;877209  
See, what I figure is that most GMs have a bit of drama queen in them.  

Says the guy who only posts in the color "Navy"......

Quote from: jeff37923;877260Says the guy who only posts in the color "Navy"......

Says the asshat who makes an issue of this multiple times in the same thread.

Seriously, do you ever get tired of being a dickweed, or are you like this in real life?

Jeff: "OMG you're signing that check in SOMETHING OTHER THAN BLACK INK!!!!!"
Jeff: "OMG that car you just bought ISN'T IN MY APPROVED COLOOOOOR!!!"

(presses IGN button)

Half-Vampire (umm no such thing imo, you either are or you are not a vamp),
Brooding Loner (why play then?)
Monks/Samurai in a non-Asian setting, umm No.

Quote from: Ravenswing;877209
See, what I figure is that most GMs have a bit of drama queen in them.  (Hell, if we didn't, we wouldn't be behind the dice in the first place.)  We inflate snarks into incidents, incidents into dramas, dramas into catastrophes, isolated occurrences into syndromes, and rumors into catchphrases.  We revel in turning "Jeez, that guy who did that character for three sessions in 1982 was a pain in the ass" into "OMG LESBIAN STRIPPER NINJAAAAA!!!"

Not just referees.

I've seen more than one thread (in various places) of people complaining about stuff that happened in games ten, or fifteen, or twenty years ago or more.

Not, "That was so funny when we fed Ernie to the bag of devouring because we didn't know what it was," but people still genuinely upset, even angry, about things that happened in a silly ass elfgame years ago.

Quote from: Piestrio;877255Honestly?

Anything outside the core genre. Anything "abnormal". I'm just sick to death of anything that reeks of special snowflakes.

I've always been like this. Nowadays, after years of auteur GMs handing me characters (or worse, directing me very specifically on how to create them) and telling me in detail how to play them, I tend to be a tad more flexible.

Nevertheless, the GM's word is final, and as a player I've always made a point of creating my characters within the framework given by each game's rules. I feel it's kind of like food and wine pairings. You can play a cyborg ninja in D&D, and you can have Chardonnay with your steak, and more power to you, but I'll play a fighter and have a full-bodied red, thank you very much.

Quote from: flyingcircus;877275Half-Vampire (umm no such thing imo, you either are or you are not a vamp),

Considering there are rules in the various editions for this thing, they actually do. I honestly don't see the issue with them? Is it the desire to be sort of like Blade? I've played a couple myself over the span of 3rd and 4th edition.

For the former, it was a template from Libris Mortis: Book of the Dead where you could add to any humanoid creature. For that character, we fought a vampire and I was turned. Him being an elf, the transformation took on strange properties (pulled from examples like Jandar Sunstar) but the transformation was halted, due in part for killing the master vampire AND because there was a cleric of Lathander in the group who "healed" me. Because he had the taint of vampirism, mechanically I wanted it represented and the DM was cool with that. We looked at the Bloodline mechanics from Unearthed Arcana but it wasn't really a good fit. I came across the template and he was cool with that.

For the latter, it was a 4e campaign starting at around 4th level. The character, a baron (Warlord) from a fallen noble house, was seeking to restore it by means of prestige and acts of valor. His bloodline was cursed, however, by the old taint of a vampire a century passed. This was represented with Dhampir Heritage feats. Later, as the Vyrloka race debued, the DM was cool with changing the character from a human with those feats to a Vyrloka (since they're almost human anyways).


Either way, IF the half-vampire thing isn't just a means to create Blade v2.0 then I don't really take issue with the concept.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;877280Not just referees.

I've seen more than one thread (in various places) of people complaining about stuff that happened in games ten, or fifteen, or twenty years ago or more.

Not, "That was so funny when we fed Ernie to the bag of devouring because we didn't know what it was," but people still genuinely upset, even angry, about things that happened in a silly ass elfgame years ago.

Sometimes I think some of the moments that stick out negatively do so because it was somehow viewed as personal.

It might be a game. But someone deliberately fucking with you is not a game.

The real problem though is when the someone blames the game for the problem rather than the fuckwit who was causing trouble. It wasnt playing another gender. It wasnt playing an elf. It wasnt this or that or whatever the hell youve deluded yourself into thinking was the problem. It was that guy sitting across from you.

Games don't make bad players. (least not the fuck with you personally type) Bad players are bad players.

Quote from: Omega;877306Sometimes I think some of the moments that stick out negatively do so because it was somehow viewed as personal.

It might be a game. But someone deliberately fucking with you is not a game.

The real problem though is when the someone blames the game for the problem rather than the fuckwit who was causing trouble. It wasnt playing another gender. It wasnt playing an elf. It wasnt this or that or whatever the hell youve deluded yourself into thinking was the problem. It was that guy sitting across from you.

Games don't make bad players. (least not the fuck with you personally type) Bad players are bad players.

True.

As a very, very, very wise person once said, "The rules can't fix stupid, and the rules can't fix asshole."

Quote from: Omega;877306Sometimes I think some of the moments that stick out negatively do so because it was somehow viewed as personal.

It might be a game. But someone deliberately fucking with you is not a game.

The real problem though is when the someone blames the game for the problem rather than the fuckwit who was causing trouble. It wasnt playing another gender. It wasnt playing an elf. It wasnt this or that or whatever the hell youve deluded yourself into thinking was the problem. It was that guy sitting across from you.

Games don't make bad players. (least not the fuck with you personally type) Bad players are bad players.

True. And I've seen some pretty petty, nasty crap pulled in games unfortunately.

"I roll my eyes when a player wants to play..."


... any character with a backstory longer than 25 words.

Mine was. "Have Spellbook. Will Travel." :cool:

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;877280Not just referees.

I've seen more than one thread (in various places) of people complaining about stuff that happened in games ten, or fifteen, or twenty years ago or more.

Not, "That was so funny when we fed Ernie to the bag of devouring because we didn't know what it was," but people still genuinely upset, even angry, about things that happened in a silly ass elfgame years ago.

Oh sure.  Anyone who claims to have been scarred for life by pretty much anything happening over a tabletop run (short of "That sonuvabitch threw his brass dice at my head") is way too highstrung to play roleplaying games.

Quote from: Ravenswing;877270Says the asshat who makes an issue of this multiple times in the same thread.

Seriously, do you ever get tired of being a dickweed, or are you like this in real life?

Jeff: "OMG you're signing that check in SOMETHING OTHER THAN BLACK INK!!!!!"
Jeff: "OMG that car you just bought ISN'T IN MY APPROVED COLOOOOOR!!!"

(presses IGN button)

*arches other eyebrow*
*closes eyes, hangs head, and turns around with cart*
LESBIAN STRIPPER NINJA! LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA!!!!!
/runs cart full of hay into the flaming topic

Quote from: Ravenswing;877395Oh sure.  Anyone who claims to have been scarred for life by pretty much anything happening over a tabletop run (short of "That sonuvabitch threw his brass dice at my head") is way too highstrung to play roleplaying games.

I think you're being a bit too literally-minded with the interpretation of "scarred for life";).

Quote from: Opaopajr;877412*arches other eyebrow*
*closes eyes, hangs head, and turns around with cart*
LESBIAN STRIPPER NINJA! LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA!!!!!
/runs cart full of hay into the flaming topic

LSN? Where's she:p?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;877351"I roll my eyes when a player wants to play..."


... any character with a backstory longer than 25 words.

We have a winner!

25 words... really?

Quote from: Nexus;87742825 words... really?

Well when they die in the first hour of play, there's less attachment for the player to be upset about. Heck in these sorts of games, character names are practically optional.

Quote from: Nexus;87742825 words... really?

I try to limit it to two sentences or bullet points. Word count isn't quite as important.

Quote from: Nexus;87742825 words... really?

The older style treats characters like glorified Monopoly pieces.  They're expendable, and a lot of the old adventures (if you used them) challenge the player's skill of deduction and reasoning.  The stats were just there for mechanical reasons, not personality ones.

Remember, we're from the 'New School' (Whatever the fuck that means) which OG loves to remind us about, over and over and over, about how the game is meant to be played, because he was there.

Quote from: Nexus;87742825 words... really?

Yes, really, that's Gronan you're talking to/about:).

Quote from: Christopher Brady;877453The older style treats characters like glorified Monopoly pieces.  They're expendable, and a lot of the old adventures (if you used them) challenge the player's skill of deduction and reasoning.  The stats were just there for mechanical reasons, not personality ones.

Remember, we're from the 'New School' (Whatever the fuck that means) which OG loves to remind us about, over and over and over, about how the game is meant to be played, because he was there.

Or, for a better representation of thisplaystyle, your character only becomes important if you survive. Which is basically what levels are in the first place, if you ask me;)!

Quote from: AsenRG;877456Yes, really, that's Gronan you're talking to/about:).


Or, for a better representation of thisplaystyle, your character only becomes important if you survive. Which is basically what levels are in the first place, if you ask me;)!

Survives what, 1st level? 3rd? 10th? At what point in a character's level-span is he/she considered important enough for a more articulated backstory?

Quote from: AsenRG;877456Or, for a better representation of thisplaystyle, your character only becomes important if you survive. Which is basically what levels are in the first place, if you ask me;)!

In my limited experience, it doesn't matter how high you get, because there's always chance that all that 'work' at leveling becomes pointless in one random chance, so very rarely do you get that attached to any one character.

My analogy stands.

Quote from: Batman;877438Well when they die in the first hour of play, there's less attachment for the player to be upset about. Heck in these sorts of games, character names are practically optional.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;877453The older style treats characters like glorified Monopoly pieces.  They're expendable, and a lot of the old adventures (if you used them) challenge the player's skill of deduction and reasoning.  The stats were just there for mechanical reasons, not personality ones.

Remember, we're from the 'New School' (Whatever the fuck that means) which OG loves to remind us about, over and over and over, about how the game is meant to be played, because he was there.

That's true. I didn't take playstyle into account. Thanks for the reminder. It was just such an odd ideo (to me) it prompted a knee jerk response.

Quote from: Batman;877460Survives what, 1st level? 3rd? 10th? At what point in a character's level-span is he/she considered important enough for a more articulated backstory?

By the time the character is 10th level, they should have had such a rich adventuring life, that the backstory (whatever it was) would be meaningless.  Hell, that should be true at 5th.  What was Conan's backstory (authored by Howard)?

25 words doesn't mean sentences of 25 words.  You can fit a lot of description in a list of 25 nouns/adjectives.  If you have a detailed backstory, keep it to yourself and tell it in game if a PC or NPC ever asks you "So, how did you wind up here?" while you're on night watch.

Try leaving the GM/author hat on the shelf when you play.

Quote from: Batman;877460Survives what, 1st level? 3rd? 10th? At what point in a character's level-span is he/she considered important enough for a more articulated backstory?

I feel like the response of those in favor of less initial character detail would be that the character's "story" is really the sum of his/her adventuring career, which begins at the start of actual play. So, I think everything that happens to the character goes into her "story."  Your backstory is your character's play history, I'm thinking?

I think some of the argument about how much time to be put in depends, as always, on style of play and expectations In Gronan's view (I can't suppose to speak for him, so I'm guessing here), the thinking is, "you can write down all the stuff you want -- don't expect it to change what I'm doing as the GM."  So, it's a practical consideration, as well--reams of detail is a waste of time, for his part.

On this point, I mostly have to side with shorter is better. I think I can work in from a brief list of hooks much easier than a 2-page backstory. Now, if a players WANTS to spend a great deal of time on who their character is prior to play, more power to them. Go for it. But give me a condensed version, if you want me to work with you. Further, know that, once we start, I roll in the open.  So, if the dice fall the wrong way, and all that thought and story goes to waste, I'm sorry--stuff happens. Nothing personal.

Based on the results of this poll, my next character MUST be a half-vampire half-drow clinically insane brooding loner type. Roll your eyes all you want, I can totally make that work!

Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;877473Based on the results of this poll, my next character MUST be a half-vampire half-drow clinically insane brooding loner type. Roll your eyes all you want, I can totally make that work!

Done deal, but you still have to work in Stripper-Ninja.:-)

Quote from: Batman;877460Survives what, 1st level? 3rd? 10th? At what point in a character's level-span is he/she considered important enough for a more articulated backstory?

I really don't get why some people get bent out of shape on this topic.

What Gronan prefers and refers to is a style of play where the only important character history occurs in play, not before play. History is what the character has done, failed to do, and survived in play not something the player made up as background.

Quote from: cranebump;877472I feel like the response of those in favor of less initial character detail would be that the character's "story" is really the sum of his/her adventuring career, which begins at the start of actual play. So, I think everything that happens to the character goes into her "story."  Your backstory is your character's play history, I'm thinking?

I think some of the argument about how much time to be put in depends, as always, on style of play and expectations In Gronan's view (I can't suppose to speak for him, so I'm guessing here), the thinking is, "you can write down all the stuff you want -- don't expect it to change what I'm doing as the GM."  So, it's a practical consideration, as well--reams of detail is a waste of time, for his part.

On this point, I mostly have to side with shorter is better. I think I can work in from a brief list of hooks much easier than a 2-page backstory. Now, if a players WANTS to spend a great deal of time on who their character is prior to play, more power to them. Go for it. But give me a condensed version, if you want me to work with you. Further, know that, once we start, I roll in the open.  So, if the dice fall the wrong way, and all that thought and story goes to waste, I'm sorry--stuff happens. Nothing personal.

On the other hand, you get it.

Quote from: cranebump;877484Done deal, but you still have to work in Stripper-Ninja.:-)

Been there, done that. :p

Quote from: Bren;877499What Gronan prefers and refers to is a style of play where the only important character history occurs in play, not before play. History is what the character has done, failed to do, and survived in play not something the player made up as background.

Bingo.

Don't tell me how cool your character was.  Show me how cool your character IS.

Also, it's been my experience that the longer the backstory, the more time the player spends bitching that the rules don't "allow them to build their true character," which in a class-based game means having a multiclass character that does everything with no disadvantages, or in a point-based system having twice as many points as the game gives.  If I say we're starting D&D at first level, don't give me the backstory for an eighth-level character.

Quote from: Batman;877460Survives what, 1st level? 3rd? 10th? At what point in a character's level-span is he/she considered important enough for a more articulated backstory?

"Backstory" is what happened BEFORE the game started.

I don't CARE.  The game isn't about what happened BEFORE the game started, it's about what happens IN the game.

A tenth level character should have one hell of an in-game character history.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;877526A tenth level character should have one hell of an in-game character history.

Which was earned, unlike backstory.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;877526"Backstory" is what happened BEFORE the game started.

I don't CARE.  The game isn't about what happened BEFORE the game started, it's about what happens IN the game.

A tenth level character should have one hell of an in-game character history.

Ok? All I'm saying is that if the player wants to invest in a sheet or two of history and doesn't expect it to affect the current game or somehow give him/her an advantage, whats the problem? I'm certainly not going to discourage a player who wants to get more involved in the setting to establish his/her character.

Quote from: Batman;877460Survives what, 1st level? 3rd? 10th? At what point in a character's level-span is he/she considered important enough for a more articulated backstory?

For me at least the characters background grew from their adventures and interactions. In BX, AD&D, and probably 2e and O as well, a character was supposed to be near absolutely fresh off the farm, militia, tower, monastery, gutter, forest, whatever.

Personally I like to have the players think on who in town their character might know or have trained with beforehand. Assuming the character is local. But am fine with the players detailing as they go and ideas spring fourth. Or being blanks and developing from their adventures. Or even a detailed past.

Lots of different approaches.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;877524Also, it's been my experience that the longer the backstory, the more time the player spends bitching that the rules don't "allow them to build their true character," which in a class-based game means having a multiclass character that does everything with no disadvantages, or in a point-based system having twice as many points as the game gives.  If I say we're starting D&D at first level, don't give me the backstory for an eighth-level character.

Oh yes, the dreaded multiclass...

"dun dun DUN!!!!"

Quote from: Bren;877499I really don't get why some people get bent out of shape on this topic.

What Gronan prefers and refers to is a style of play where the only important character history occurs in play, not before play. History is what the character has done, failed to do, and survived in play not something the player made up as background.

On the other hand, you get it.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;877526"Backstory" is what happened BEFORE the game started.

I don't CARE.  The game isn't about what happened BEFORE the game started, it's about what happens IN the game.

A tenth level character should have one hell of an in-game character history.

Quote from: CRKrueger;877527Which was earned, unlike backstory.

Yeah, because it really helps immersion when all of the PCs are nothing but Blank Slates prior to the game. Might as well be playing Chess.....

I'll let others speak for themselves, but in my experience, someone who writes two pages of backstory for a beginning character is going to write in stuff about their character that is to a certain degree world-building or world-editing.  Most of the time, it's a passive-aggressive way of asserting player authority before the game even begins.  I've never had someone do that who wasn't an asshat snowflake. Never.

Personally, what I like is mostly random, detailed Lifepath character generation, where the GM and player find out together what this character is like, and both have a ton of hooks available to move forward.  Infinitely more interesting and satisfying than the player telling the GM how the character lived the last X years in the GM's world.

Having most of players write backstory by the standards here I can see I've had few of any asshat special snowflakes among them. Generally its been the opposite where players that didn't want invest the effort and time into fiting their character into the premise of the game and setting that wanted to special snow flakes, blank slate murder hobos or, somewhat worse for, characters with multiple choice backgrounds that are whatever gives them the most advantageous at the time.

So I don't think either preference isn't innately "better" or more prone to produce an obstructive player. Could just be cases of misaligned preferences. A heavy drama player can seem like  Special Snowflake in a more straight up adventure via dungeon crawl game with the reverse being true too.

Quote from: CRKrueger;877541I'll let others speak for themselves, but in my experience, someone who writes two pages of backstory for a beginning character is going to write in stuff about their character that is to a certain degree world-building or world-editing.  Most of the time, it's a passive-aggressive way of asserting player authority before the game even begins.  I've never had someone do that who wasn't an asshat snowflake. Never.

I have seen that behavior, but it doesn't survive long because I as GM can say, "That does not make sense in this game universe context. Redo it."

Quote from: CRKrueger;877541Personally, what I like is mostly random, detailed Lifepath character generation, where the GM and player find out together what this character is like, and both have a ton of hooks available to move forward.  Infinitely more interesting and satisfying than the player telling the GM how the character lived the last X years in the GM's world.

Now you are just talking about backstory creation best practices. Things like getting the Players together and figuring out how the group formed, what their relationship to each other is, and working together to figure out what possible skills are missing and needed by the Player Characters.

Quote from: Batman;877538Oh yes, the dreaded multiclass...

"dun dun DUN!!!!"

Nah. The dreaded "no limitations" multiclass.

This came up over on RPGG actually. Someone wanted to be a BX style Elf class in 5e. And multiclass both fighter and magic user to level 20. But levelling up like they were a single class character.

It fell apart on several levels. But alternatives more sane were suggested like just using 5e's multiclass system and accepting being level 10/10 or whatever like any other character.

Wow, I have consumed so much popcorn in this thread! Opaopajr, you can just set all the spilled popcorn on fire; no need to waste a perfectly good cart of hay.

Quote from: jeff37923;875152Also, lets face it, if you as a GM have never had to deal with a neckbearded basement dweller who insisted on playing a lesbian stripper ninja just to squick out the rest of the table with character antics then you are either incredibly sheltered in your gaming or you just haven't gamed that much.

Quote from: Bren;875158Nope. Never, ever had to deal with anyone even remotely like that in any game I ran or played in. Now in theory I suppose that could mean that I've led a sheltered gaming existence for over 42+ years of gaming in three countries and twice that number of US states, at high school and college game clubs, in game stores, at cons, and among many, many friends. But I find it far more likely that it means that I'm not a spineless idjit who chooses to spend his free time indulging morons and wackos and then whining about their awful behavior.

Bren has played with so many people he's all but lost count! And he's totally not sheltered at all so just shut up, you whiners!

Quote from: jeff37923;877184You know, your pretentious wankery borders on the idiotic. You have to start picking a better class of coffee shop to be a pseudointellectual at, the one you go to is teaching you bad habits.

I never said that they were frequent (nice obfuscation by you), but you don't need to run into too many of them to become wary. It is a Player type that exists. If you never play in public or have an open table set-up, you will probably never encounter one.

However, I know that disrupts your treasured narrative, so please continue.

Quote from: Bren;877188Earlier you claimed virtually everyone who GMed must have encountered the neckbearded, basement dwelling lesbian, ninja stripper. Now you are dialing that back to only everyone who has ever gamed in public or had an open table set up. That's some small progress at least.

Now I've personally done both. It's not my favorite style of gaming, but I've run some open game tables at a few cons and clubs. And I've sat in on some open games at cons and clubs. But even so I still haven't encountered these legendary neckbearded, basement dwelling lesbian, ninja strippers whose presence has made you so wary in your GMing. But if it makes you feel better for me to agree with you in part, sure Jeff those guys may be out there somewhere. But see they don't worry me because in my experience they are more rare than serial killers. Now I hope most of us don't spend a lot of energy being wary about whether or not the people we play elf games with are going to drug us, torture us, kill us, cut us up and stick us in garbage bags, and then toss us in the trash or bury us underneath their gaming room. Because I think spending much more than zero energy on that would be kind of crazy.

But maybe I am grossly underestimating the deadly perils of open gaming. Good thing I do it infrequently.

OK, Bren has done open gaming but infrequently. So still not sheltered and still lots and lots of players, so many that it would be impossible not to meet those players jeff37923 warns of.

Quote from: Bren;875684While some people are fine with a ratio of 1 annoying weirdo out of 6, that's not a ratio I'd find acceptable. Which is one reason I've seldom engaged in open table gaming. Frankly that one weirdo would be highly likely to ruin the session for me. I'd much rather game with fewer players than get stuck with multiple sessions per year saddled with weirdos, rejects, and annoyances.

Sure that is one approach that people use. But its not the only successful approach. I've been gaming regularly since 1974 and I've never been especially open to new gamers and have never gone to much effort to find new gamers. Yet here I am. Still gaming after all these years.

OK, Bren seldom does open gaming because he is wary of annoying weirdos (who would be "remotely like" jeff37923's stereotype). And he is not especially open to new gamers and has never gone to much effort to find new gamers, preferring to play with fewer players. But it's still totally different from that sheltered stuff! And he still would have met some of those people who are "remotely like" jeff37923's stereotype.

Now, how many who are "remotely like" jeff37923's stereotype could there be? I've actually encountered three in my gaming experience, which has mostly been open tables that sometimes transitioned to closed table campaigns. Since I've probably just been very, very unlucky, I'll just arbitrarily say 1 in 3200 could be so categorized.

Hmm. Where have I seen an authoritative discourse on the probability of meeting an equally rare subset of a population?

Quote from: Bren;876602Let's say 100K. There are about 320M people in the US. If they were evenly distributed and equally likely, I'd need to know 3200 people to expect to know just 1 person who was transgendered. I don't have anything close to 3200 people in my circle of friends or even of regular acquaintances. Being transgendered isn't like being over 7 feet tall--i.e. it isn't immediately obvious in a casual meeting. I don't find it at all surprising that I don't know anyone who identifies as transgendered. (FWIW, I don't know anyone who is over 7 feet tall. If I was involved with professional basketball the situation would be different.) That you know a lot of transgendered people (as opposed to say a handful) strikes me as far more surprising than that I don't know anyone.

(Most likely it's coincidence, but I've also gamed with three transgendered people, that I know of.) OK, so the number of people Bren knows is too few to meet someone so rare, but the number of people Bren has gamed with is enough that he would have had to meet someone so rare. Therefore, Bren knows many fewer people than he's actually gamed with.

Quote from: Bren;877161I can't imagine ever wanting to play with 3-4 random strangers about whom I knew absolutely nothing other than age, gender, education or occupation.

So Bren doesn't game with people he doesn't actually know.
=> <=.

Well, when you've eliminated the impossible, whatever remains must be true: Bren is an idiot.

Seriously, the most wariness I've ever had for various disruptive player types was when I was planning neither to play nor to GM. Running an event with gaming and wanting not to alienate attendees or volunteers and to keep on good terms with the facility it's in and to avoid getting sued? You should be wary of lots of things, including disruptive players, and plan ahead for how to deal with them. I recall that jeff37923 ran an admirable gaming event for charity, although I don't know if that's any factor in the opinions he's expressed. I ran a number of conventions; it gives a very different perspective.

Quote from: Nexus;877546So I don't think either preference isn't innately "better" or more prone to produce an obstructive player. Could just be cases of misaligned preferences. A heavy drama player can seem like  Special Snowflake in a more straight up adventure via dungeon crawl game with the reverse being true too.

That has been my experience too. Just like mechanics. Background/lack of, race, or whatever do not cause or hinder player problems. (Except for maybe the Kinder, Tinker Gnome and Reigar.) Anything can be abused.

Quote from: CRKrueger;877541I'll let others speak for themselves, but in my experience, someone who writes two pages of backstory for a beginning character is going to write in stuff about their character that is to a certain degree world-building or world-editing.  Most of the time, it's a passive-aggressive way of asserting player authority before the game even begins.  I've never had someone do that who wasn't an asshat snowflake. Never.

Yeah.  It's never "At age eight I learned to milk cows, at age twelve I learned to make cheese, at age fifteen I started training with the local levy and now I'm seventeen and restless," it's always "At age nine I was taught magic by Morgan le Fey until she decided I knew more than she did, at age twelve I was taught to use a sword by Inigo Montoya until he decided I knew more than he did, then Fezzini taught me strategy until..."

Tone mismatch.  When I say beforehand explicitly that it's a D&D game starting at first level and you agree, don't expect me to take your WonderBoy character bio seriously.

And I might be less strident if I'd ever seen it otherwise.

Quote from: Batman;877538Oh yes, the dreaded multiclass...

"dun dun DUN!!!!"

This was covered in paragraph 2 of Post 104.

DO try to keep up, won't you, dear?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;877564This was covered in paragraph 2 of Post 104.

DO try to keep up, won't you, dear?

Yeah, I remember it being dumb then too. But perhaps my experience is skewed since I really only saw multiclassing in 3e, 4e, and 5e.

Quote from: Batman;877566Yeah, I remember it being dumb then too. But perhaps my experience is skewed since I really only saw multiclassing in 3e, 4e, and 5e.

What part of "all the advantages but no disadvantages" did I spell wrong?

Quote from: jeff37923;877540Yeah, because it really helps immersion when all of the PCs are nothing but Blank Slates prior to the game. Might as well be playing Chess.....

Our immersion ends once "Brago, the brooding loner who lost his family to dragonfire and unfair taxation" reached for the bag of Cheetos.

Quote from: CRKrueger;877541g.Most of the time, it's a passive-aggressive way of asserting player authority before the game even begins.

So, it's annoying, but in no way really usurps your authority. Said player is simply a wanker?  I can get behind that.:-)

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;877562Yeah.  It's never "At age eight I learned to milk cows, at age twelve I learned to make cheese, at age fifteen I started training with the local levy and now I'm seventeen and restless," it's always "At age nine I was taught magic by Morgan le Fey until she decided I knew more than she did, at age twelve I was taught to use a sword by Inigo Montoya until he decided I knew more than he did, then Fezzini taught me strategy until..."

Tone mismatch.  When I say beforehand explicitly that it's a D&D game starting at first level and you agree, don't expect me to take your WonderBoy character bio seriously.

And I might be less strident if I'd ever seen it otherwise.

So, with all the tough guy bullshit you put out on the Internet, you can't go up to a Player and be adult enough to just say, "Hey, pal. I want you in my game, but your character's backstory just does not fit with the setting background. Please redo it. I'll help you."?

Your Viking Hat is revoked, wimp.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;877567What part of "all the advantages but no disadvantages" did I spell wrong?

Well the rules for the past 16 years pertaining to D&D doesn't even come close to that, so I think it's you that needs to keep up.

Quote from: Batman;877460Survives what, 1st level? 3rd? 10th? At what point in a character's level-span is he/she considered important enough for a more articulated backstory?

It's all retrospective. If a PC survives such that you have months-to-years of gaming with them, then having worked out a backstory for them will have been a good investment. If not, it was foolish. :p

Quote from: Batman;877596Well the rules for the past 16 years pertaining to D&D doesn't even come close to that, so I think it's you that needs to keep up.

Fuck the rules.  I play the game I want to play.  Fuck "modern rules".

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;877600Fuck the rules.  I play the game I want to play.  Fuck "modern rules".

Ok, color me confused. You say multiclass character want ALL the benefits and none of the drawbacks. But then you "fuck" the rules. So which is it?

As for "modern rules", I don't know what you mean? Like I said in my experience with multiclassing, as it pertains to 3e/Pathfinder - 4e - and 5e, the Multiclass rules weren't problematic at all, at least power-gaming and "wanting all the phat powerz" was concerned. Maybe in previous editions it was different? Fuck if I know as I don't (nor could be coerced) to play by play them.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;877453The older style treats characters like glorified Monopoly pieces.  They're expendable, and a lot of the old adventures (if you used them) challenge the player's skill of deduction and reasoning.  The stats were just there for mechanical reasons, not personality ones.

Remember, we're from the 'New School' (Whatever the fuck that means) which OG loves to remind us about, over and over and over, about how the game is meant to be played, because he was there.

I have to remind myself that that is the dominant perspective on this board. Its very different from what I'm used too so its hard to find much common ground.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;877600Fuck the rules.  I play the game I want to play.  Fuck "modern rules".

Old Fart has spoken!

(http://www.episcopalcafe.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/off-my-lawn.jpg)

Quote from: Nexus;877611I have to remind myself that that is the dominant perspective on this board. Its very different from what I'm used too so its hard to find much common ground.

No, his character just got touched by Old School in a bad way.

Quote from: Nexus;877611I have to remind myself that that is the dominant perspective on this board. Its very different from what I'm used too so its hard to find much common ground.

Christopher Brady and I have, from appearances, similar experiences from what he'd consider "older style" games. Characters were straight up more fragile back then. This isn't a bad or good thing, it just IS.

From what I remember as a 1st level Fighter in AD&D you rolled d10 + Con for your starting hit points. This, on average, gave you something around 8 to 10, maybe 12 (if you rolled really well) hit points to go out and fight monsters with. 3e you started at max HD + Con for your first level. So every fighter was at least guaranteed 10 off the bat. For wizards you were automatically granted 4 + Con in starting HP. And back then, taking things like the Toad familiar (+3 more HP) and the Toughness feat (+3 more HP) helped out A LOT, giving most average Wizards something like 10 - 13 HP at 1st level!!

So the idea of quick-to-die characters drastically declined as the edition rolled on, thus giving players a reason to create a more long-winded backstory. Now I still require a backup for my players since death happens quite regularly, even in games like 3.PF, 4e, and 5e.

Quote from: Batman;877596Well the rules for the past 16 years pertaining to D&D doesn't even come close to that, so I think it's you that needs to keep up.

And neither Gronan or I are talking about multiclassing within the rules. We are noting players wanting to jettison or bypass a rule to allow themselves more power than the rest of the group.

Neither of us cares about multiclassing if the player accepts the inherint limitations such as levelling slower, some armour/weapon restrictions, etc. Or the fact that in 5e you have a limited pool of 20 levels to spend. Assuming the DM even allows it as it is an option. Not a core.

Quote from: Omega;877628And neither Gronan or I are talking about multiclassing within the rules. We are noting players wanting to jettison or bypass a rule to allow themselves more power than the rest of the group.

Then that's not really Multiclassing, that's just being an ass and cheating. So yeah I agree that ass-hats that cheat are bad.

Quote from: Omega;877628Neither of us cares about multiclassing if the player accepts the inherent limitations such as leveling slower, some armour/weapon restrictions, etc. Or the fact that in 5e you have a limited pool of 20 levels to spend. Assuming the DM even allows it as it is an option. Not a core.

Cool, so then NOT multiclassing. Glad we cleared that up.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;877562Yeah.  It's never "At age eight I learned to milk cows, at age twelve I learned to make cheese, at age fifteen I started training with the local levy and now I'm seventeen and restless," it's always "At age nine I was taught magic by Morgan le Fey until she decided I knew more than she did, at age twelve I was taught to use a sword by Inigo Montoya until he decided I knew more than he did, then Fezzini taught me strategy until..."

Tone mismatch.  When I say beforehand explicitly that it's a D&D game starting at first level and you agree, don't expect me to take your WonderBoy character bio seriously.

And I might be less strident if I'd ever seen it otherwise.

Really?  Never had this.

A backstory in the 30 years of my gaming experience has always been about WHY they adventure and how the entire party knows each other.  Childhood friends, goals they want to achieve, encounters that made them '1st level' (the quotes are there for games that don't use a level system, but still start you off as a less than skilled adventurer) little things and notable events.  Reasons that make them more willing to adventure, than stay at home in the farm, the guild, the mountain.  What drives to run into danger instead of the normal human response of keeping their head down and hoping the danger would pass.

Maybe it's because of my generation's willingness to actually read and try to emulate bits of the fantasy novels we loved.  We never wanted to be Conan, or Gandalf, or Gord of Greyhawk, we wanted to be LIKE THEM, but have our own 'stories' or more accurately adventures.

I'm really sorry you got these 14 year old sounding powergamers at your table, who only looked for advantages and edges and constant oneupsmanship.  I guess it's normal from those who come from a competitive gaming background?  Iunno, but it's something I hear often from those who compete, rather than cooperate.

Quote from: Nexus;877546Having most of players write backstory by the standards here I can see I've had few of any asshat special snowflakes among them. Generally its been the opposite where players that didn't want invest the effort and time into fiting their character into the premise of the game and setting that wanted to special snow flakes, blank slate murder hobos or, somewhat worse for, characters with multiple choice backgrounds that are whatever gives them the most advantageous at the time.

I don't think I've ever had anyone giving me a backstory of any length who turned out to be any more of an asshat than any other player.  They've proven to be engaged roleplayers who are unusually interested in the intricacies of the setting, and not one whit more prone to murderhobodom or snowflakehood than anyone else.

I also don't get some of the criticisms:

Quote from: CRKrueger;877541... in my experience, someone who writes two pages of backstory for a beginning character is going to write in stuff about their character that is to a certain degree world-building or world-editing.

I've got the densest setting I've ever seen.  But even with that, I haven't come up with everything: I haven't named every village or every noble house or every institution or every clash of arms in the Serpentwar.  I'm fine with players filling in some of the blanks.  This takes some of the creative heat off of me, never mind the benefits of having more brains than mine on the job.  

And if a player comes up with a detail I don't like or which contradicts something already in place?  C'mon, folks: since when do we lack the power to say "No?"  Any time someone wants to hand me a backstory, I wave a red pen in the air and make it clear that all details are up to me to decide if they're true or not ... even if the PC believes them to be true.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;877524Also, it's been my experience that the longer the backstory, the more time the player spends bitching that the rules don't "allow them to build their true character," which in a class-based game means having a multiclass character that does everything with no disadvantages, or in a point-based system having twice as many points as the game gives.  If I say we're starting D&D at first level, don't give me the backstory for an eighth-level character.

So stipulated, but not every one of us plays a game system (or plays the game system in that fashion) where beginning characters are fragile schmucks.  Beyond that, you're not seriously suggesting that a player unhappy that the rules only allow building lightweights is only unhappy if there's a backstory involved?  In any event, this is another issue well handled by a nine-second speech about how beginning PCs are more like Luke Skywalker picking sand out of his teeth on the farm than Jedi Master Luke taking down Darth Vader mano-a-mano.  (Hell, it didn't take me as much as nine seconds to type that.)

Yes, I get that some people were touched in bad places by players who wrote backstories.  But it's not as if we neuter combat because there are players who are combat-obsessed, or eliminate loot because some players go completely over the top in treasure-grubbing, or eliminate religion because some players RP priests or paladins poorly, or ban character creation -- here, here's your pregen -- because there are a lot of munchkin mini-maxers out there.

As a GM, I love backstories. They provide plothooks, they provide motivations, they make it easier to introduce NPCs, they're good for getting past the awkward "Why in the heck do these people want to adventure together?" They aid me in helping the players create their characters -- certainly even the one-line stories that imply Greater Coolness than some of you prefer -- like "I'm an ex-gladiator who bought his freedom" and "The king ordered the murder of my parents" -- suggest skill sets, advantages and disadvantages obvious to many of you.

Am I intimidated by them? Certainly not. Some are good, some are crap, some are too long, some don't tell me anything I couldn't have figured out from the character sheet ... yeah, I figure that someone with Farming skill and five weapon skills probably was a farmer who decided to go off to become a warrior, thanks ever so.

Quote from: Batman;877460Survives what, 1st level? 3rd? 10th? At what point in a character's level-span is he/she considered important enough for a more articulated backstory?

For me, it's at the beginning of the second session of play.  Their backstory is whatever happened in the first session.

Quote from: Nexus;877546So I don't think either preference isn't innately "better" or more prone to produce an obstructive player. Could just be cases of misaligned preferences. A heavy drama player can seem like  Special Snowflake in a more straight up adventure via dungeon crawl game with the reverse being true too.

I tend to agree.  "Develop at Start" vs. "Develop in Play" is more a matter of preference than anything else.  I think those of us who prefer Develop in Play just tend to be a bit defensive due to years of being told that Develop at Start is the One And Only Way To Truly Roleplay and anyone who creates a character without at least a novella's worth of backstory is a filthy munchkin powergamer who treats their so-called "characters" as nothing more than checkers on a board.  (Note:  Extreme exaggeration in the preceding statement is deliberate and intended for humorous effect, not to create a strawman of any participants in this thread.)

Quote from: Omega;877556This came up over on RPGG actually. Someone wanted to be a BX style Elf class in 5e. And multiclass both fighter and magic user to level 20. But levelling up like they were a single class character.

Did their concept of "B/X-style Elf" at least include doubling the XP requirements for each level?  (I assume that would still be broken, given that D&D5 apparently has a cap at level 20, but at least it would be less broken.)

/dumps oil and popcorn into cauldron in the center of flaming topic.
/clutches cauldron atop flaming self while screaming.
"Bring your own salt, motherfuckers! Ah ha ha ha ha ha! Aaaaaagh!"
:popcorn:

Quote from: CRKrueger;877469By the time the character is 10th level, they should have had such a rich adventuring life, that the backstory (whatever it was) would be meaningless.  Hell, that should be true at 5th.  What was Conan's backstory (authored by Howard)?

25 words doesn't mean sentences of 25 words.  You can fit a lot of description in a list of 25 nouns/adjectives.  If you have a detailed backstory, keep it to yourself and tell it in game if a PC or NPC ever asks you "So, how did you wind up here?" while you're on night watch.

Try leaving the GM/author hat on the shelf when you play.

In my experience it's the most immersive players who come up with the least elaborate backstory. 25 words is plenty.

Quote from: Batman;877536Ok? All I'm saying is that if the player wants to invest in a sheet or two of history and doesn't expect it to affect the current game or somehow give him/her an advantage, whats the problem? I'm certainly not going to discourage a player who wants to get more involved in the setting to establish his/her character.

Me neither, but they shouldn't expect me to actually read their backstory novel.

Quote from: jeff37923;877540Yeah, because it really helps immersion when all of the PCs are nothing but Blank Slates prior to the game. Might as well be playing Chess.....

You don't have to like what he likes. But complaining and misunderstanding is what I don't get. It's a straightforward approach and it works for people who like it. If you don't, that's fine. Play something else.

Personally I like characters with a little back story if that story explains why the PC is doing whatever the premise of the game is about doing and if their story connects that PC with one or more other PCs. (The WEG templates were good for giving simple, short suggestions for back story character connections.) But as a GM I'm not going to remember much more than a few bullet points so any overly lengthy, detailed background is just going to be forgotten and ignored by me. And I usually run a pretty detailed setting where consistency matters so anything you created that doesn't fit will be overruled. If your love of back story isn't disrupted by it being ignored and potentially overruled at any time and if you give me bullet points for the highlights or underline the half dozen important phrases so I don't actually have to carefully read pages of fiction, then write away.

Quote from: rawma;877557Bren has...

OK, Bren has ...

OK, Bren seldom does ...

... Bren knows ,,,

So Bren doesn't ...

Seriously, the most wariness I've ever had for various disruptive player types was when I was planning neither to play nor to GM.

rawma, who is so fascinated by everything I say that he mines four different threads to track it, has played with tens of thousands of people. He has the stats to prove it. Somewhere. And he knows that the legendary basement dwelling neckbearded lesbian stripper ninjas is totes for real. And he knows lots of transgendered people. Because he is hip and edgy (just look at his avatar). But unlike Jeff, rawma isn't afraid of playing with basement dwelling neckbearded lesbian stripper ninjas. He likes playing with them. Because he's hip. And edgy.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: Opaopajr;877719/dumps oil and popcorn into cauldron in the center of flaming topic.
/clutches cauldron atop flaming self while screaming.
"Bring your own salt, motherfuckers! Ah ha ha ha ha ha! Aaaaaagh!"
:popcorn:

/comes to check out thread's progress...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V0TYIO6yv4

Quote from: 3rik;877727Me neither, but they shouldn't expect me to actually read their backstory novel.

I wouldn't expect them to. Most of the time it's more for the players to get a better understanding of who their character is and their motivation behind adventuring aside from DM-driven plot hooks.

Quote from: Batman;877638Then that's not really Multiclassing, that's just being an ass and cheating. So yeah I agree that ass-hats that cheat are bad.

Cool, so then NOT multiclassing. Glad we cleared that up.

1: Its multiclassing without the limiters. Which was the point you were missing.

2: ...and seem to still be missing... Or are just trolling for trollings sake.

Quote from: Opaopajr;877719/dumps oil and popcorn into cauldron in the center of flaming topic.
/clutches cauldron atop flaming self while screaming.
"Bring your own salt, motherfuckers! Ah ha ha ha ha ha! Aaaaaagh!"
:popcorn:

We can extract all the salt we need from the tears of everybody weeping because I don't like multiclassing or character backgrounds.

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

The real answer for me is: Anything the Player presents more in terms of what they can do than what they are... more as a cluster of mechanical FX/Powers than a real character concept. That's when I roll my eyes... but not necessarily forbid.

Quote from: Omega;8777951: Its multiclassing without the limiters. Which was the point you were missing.

2: ...and seem to still be missing... Or are just trolling for trollings sake.

Or it doesn't matter.  I've seen how multiclassing works in 3.5, Star Wars d 20, and Pathfinder.  I don't like it.

I've never liked multiclassing, never have, never will.  Anybody who objects to me having this opinion needs to go outside and play a while.

Quote from: Bren;877729You don't have to like what he likes. But complaining and misunderstanding is what I don't get. It's a straightforward approach and it works for people who like it. If you don't, that's fine. Play something else.

You'd think?  The obvious answer to "I don't like this" is "I do. Different people like different things."  Or the answer to "every player I've seen who tries this wants to take more than their fair share of the spotlight" is "I'm sorry your players suck."  Or, hell, use the Ignore List.  There's a reason it exists.

But there is this desperate, farcical, pathetic need to prove my purely subjective, personal opinion WRONG.  Mere disagreement isn't enough.  I feel like I'm dealing with The Auditors; my opinion cannot merely be disagreed with, it must never have been.  Yeah, I'm tubby and have a white beard, but I didn't think I looked THAT much like the Hogfather.  No tusks, for one thing.

It's not even like I've achieved supervillain status.  Supervillains are at least exercising their powers when they cause pain, anguish, and suffering.  All I have to do is hold thoughts to unleash untold anguish upon the world.

Great Zot!  That's it! I HAVE ACHIEVED APOTHEOSIS!  I am become Cthulhu -- my thoughts are so black, so twisted, so horrific, so unutterably alien that the merest brushing of them against a mere mortal mind sends that mind into the shrieking, gibbering, howling abyss of deepest madness!!!

Crom's hairy nutsack, there has GOT to be a way to monetize this!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;877804Yeah, I'm tubby and have a white beard...

Was that a beard or was it a pallid fringe of tenticular growths that seemed to wave in time to sound of some unholy piping?

QuoteCrom's hairy nutsack, there has GOT to be a way to monetize this!

Hey, I have an idea. Why don't you write a book and sell it. :p

Quote from: Bren;877812Hey, I have an idea. Why don't you write a book and sell it. :p

Heh.

I was thinking in particular monetizing my sanity-blasting thoughts.

"Pay Gronan $50 to NOT come to your gaming convention!"

"Buy sweepstakes tickets to have Gronan NOT visit your gaming group!"

"GRONAN REPELLANT!  $25 per can!  Now with 75% more Backstory!"

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;877813Heh.

I was thinking in particular monetizing my sanity-blasting thoughts.

"Pay Gronan $50 to NOT come to your gaming convention!"

"Buy sweepstakes tickets to have Gronan NOT visit your gaming group!"

"GRONAN REPELLANT!  $25 per can!  Now with 75% more Backstory!"

Yeah there might be something in that. ;)

Also look at lawn and garden supplies. I think Get Off My Lawn Bug and Kid Repellent and Gro-Nan Lawn Fertilizer could be big.

Quote from: Bren;877816Gro-Nan Lawn Fertilizer

"Made with GEN U WINE GRONAN GROGNARD BULLSHIT!"

Quote from: Bren;877729rawma, who is so fascinated by everything I say that he mines four different threads to track it, has played with tens of thousands of people. He has the stats to prove it. Somewhere. And he knows that the legendary basement dwelling neckbearded lesbian stripper ninjas is totes for real. And he knows lots of transgendered people. Because he is hip and edgy (just look at his avatar). But unlike Jeff, rawma isn't afraid of playing with basement dwelling neckbearded lesbian stripper ninjas. He likes playing with them. Because he's hip. And edgy.  :rolleyes:

The amount of misrepresentation in so few lines is indeed truly eye-rolling. I will ignore Bren's pathetic attempt to distract from his contradiction fest and respond as if someone were seriously making these assertions.

I do not "mine" threads; I read them. That's a thing people do here, although perhaps less often before replying than they should. :p I bookmarked Bren's original response to jeff37923 to respond later, intending to write what came after "Seriously, " (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=877557&postcount=275) and to point out what Bren later pointed out in his post about how it was unlikely he would have met someone transgendered. I bookmarked the other posts because they contradicted and rebutted that first one in such a thoroughly hilarious manner. Often it's too late or too much work to reply to posts I've bookmarked, but the overall trainwreck here was too glorious not to share.

I have gamed with, at my most generous estimate, no more than 500 people; that's fewer than the number of people who attended the largest convention I ran, which represented a lot more risk than spoiling one gaming session. So one can perhaps understand why that generated more concern about disruptive people than my own gaming.

Yes, I've met a lot of outliers for playing with that few; they were mostly at open gaming tables and frankly the really unpleasant ones were from 1977 to 1982 or so. Probably geek social fallacies were at work. It doesn't change that I have met such people while gaming.

I've gamed with three transgender people; I would probably not be comfortable discussing transgender issues with any of them, but we had a good time gaming. And one I only know about because another player who does know her told me.

No, I don't like playing with people of the sort jeff37923 warned about.

Much as I might like to be thought hip and edgy, I don't even see it in my avatar; if it's in the avatar it's because an eighteen year old player made me that avatar at my request and put it there by mistake or as a joke. But maybe I am hip or can credibly claim to be! :cool: Everyone eating popcorn--send me a PM if and only if you think I'm NOT hip! :D

One thing I did omit in my previous post was mocking Bren for believing that his own experience (whether likely or unlikely) did anything beyond proving that jeff37923's extreme over-the-top hyperbole was not absolutely literally 100% true, which would hardly be a revelation to anyone. Most likely that's just Bren exhibiting such an extreme level of narcissism that it's sad and not funny.

Back to the popcorn. Opaopajr! Self-immolate another cauldron for me! No salt; it's bad for me.
:popcorn:

Quote from: Ravenswing;877668I've got the densest setting I've ever seen.  But even with that, I haven't come up with everything: I haven't named every village or every noble house or every institution or every clash of arms in the Serpentwar.  I'm fine with players filling in some of the blanks.  This takes some of the creative heat off of me, never mind the benefits of having more brains than mine on the job.

But do you need more than a couple of lines to describe it? Most lead characters in movies or novels can be described accurately and concisely in  two, maybe three lines, tops. For example:

Captain Blood:

(http://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/photo.goodreads.com/hostedimages/1441038424i/16054541._SX540_.jpg)

• former doctor and naval officer wrongly accused of treason and sold into slavery


• wants to escape and get revenge against Colonel Bishop, but is in love with Bishop's niece

Two lines, twenty-nine words total -that's really all you need.

QuoteYes, I get that some people were touched in bad places by players who wrote backstories.  But it's not as if we neuter combat because there are players who are combat-obsessed, or eliminate loot because some players go completely over the top in treasure-grubbing, or eliminate religion because some players RP priests or paladins poorly, or ban character creation -- here, here's your pregen -- because there are a lot of munchkin mini-maxers out there.

As a GM, I love backstories. They provide plothooks, they provide motivations, they make it easier to introduce NPCs, they're good for getting past the awkward "Why in the heck do these people want to adventure together?" They aid me in helping the players create their characters -- certainly even the one-line stories that imply Greater Coolness than some of you prefer -- like "I'm an ex-gladiator who bought his freedom" and "The king ordered the murder of my parents" -- suggest skill sets, advantages and disadvantages obvious to many of you.

I don't ban it -hell, I don't even bust a player's balls for writing an extensive backstory- nor do I encourage it. I do roll my eyes because with a new 1st level PC there's a good chance the player just wasted his or her time, since the odds of being killed are pretty good (giant rats are capable of killing 1st level PCs in single combat).

Quote from: Omega;8777951: Its multiclassing without the limiters. Which was the point you were missing.

2: ...and seem to still be missing... Or are just trolling for trollings sake.

So, in other words, cheating. Got it. Because multiclassing, regardless of edition, has at least SOME requirements or needed investment (levels, feats, ability scores, sticking to favored classes, XP penalties, etc.) by the rules and ignoring them is wrong. Glad we clarified that.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;877801Or it doesn't matter.  I've seen how multiclassing works in 3.5, Star Wars d 20, and Pathfinder.  I don't like it.

I've never liked multiclassing, never have, never will.  Anybody who objects to me having this opinion needs to go outside and play a while.

Like it or dont, thats your prerogative. I'm just pointing out that doing so isn't unbalanced or broken mechanically speaking.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;877804You'd think?  The obvious answer to "I don't like this" is "I do. Different people like different things."  Or the answer to "every player I've seen who tries this wants to take more than their fair share of the spotlight" is "I'm sorry your players suck."  Or, hell, use the Ignore List.  There's a reason it exists.

But there is this desperate, farcical, pathetic need to prove my purely subjective, personal opinion WRONG.  Mere disagreement isn't enough.  I feel like I'm dealing with The Auditors; my opinion cannot merely be disagreed with, it must never have been.  Yeah, I'm tubby and have a white beard, but I didn't think I looked THAT much like the Hogfather.  No tusks, for one thing.

It's not even like I've achieved supervillain status.  Supervillains are at least exercising their powers when they cause pain, anguish, and suffering.  All I have to do is hold thoughts to unleash untold anguish upon the world.

Great Zot!  That's it! I HAVE ACHIEVED APOTHEOSIS!  I am become Cthulhu -- my thoughts are so black, so twisted, so horrific, so unutterably alien that the merest brushing of them against a mere mortal mind sends that mind into the shrieking, gibbering, howling abyss of deepest madness!!!

Crom's hairy nutsack, there has GOT to be a way to monetize this!

I'll support Bren's idea with the book. For that matter, I'd support the book as well, when it gets to a KS;).
But the "Gro-Nan repellant" sounds cool, too:D!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;877799We can extract all the salt we need from the tears of everybody weeping because I don't like multiclassing or character backgrounds.

How can you even have a multiclass background in AD&D ??? You have to. You know. Gain a level before you can start multiclassing. Not to mention meet the requirements.

And I thought multiclassing wasnt even possible in OD&D? It isnt in BX.

So that should be a red flag right out the gate.

Quote from: Batman;877844So, in other words, cheating. Got it. Because multiclassing, regardless of edition, has at least SOME requirements or needed investment (levels, feats, ability scores, sticking to favored classes, XP penalties, etc.) by the rules and ignoring them is wrong. Glad we clarified that.

Keep struggling.

What is this National Troll Week?

Quote from: Omega;877882Keep struggling.

What is this National Troll Week?

Sure, and your the main event. And geez, talk about fucking convoluted bull shit.

Quote from: AsenRG;877864I'll support Bren's idea with the book. For that matter, I'd support the book as well, when it gets to a KS;).
But the "Gro-Nan repellant" sounds cool, too:D!

We could do a swear-jar equivalent. Every time Gronan does something extra Gronan-y (or fails to do so, I'm not clear which way you want this to swing), we add a buck to a KS (or Patreon, whatever) for the eventual publication of that book. :D

Quote from: Omega;877880How can you even have a multiclass background in AD&D ??? You have to. You know. Gain a level before you can start multiclassing. Not to mention meet the requirements.

And I thought multiclassing wasnt even possible in OD&D? It isnt in BX.

So that should be a red flag right out the gate.

Unless I'm the one who is confused, multiclassing starts at level 1 in pre-WotC D&D. I think you are thinking of dual classing. Multiclassing exists in OD&D in the elf being a fighting man and a magic user (although you chose which role you were being on a given day, which is a bit different than later multi-classing). There's also some wording towards other options, but the rules for doing so aren't spelled out.

As regards backstory, I don't need a novel but I really like it when characters have some reason to adventure, and also some reason to adventure together. Ideally, we come up with these backstories and links between characters in a combination of email or whatever before the first session and in the first session. That first session may itself provide the "call to adventure" for the characters. We also have spaces on our character sheets for "weird thing that happened in your youth" possibly their first contract with magic or the supernatural for my new campaign, or inciting incident that marked the character as different from their stay-at-home brethren. There are also spaces there for Passions (Hate Harronan Settlers, Pursue Forbidden Knowledge, Love Agatha Frostdaughter). And a section for family and its reputation, Rivals, Contacts, Enemies, Social Class, Cults, etc. So just by filling in the character sheet you have a fairly good backstory set up, with links to the world and other characters baked in. This is for RuneQuest though, where being from a specific world, culture, profession, and family is part of the game and its concerns.

All that said, if I'm playing B/X D&D, I think a single line is enough, for a character concept. Outcast Elf, Ex-Mercenary Fighter, Scholarly Magic User, as short as that.

Quote from: 3rik;877727Me neither, but they shouldn't expect me to actually read their backstory novel.

But it's a necessity for them to read any printouts you give them, eh?

Never mind that -- quite possibly you've never given a player any, and you're completely fine with them not reading the rules to the game you play.

As for me ... I not only encourage players to give me backstories, I reward those who do.  And even with those incentives, over the 35 years since the first backstory I was handed, only once have I seen one as much as five pages long.  The vast majority top out at a page and a half.

Given that the three corebooks of the most popular game on this forum top out at over seven hundred pages total, considering a couple of pages of backstory an imposition akin to being forced to read a "novel" is just, well ... string quartet worthy

:boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo:

Quote from: markfitz;877898As regards backstory, I don't need a novel but I really like it when characters have some reason to adventure, and also some reason to adventure together. Ideally, we come up with these backstories and links between characters in a combination of email or whatever before the first session and in the first session. That first session may itself provide the "call to adventure" for the characters. We also have spaces on our character sheets for "weird thing that happened in your youth" possibly their first contract with magic or the supernatural for my new campaign, or inciting incident that marked the character as different from their stay-at-home brethren. There are also spaces there for Passions (Hate Harronan Settlers, Pursue Forbidden Knowledge, Love Agatha Frostdaughter). And a section for family and its reputation, Rivals, Contacts, Enemies, Social Class, Cults, etc. So just by filling in the character sheet you have a fairly good backstory set up, with links to the world and other characters baked in. This is for RuneQuest though, where being from a specific world, culture, profession, and family is part of the game and its concerns.

All that said, if I'm playing B/X D&D, I think a single line is enough, for a character concept. Outcast Elf, Ex-Mercenary Fighter, Scholarly Magic User, as short as that.

Yeah what makes an appropriate backstory is very situational. The options for the original poll struck me the same way. Most of them really depend on the type of game the character is meant for.

Quote from: Ravenswing;877926But it's a necessity for them to read any printouts you give them, eh?i

With my group we just pass around index cards? ;)

Quote from: Willie the Duck;877896Multiclassing exists in OD&D in the elf being a fighting man and a magic user (although you chose which role you were being on a given day, which is a bit different than later multi-classing).

Yes. My first D&D character was an elf who did exactly that.

Quote from: Ravenswing;877926But it's a necessity for them to read any printouts you give them, eh?

I wish.

For Honor+Intrigue I give out a lot of handouts. Pages and pages. But I don't expect them to read and remember the handouts. That's why they are handouts. So they can refer later to the picture of Baron Saint-Giron or the write up on the Prince de Conde.

And I don't expect players to read the rules. It's nice if they do. But never required.

At the start of every campaign and every time a new PC is added thereafter, I go around the table and have everyone introduce their character and tell a few things about them.  During the game, everyone's background will be fleshed out more in the course of normal gameplay.  In general, I prefer fleshing out a PC's connections at the table as it becomes important to the game, but do not want to ruminate over a PC's connections during prep or away from the table.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;877804Great Zot!  That's it! I HAVE ACHIEVED APOTHEOSIS!  I am become Cthulhu -- my thoughts are so black, so twisted, so horrific, so unutterably alien that the merest brushing of them against a mere mortal mind sends that mind into the shrieking, gibbering, howling abyss of deepest madness!!!

Iä! Iä! Gronan Fhtagn!

Quote from: Bren;878033For Honor+Intrigue I give out a lot of handouts. Pages and pages. But I don't expect them to read and remember the handouts. That's why they are handouts. So they can refer later to the picture of Baron Saint-Giron or the write up on the Prince de Conde.

And I don't expect players to read the rules. It's nice if they do. But never required.

Same experience. Handouts may get read, but seldom remembered.  These days I might write backstory for me if I want to remember the details because writing spurs memory for me.  I do a lot less of it than I used to, though, due to having more experience, and a lack of time to mull. I think maybe 4 of the players I ever had has ever read the rules extensively. Of course, all of them GM, as well.

I can put most character backstories on an index card.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;878306I can put most character backstories on an index card.

I think the largest one I've written was two pages withe shortest about 2-3 paragraphs.

Quote from: Nexus;878311I think the largest one I've written was two pages withe shortest about 2-3 paragraphs.

At MOST I aim for a page an a half.  But I can break down the various points into an index card.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;878335At MOST I aim for a page an a half.  But I can break down the various points into an index card.

I mostly write until it feels done. For some games that means something lengthier particularly if there's aspects of the character to be defined (items or note, contacts, power descriptions, etc) or the characters are assumed to have some history behind them already. Some settings and games feel like more flowery or cinematic backgrounds are more appropriate like Exalted.

So brooding clinically insane lone half-vampire drow are definitely a "no" at the table? Right? :hmm:

While the jury is out on the male Tiefling who can't remember that he was a girl once before trying on that darn girdle? Right? :o

But a mermaid paladin who lost her kingdom under the sea is fine? Right? :cool:

Quote from: Omega;878485But a mermaid paladin who lost her kingdom under the sea is fine? Right? :cool:

Only in a pirates or other seagoing campaign. In a dungeon delvers game she is just one more special snowflake disrupting every session. ;)

Quote from: Omega;878485So brooding clinically insane lone half-vampire drow are definitely a "no" at the table? Right? :hmm:

So Blade is right out, huh?

I am decidedly pro-human and make it clear at the start of each campaign that if a player chooses something else they will be the butt of some jokes.

Quote from: Old One Eye;878503I am decidedly pro-human and make it clear at the start of each campaign that if a player chooses something else they will be the butt of some jokes.

That's unfortunate given that RPGs are one of the few venues where you have the opportunity to personally explore outside the human perspective, but I understand.

Quote from: Nexus;878493So Blade is right out, huh?

Considering he sucked the enjoyment out of every Midnight Sons series he appeared in. YES!

Quote from: Old One Eye;878503I am decidedly pro-human and make it clear at the start of each campaign that if a player chooses something else they will be the butt of some jokes.

Why demean the player for playing a non-human?

I can see the character standing out or meeting various prejudices. But setting out to ridicule the player seems more than a little off kilter when you could have just said "This is a human PCs only campaign" instead of fucking with the player?

Quote from: Nexus;878493So Blade is right out, huh?

I like him...  :(

Quote from: Christopher Brady;878523I like him...  :(

I do too! I was being tongue in cheeck "half vampire drow (since drow obviously black people, right?). For the :D though.

Quote from: Omega;878522Why demean the player for playing a non-human?

I can see the character standing out or meeting various prejudices. But setting out to ridicule the player seems more than a little off kilter when you could have just said "This is a human PCs only campaign" instead of fucking with the player?

I play with friends where we all rib each other.  It is a running joke that my best friend threatens to punch me in the nose about once a week.  We dog each other about stupid stuff we did 20 years ago.  Rest assured that I get every bit as much as I take.

If you cannot take a joke and dish out a better one, I have no desire to spend my free time with such a stick in the pants.

Quote from: Old One Eye;878541If you cannot take a joke and dish out a better one, I have no desire to spend my free time with such a stick in the pants.

I should sig this, would you mind:)?

Quote from: AsenRG;878557I should sig this, would you mind:)?

Roll with it if you like.  I've certainly dropped out of groups that got their panties in a wad for cracking a few jokes.

Quote from: Old One Eye;878541If you cannot take a joke and dish out a better one, I have no desire to spend my free time with such a stick in the pants.

There's joking around and then there's mean-spirited fuckery. It can be *surprisingly* subjective.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;878335At MOST I aim for a page an a half.  But I can break down the various points into an index card.

Quote from: Nexus;878482I mostly write until it feels done. For some games that means something lengthier particularly if there's aspects of the character to be defined (items or note, contacts, power descriptions, etc) or the characters are assumed to have some history behind them already. Some settings and games feel like more flowery or cinematic backgrounds are more appropriate like Exalted.

I'm genuinely curious: What exactly do you guys get out of all of this effort? The closest thing I can think of when other players would ask me to draw sketches of their characters, based on what the PCs looked like and their gear. I had to stop because PCs have this habit of dying.

Quote from: Elfdart;878676I'm genuinely curious: What exactly do you guys get out of all of this effort? The closest thing I can think of when other players would ask me to draw sketches of their characters, based on what the PCs looked like and their gear. I had to stop because PCs have this habit of dying.

For me, it helps me play my character as a 'role'.  See, I'm a firm believer that your past helps form who you are today.  Whether or not it's something you are mostly proud of, or not.  What you wish to accomplish in the future, so on and so forth.

Example.  Daughter of a tyrant, whom she hates, grew up watching all the depravities committed.  So, she becomes a free spirited hero of the people.  Growing to be a guerrilla style fighter, learning how to fight back.

So now, I have an idea of how I'd play her.  In D&D, that would mean a Chaotic Good fighting person.  Likely a Ranger, hopefully able to swing a decently high Charisma (like higher than 9.)

Now, in a Dungeon running campaign, in which we do nothing but do commando style room clearing for loot, the above is admittedly, pretty useless.  But in the games I tend to play and run, which has all sorts of settings and explorations, a background that allows me to interact with NPCs is fun and useful.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;878681For me, it helps me play my character as a 'role'.  See, I'm a firm believer that your past helps form who you are today.  Whether or not it's something you are mostly proud of, or not.  What you wish to accomplish in the future, so on and so forth.

Example.  Daughter of a tyrant, whom she hates, grew up watching all the depravities committed.  So, she becomes a free spirited hero of the people.  Growing to be a guerrilla style fighter, learning how to fight back.

So now, I have an idea of how I'd play her.  In D&D, that would mean a Chaotic Good fighting person.  Likely a Ranger, hopefully able to swing a decently high Charisma (like higher than 9.)

Now, in a Dungeon running campaign, in which we do nothing but do commando style room clearing for loot, the above is admittedly, pretty useless.  But in the games I tend to play and run, which has all sorts of settings and explorations, a background that allows me to interact with NPCs is fun and useful.

Pretty much the same here. A good solid background makes the character feel "real" and interesting to role play because I can get inside their head. The GMs I've played with use the backgrounds just like other elements for story hooks to personalize the game for the PCs. And to get some ideas of what I want to see emphasized or explored or at least get some ideas for some good places to start asking.

I generally don't play Dungeon Fantasy or similar types of games with high lethality and PC turn over. The types of rpgs I do play it feels more interesting and useful to have characters with more flesh out backgrounds particularly for role playing and social interaction with other PCs and NPCs.

Basically, its fun and helps me get into the game.

Quote from: Elfdart;878676I'm genuinely curious: What exactly do you guys get out of all of this effort? The closest thing I can think of when other players would ask me to draw sketches of their characters, based on what the PCs looked like and their gear. I had to stop because PCs have this habit of dying.

Bemusingly Jannet worked out one paragraph long backstory for her half-orc character and just keeps re-using it. :D

Kefra sums hers up in a sentence or so and then embellishes as we go.

As a DM I still havent a clue what Daern, Nox and James' characters backstories are. I know Nox was some sort of criminal or had some training before the adventure started and thats about it.

There was one adventure at a convention that had us meeting and off and running with not a single breather thereafter to the point I never knew who the other four characters I was with were other than their classes and races.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;878681Example.  Daughter of a tyrant, whom she hates, grew up watching all the depravities committed.  So, she becomes a free spirited hero of the people.  Growing to be a guerrilla style fighter, learning how to fight back.

This is consistent with the amount of background I look for.  Is there a benefit to writing it down?  I understand if proper names are involved to help remember, but the above generalities would not need to be written do they?

Quote from: Old One Eye;878755This is consistent with the amount of background I look for.  Is there a benefit to writing it down?  I understand if proper names are involved to help remember, but the above generalities would not need to be written do they?

For me?  Yes.  I have a terrible memory (Adult ADHD sucks) so I need to do something to keep it fresh in my memory, which for me is writing stuff down by hand, or typing it out and having it close at hand.

I will also often work it out to a page and a half to flesh out NPC names for the DM/GM to use (or if I'm running it, stuff I can use to keep the players engaged.)

Quote from: Christopher Brady;878762For me?  Yes.  I have a terrible memory (Adult ADHD sucks) so I need to do something to keep it fresh in my memory, which for me is writing stuff down by hand, or typing it out and having it close at hand.

I will also often work it out to a page and a half to flesh out NPC names for the DM/GM to use (or if I'm running it, stuff I can use to keep the players engaged.)

I find the act of writing things down helps focus my thoughts too. If I kept it in my head I'd bounce, constantly append and revise, etc or get things muddled. I have allot of ideas so writing stuff down helps keep it straight. Plus, personally, I enjoy writing in and of itself.

Quote from: Nexus;878771I find the act of writing things down helps focus my thoughts too. If I kept it in my head I'd bounce, constantly append and revise, etc or get things muddled. I have allot of ideas so writing stuff down helps keep it straight. Plus, personally, I enjoy writing in and of itself.

Yeah, I'm a writer as well.

Quote from: ElfdartI'm genuinely curious: What exactly do you guys get out of all of this effort? The closest thing I can think of when other players would ask me to draw sketches of their characters, based on what the PCs looked like and their gear. I had to stop because PCs have this habit of dying.

To give an idea of my perspective when it comes to character longevity I've been playing rpgs since I was 11 and I'm 43. I've had allot of characters but over all that play time some in games that ran for years. In that time I've had 5, maybe 6 of them die. Several have retired, resolved their issues, the campaign reached a conclusion or folded. So I really tend to think the long term, plus the writing isn't really an effort for me. Its part of the fun and if the character dies I feel its more compelling if they're developed and played well before.

Quote from: Necrozius;878578There's joking around and then there's mean-spirited fuckery. It can be *surprisingly* subjective.

+1.

Honestly, the semi-whining, semi-sneering "Canchu take a joke?" from someone who knows he's being an asshole is a cliche.

Quote from: Elfdart;878676I'm genuinely curious: What exactly do you guys get out of all of this effort? The closest thing I can think of when other players would ask me to draw sketches of their characters, based on what the PCs looked like and their gear. I had to stop because PCs have this habit of dying.

Errrr ... some tables have a much lower mortality rate than others?  You can't be unaware of that.

Beyond that, you know this is a spectrum.  There are players for whom naming a character something better than "Charlie the Cleric" is a waste of time, and they put no more thought into their character than they would to deciding which token to use for the Monopoly game the gang's about to play.  There are players who do up complete family trees, campaigns where doing so is a downright benefit, and where they care about the color and fabric of their garb.

I don't think it's any weirder a spectrum than in any other field of human endeavor, where to some people "car" means "I bought the cheapest thing on the lot and it gets me from Point A to Point B," and to others "Yeah, that's my baby, a '68 Wolfsburg-limited edition, I finished rebuilding the engine last week, and Brenda knows a job-lot dealer who's got original rear bumpers in stock," ... or to some people "music" means "Yeah, I like music, I guess," and to others "Screw that, the definitive recording of Messiah was the Handel & Haydn Society's 1976 album, hang on, let me put it on the turntable and you'll know for yourself!"

Quote from: Ravenswing;878866+1.

Honestly, the semi-whining, semi-sneering "Canchu take a joke?" from someone who knows he's being an asshole is a cliche.

Errrr ... some tables have a much lower mortality rate than others?  You can't be unaware of that.

Beyond that, you know this is a spectrum.  There are players for whom naming a character something better than "Charlie the Cleric" is a waste of time, and they put no more thought into their character than they would to deciding which token to use for the Monopoly game the gang's about to play.  There are players who do up complete family trees, campaigns where doing so is a downright benefit, and where they care about the color and fabric of their garb.

I don't think it's any weirder a spectrum than in any other field of human endeavor, where to some people "car" means "I bought the cheapest thing on the lot and it gets me from Point A to Point B," and to others "Yeah, that's my baby, a '68 Wolfsburg-limited edition, I finished rebuilding the engine last week, and Brenda knows a job-lot dealer who's got original rear bumpers in stock," ... or to some people "music" means "Yeah, I like music, I guess," and to others "Screw that, the definitive recording of Messiah was the Handel & Haydn Society's 1976 album, hang on, let me put it on the turntable and you'll know for yourself!"

That's.....pretty much spot on. It really depends on the player and what/how they envision their character in the game. Some people don't go all that in-depth while others go heavily in-depth. Neither is right or wrong. I will say that some campaigns it's easier to just throw a character together without any forethought to past or name or anything like that. I've definitely seen my fair share of Frank the Tank fighter, Joe the Cleric, and Steve the Ranger.

OK, I wanted to get permission from my Players before I did this and now have it. These below are my Players' characters' backstories for the current Mongoose Traveller 1e game I am running.

Quote from: Amius AidenAmius Iden

(son of Bernard Iden)




Drifter   

Rank 3

Psi: 3

Terms: 4

Age:  34

World:  Low Tech / High pop.

Ship:  Steller Osprey

EVENTS:

1st Term: Took a risky job. Pulling Lindie Yates ass out of the fire.  He pissed some people off, and I smoother over the situation.  

2nd Term: Encountered a Psionic institute.  Psi 3

3rd Term:  Gained Jack of all Trades.

4th Term:  Committed a crime. Lost 1 Social

GENERAL MISHAP:  Ran afoul of criminal organization + 1 enemy.  

GENERAL BENEFITS / ENEMYS:  

2 contacts (Brenda & Marcus Crowder)

1 Ally

1 Weapon (body pistol)

1 enemy  

CHARACTER BIOGRAPHY:

Amius Iden was raised on Lunion by his god parents.  Brenda, and Marcus Crowder.  As soon as Amius turned 18 he left his god parents, and Lunion behind to become a drifter/wanderer, as a way of searching for his biological parents Belaura, and Bernard Iden.  While wandering around the solar system Amius takes a risky job extracting Lindie Yates out a system first contact mission.  Lindie disrupted a very important ritual involving leaving the past behind, and poo.  In his second term Amius is discovered by Psionic researchers, and is found to be Psi 3.  Amius never wanting to stay in one place for too long, and knowing that being psionic makes life difficult he leaves.  In his 4th term Amius is caught stealing food, which causes him to loose some respect with people.  Vowing never to be caught again, and have to suffer the embarrassment  again, Amius honed his skills in stealth, recon, and deception. With the help of Damon Swindle.  A legendary drifter known for his ability to go un-noticed almost anywhere.

Quote from: Baron Jett TuckerBaron Jett Tucker, retired Captain of the interstallar Navy, came
from a relatively grounded life on Rhylanor. His family was well off
enough to afford him access to higher education, which he would use to
kickstart his career in the   interstallar Navy. His father was a
prominent executive for Posli Express Manufacturing, a company which
produces many specialized parts needed on starships, and his mother
worked in the medical field. In his higher education, he studied
administration, public speaking and debate, and basic computer
science. It was all relatively par for course for someone of his upper
middle background. After graduation, he enlisted into the Navy. He
spent his first term as a flight      crewman piloting shuttles. His
assigned vessel participated in a battle on Kegena acting as orbital
support for Bevy against the local inhabitants, to assist in their
colonization of the plant. His activities during this engagement lead
 to a commission and his promotion to Ensign. His next term saw little
actual action, but it did lead to a new relationship sparking up with
a local from Rhylanor, Jenna Thezal, who works as a travel agent for
the Arrow of Banja Travel     Agency. The two met while Jett was
planning to take some leave and he had contacted the agency to work
out the details. Everything seemed well with his life from this point
through his next term. His promotions continued, and he made a    new
contact with another Naval officer, Jamy Carte. He would end up
transferred to Jamy's fleet, at the same rank, Sublieutenant.

   The next term in his career would be the start of things starting
to get a little hectic. He was assigned to a team of sensor operations
to gather intel on Solomani near the Regina sector. During sensor
sweeps, he encountered readings  that indicated a lone Vargr far from
Vargr land and behind enemy lines. He ended up rescuing Kroksar, who
had been stranded after a failed attack. The quality of intel his team
gathered and the rescue of the Vargr lead to another
promotion to Lieutenant. Jamy Carte was displeased with this, as he
was passed over for this promotion.

   Jett's next term saw him put in charge of the general logistical
runnings of a new ship he had been transferred to after becoming a
Lieutenant. He was working with a local merchant ship, which Lendi was
working aboard, to buy life      support supplies. He had left the
details of the sale to his Sublieutenant, Jula Rison. A month later,
many of the crew aboard the ship began to get sick and die. Jett would
have lost his career if it weren't for Lendi's help. Through an
investigation, it was revealed that Jula had resold the goods she had
purchased and pocketed the credits. She then bought cheaper supplies
that turned out to be tainted. Due to his quick resolution of the
matter and the a better deal      being brokered with Lendi and the
merchants who just wanted to gloss over the whole affair and not be
associated with the death of Navy men, he was promoted to Commander.
Jula, however, was courtmartialed and see Jett as an enemy from
then on.

   During the final full term, Jett was second in command of his ship
doing border patrol. He had a few small engagements, but nothing that
would overly stand out in the course of history. His ship had taken
port for some R&R and resupply and Jett was enjoying some of the local
spirits at one of the only bars on the planet. Normally, he would have
just had his drink aboard the ship, but it had been months since he
had stepped on solid ground. Jami Carte, his old
Sublieutenant, now a Lieutenant saw this as an oppotunity to rid
himself of this self-proclaimed rival. A backwoods starport near the
enemy border, attacks could happen. Commander Tucker should never have
left the ship, after all.         Jealousy and an strengthening
psychosis brought about by the stress of military life and the battles
they fought had turned Jami into a crazy, murderous bastard. In
another life, he would have been a good Traveller. In this one, he
   decided to take this time to try and have Commander Tucker killed.
Jett had been enjoying his time, speaking with a temporary local named
Amius who had spend his time wandering from port to port doing what
work he could find and enjoying  his freedom. The wanderer seemed to
sense something perhaps when the group of men walked into the bar as
he was the first to draw and fire. It was a quick gun fight, with
Comander Tucker and the wanderer Amius were the last of those
involved standing. Jett never found out who called for the attack, and
Lieutenant Jami could still possibly be serving even after Jett had
been promoted to Captain and moved on to his own ship.

   He ended up being a Captain of the Archimedes for all of two months
before things went south. He unknowingly got involved in a conspiracy
that lead to the distruction of his ship. If it were not for his
skills in naval tactics the      entire situation would have been
complete disaster and many more lives would have been lost. Jett still
has not connected the dots from the events. His actions earned him an
honorable discharge and he was given the title of Baron. What he
doesn't realize is this was to get him out of the way and to keep him
from asking questions about what really happened. The new Baron isn't
happy to just settle down and stay out of the way, however.

Quote from: Kroksar of Clan KuratarBackground of Kroksar of Clan Kuratar

Kroksar is a member of the Vargr race, subspecies Urzaeng.
   
Home Planet:  Trokath-             a world whose climate is most like the ancient Antarctic tundra of Terra.  It's majority population is Vargr, with large colonies of Urzaeng among their more common brethren.  Cold and barren, this frontier world on the outskirts of the Third Imperium is noted for its rich mineral deposits.  In addition to mining, the Imperium also finds it useful to recruit the Vargr population, particularly the Urzaeng, into their armed forces.

Back-Story:

Raised in the cold tundra of Trokath, Kroksar realized he had few options as he reached    adulthood.  He could become a miner, join the military of the Imperium, a hunter/farmer in the Wilderness, or join one of the pirate bands that always came through for trade.  Tired of the cold and rock he had endured most of his life, Kroksar signed up for the Marines as they were closest military recruiting station at the time, and he felt like his best bet to get off world.  Given his natural physical prowess, he excelled in boarding actions and close quarters combat.  It was also during this time that  he was fitted with a wafer jack and bionic eyes.  This further increased Kroksar's ability to serve in the Imperial Marines.

During combat actions against a faction lead by a religious fanatic in rebellion to the Empire, Kroksar's ship crash landed on a planet controlled by the fanatic's cult and was the only survivor.   After surviving in the wilderness, Kroksar was eventually rescued by the Imperium when they finally managed to stamp out the remaining cult members and bring the sector back into compliance.

Questioned and interrogated by his superior officers led Kroksar to frustration and anger at his treatment, when he felt grief should be felt instead for his comrades.  Between his frustration and anger, and the various unknowns surrounding the crashing of his ship, Kroksar was dismissed from further duty with the Marines.

Not wanting to return to his home planet and finding himself adrift with no job, Kroksar joined a corsair band aboard the Grey Coyote.  His training as a marine in tactics and boarding actions came in hand as the band pirated merchandise and vessels.  Between piracy and his new comrades, Kroksar began to wonder what the real difference between corsairs and Imperial marines were, besides the uniform.

During his first 4 years Kroksar made a contact in the criminal underworld, Marius Teff.  Teff was an agent and would occasionally send mercenary work out to the crew of the Grey Coyote, sometimes a heads up on a valuable cargo shipment, some bounty hunting if they were in the right sector, or in the right port a debt to be collected or two.

After spending another 4 years with the crew of the Grey Coyote, Kroksar was feeling confident among the crew.  Unfortunately, while attempting to overtake what they felt was a ripe target turned out to be a trap.  The ship was a trojan horse and contained several Imperial army fighters and some mercenaries.  Much of the raiding crew of the Grey Coyote was killed, but they managed to escape and lick their wounds in a remote sector.  Here Kroksar attempted to rally the corsair band to his side, but the band ended up splitting under two other leaders.

After putting back into a star port closer to the core worlds, the ship began its refitment and repairs.  One corsair band bought the ship shares of the others, with the other band on their way to procure their own ship.

Quote from: Lendi YatesLendi was a clone created illegally for the sole purpose of amusement of his single donor parent the Marquis Shofar Raygher. Since his tenth birthday Lendi was given a monthly synthetic hormone treatment that retarded his physical growth and stunted the onset of puberty. While this "Peter Pan Process" does not actually halt aging, he remained a pre-adolescent till his rescue at age fourteen, when the treatments were stopped.

 Lendi was found during a joint Navy/Scout raid of the Marquis' private asteroid residence in the system of Caliburn (E000514-A). When it was discovered that the Marquis' corporation employed the use of slave labor and that he supported foreign criminal regimes, his assets with in the Imperium's borders were ceased. At first it was believed that Lendi was the Marquis' son until genetic testing revealed the truth, it was also discovered that Lendi was sterile and had genetic biometric makers added to his DNA to differentiate him from the Marquis'.

Lendi was placed in an orphanage on the neighboring world of Caladbolg (B565776-A). His legal was mottled over by the government for two years before eventually being granted, where upon he took the last names of the Scout pilot and Marine that found him.  After being weaned off the Peter Pan hormones Lendi began aging, but the its lasting effects caused dramatic muscular development delay. t Resulting in his small stature, which he has never let stand in his way. He remained on Calabolg till he entered the Imperial Interstellar Scout Service, Exploration branch at the age of 18.  

During his first term with Scout Service Lendi had an opportunity to gather additional intelligence data while visiting the Kirrabilli Consulate compound. After grievously offending the consulate and his honored guest by consuming a portion of ceremonially molded dung pile from its consecrated alter, Lendi escapes the potentially fatal ritual "cleansing" through the timely intervention of Amius Iden an eccentric drifter that the Kirrabilli invited to the event. Lendi to this day questions the nature of all the food he eats and has been friends with Amius in spite of the nickname the drifter gave him "Potato-pop". (Age 19-22)

During Lendi's second term with the Scouts he was assigned as courier between the Imperial Research Station facility 'Delta' on Retinae (E8C69AA-9), a client state of the Third Imperium in the Querion Subsector and the Scout base on the Garda-Vilis (B978868-A). A number of the courier missions were clandestine in nature and under the direction of Imperial Naval Intelligence. Retinae is the homeworld of a mysterious, silicone-based Minor Race known as the Tashaki and just three parsecs from the Zhodani Consulate. Despite the seemly important nature of his assignments, eventually the Kirrabili incident began reared its' ugly head once again among his superiors. Soon it became evident that he was destine to be assigned ever lower profile missions with the IISS, so Lendi decided leave the service and join the Imperial Star Marines. (Age 23-26)

During his first four years with the Marines in the Jewell subsector Lendi didn't see much in the way of combat action but did meet the Odin Marrs. The two soldiers fell in love while stationed on Mongo (A568685-A), but as things became increasing more serious over the next two years Lendi became more anxious. He was keenly aware of Odin's desire to marry and to have children in particular. As the only heir of a family of peerage nobility, continuing the Marrs bloodline was paramount. While the splicing of genetic material from same-sex partners is possible (TL14), Lendi's unique genetic background and sterility made alternative DNA mixing impossible.  After divulging this to Odin, he is devastated by lover's utter rejection and abrupt end to their relationship. Distraught Lendi immediately takes an assignment in the Five Sisters subsector on the far rimward end of the Spinward Marches for his next term.  (Age 27-30)

For the next four years Lendi does tours on a number of naval ships which patrol between the seven Navy bases locate in the Five Sisters subsector as well as beyond the borders of Imperium. The most notable mission was during the final year of this term happens while serving on the Gazelle-class Close Escort Airedale tasked with conducting clandestine search for Zhodani Intelligence elements rumored to be in the system of Garoo (A2008CB-A). The culmination of operation happens in the system of Alenzar (C000414-9) as Lendi is part of a daring EVA boarding of a Zhodani Shiva-class Patrol Corvette damaged in order to capture personnel and recover intelligence data.  During the boarding Lendi's fire team encounter resistance from indeterminate number of Zhodani marines entrenched in the engineering section. Before they dislodge the defenders the Airedale detects a neutrino emission from the engineering section of the Patrol Corvette, Lendi's team is order off the Zhodani ship at once as his commander suspect that the entire situation is an elaborate trap.  Suddenly six Zhodani Tlatl-class 8-ton fighter appear over the horizon of the asteroid purging towards the Airedale and her sister ship the Foxhound on an attack vector. Over the opposite horizon appears a second undamaged Zhodani Shiva-class Patrol Corvette.  Lendi's team is just barely able to get back on board the Airedale as she turns to engage the approaching Patrol Corvette while the Foxhound engages the fighters. In the end the damaged Zhodani vessel is vaporized in a thermonuclear explosion, the Foxhound is dead in space trailing debris, the other Zhodani Patrol Corvette flees after recovering two of its remain fighters. The Airedale is unable to immediately pursue with a destroyed avionics bay and bridge hit. While Naval Intelligence call the operation a success, Lendi didn't feel that way having lost so many comrades with little to show for their sacrifice because of its clandestine nature. He chose not to reenlist. (Age 31-34)

Lendi rather fell into his civilian career as a Free Merchant rather than chose it.  Shortly after leaving the Imperial Marines Lendi headed to the local Imperial Interstellar Scout Service office with the intent on activating his long postponed detached service operation of a Scout/ Courier, though it was activated it would unfortunately take at several months before processing was complete and only then ship matching could begin. Fortunately, he ran into an old friend from the Scouts, Jonah Huxley, who convinced him to work for him till the Scout Service found him a ship. So Lendi became the pilot of the Killian's Rainbow a Beowulf-class Free Trader owned by the Huxley family. Jonah was the engineer, while his wife Kara was the Captain and navigator with their eldest son as a drive tech and the younger son was working as the ship's steward and medic if necessary.  In the years that followed Lendi began to feel truly a part of the Huxley clan and even tolerated being called "Uncle Lendi" by the boys.  

It was during his second year with the Killian's Rainbow that he met Navy Captain Jett Tucker and became embroiled in a plot to frame Captain Tucker (and consequently the Killian's Rainbow) for contaminated food stuff delivered to Tucker's ship supposedly from the Killian's Rainbow that resulted in the death several naval crewmembers. It was Lendi's dogged investigative pursuit that exposed the plot of a rival naval officer and exonerating the good Captain Tucker.

Lendi might remained with his new family on board the Killian's Rainbow had fate not tragically intervened. While at the coastal down port on Berengaria (B566644-7) in the Pax Rulin Subsector of Trojan Reach Sector, Lendi was just returning having left the ship early in the day to check in at the local IISS office and make dinner arrangements for the family using one of the perks of his newly acquired Traveller's Aid Society membership. As Lendi walked a crossed the landing platform towards the Killian's Rainbow he waving at Joff the eldest of the Huxley sons just before as the automated freight loader rolled into the cargo hold and exploded. The ship was destroyed outright and the structural integrity landing platform was so compromised that it everything on it slid into the sea, including an unconscious Lendi. When he woke in the Naval medical facility a week later he told the tragic news, while not all the bodies of the Huxley family were recovered they are believed to be dead. The further extent of the heartrending nightmare comes out in the following weeks of the investigation; while the attack was deliberate the Huxley's were not the intended targets. The Killian's Rainbow had been moved up in the landing cue after another vessel graciously gave up their spot due to some undisclosed technical problem at the time, that vessel the Gilded Fortune belong to the Bedu Tong criminal organization which is currently embroiled in a family civil-war between siblings for control. The Killian's Rainbow and her crew victims of a bomb meant for someone else.

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND NOTES:

The Marquis Shofar Raygher has continued eluded Imperial authorities through the use of his contacts and wealth that lied outside the Imperium on a number of worlds which are non-aligned or client-states of a foreign power. He is not an official enemy of Lendi, but it's unknown how he will react should their paths cross.

Kirrabilli are a sentient hexapodal species about four and a half feet high, living on a small, warm world orbiting a slow burning star. They change their sex over the course of their life and have three of them: male, female and neutered. Everything else is up to you.

"Year renewal and leaving of grievances ceremony": The dung of the family is gather on the first day of the Kirrabilli New Year by the members of the family that are currently in the neutered stage. A ceremonially sculpted dung pile representing all that must be left discarded for the new year to begin fresh (bad feeling, regrets, bad luck, etc.) and left on consecrated alter before being burned on the seventh day of the new year.

Odin Marrs and Lendi have not spoken since the end of their relationship. Encountering him would have a profound effect on Lendi, but the circumstances and mindset of the former lovers will shape the outcome. Lendi has confused feelings regard Odin and makes no effort to explore them.

It should be noted that a second fire team was assigned to take the bridge of the damaged Zhodani Shiva-class Patrol Corvette under Naval Intelligence command. If they were able to get access to the ship computer (and how with its psionic switches) is unknown to Lendi. But their proclamation of success leaves him to wonder.

The Bedu Tong is a criminal syndicate that operates near the region where it's suitable for the game. They are under the recently victorious leadership of the winner of the bloody succession war among rival siblings. While they are Lendi's enemy, he is not theirs, he's not even on their radar. At this point the organization is unaware of any slight he may have suffered for the loss of the Huxley family in the course of their succession war and disregard him like so many of their unfortunate victims.  
 
It should be noted that not all the bodies of the family members were recovered...

Lendi Yates   UPP:4A9CB1
Age: 38      Race: Human   Gender: Male   
Height/Weight: 5'5" (1.6m) / 126lbs. (54.4kg)
Hand: Left   Hair: Red   Eyes: Blue

Some of these are long, some not. However, none of them violate the setting that I am using for the game.

The main advantages in all this? The Players are invested in their characters and do not want them killed off, which means a lot of the dumber maneuvers in game are ignored because they are suicidal. Also, if I decide to be a lazy GM, I can just draw on their backstories to fuel a campaign since there are enough adventure ideas in there to last at least a year.

How long did all this take? A single session in which the Players talked and brainstormed all of this. They had fun and I had fun, which is what is important.

Which is why the clinically insane shouldn't be allowed internet access.

Quote from: Bren;878033And I don't expect players to read the rules. It's nice if they do. But never required.

I actually prefer for players not to read the rules.  "Just tell me what you want to do."

Which is an individual preference.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;879192I actually prefer for players not to read the rules.  "Just tell me what you want to do."

Which is an individual preference.

I prefer a mix.

I grew up with a core group of people learning the rules to board games and RPGs together. We had multiple GMs in our core RPG group. So I'm used to some players knowing the rules because they too are GMs. Personally, I like having some other players who know the rules. They help me to remember what the rules actually say and to hash out fair interpretations of anything that's ambiguous.

But yeah, it's an individual preference.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;879192I actually prefer for players not to read the rules.  "Just tell me what you want to do."

Which is an individual preference.

I've come to prefer this in some games, but would find it abhorent in others:).

Quote from: AsenRG;879197I've come to prefer this in some games, but would find it abhorent in others:).

yah i can see the fun in it but most of the games i like it would be impractical

Quote from: kosmos1214;879207yah i can see the fun in it but most of the games i like it would be impractical

For me, the games where Gronan's rule doesn't apply are actually the minority, but that's minor.
But when it comes to Gronan's favourite game, he's totally right! In fact, OD&D retroclones at least work best if the Referee is doing all the system stuff, IME.

If you don't have the Players learn the rules, you sacrifice the opportunity to have them learn how to GM. That's fine if all you want is to be the GM. Sometimes I just want to be a Player in the games I enjoy.

Out of all the oddball races TSR presented. The only one I never ever saw in play anywhere was the Swanmay and Reigar.
Kobolds? Sure. Half-Kobolds? Sure. Wemics? Sure. Xixchil? Sure.
Swanmay? Nope. Reigar? Nope.

Quote from: jeff37923;879299If you don't have the Players learn the rules, you sacrifice the opportunity to have them learn how to GM. That's fine if all you want is to be the GM. Sometimes I just want to be a Player in the games I enjoy.

Not really, I can teach someone a system really fast if they have the tricks of Refereeing down. And the ways of the Referee don't depend on numbers or a system, barring some real edge cases.
The reverse is often not true with players who have learned a system.

Quote from: AsenRG;879302Not really, I can teach someone a system really fast if they have the tricks of Refereeing down.

So do they learn those tricks by being taught or by experiencing them?

Quote from: jeff37923;879299If you don't have the Players learn the rules, you sacrifice the opportunity to have them learn how to GM.

Not in my experience.  By the time TSR published OD&D in December 1973 (released Jan 1974) I had orders for eight copies from people who wanted to start reffing.

I, and a number of other players in Greyhawk, started drawing up our first dungeon levels before getting extracts of the rules from Gary.

A player who wants to ref is not going to let a lack of rules stand in their way.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;879323A player who wants to ref is not going to let a lack of rules stand in their way.

Unless they want to play a game that is defined by those lacking rules.

Yes, we all know that back in the prehistoric days of D&D, everybody was DIY. That's great, if you want everybody playing games in different frameworks of rules which may or may not contradict each other.

I prefer being able to say, "Hey guys, we will be playing B/X D&D with the following houserules on this single sheet of paper." It gives my Players an expectation of what will be going on and lessens confusion.

Imagine if someone nowadays said they were going to run Call of Cthulhu, but instead of the Chaosium version there was some homebrewed monstrosity that required the use of Rock'em Sock 'em Robots for character creation and sanity checks were determined by games of Hungry Hungry Hippoes? Are you still interested in playing?

Quote from: jeff37923;879304So do they learn those tricks by being taught or by experiencing them?

Both are possible, but in this case it would be mainly by experiencing them and then maybe asking questions:).

Quote from: jeff37923;879333Unless they want to play a game that is defined by those lacking rules.

Yes, we all know that back in the prehistoric days of D&D, everybody was DIY. That's great, if you want everybody playing games in different frameworks of rules which may or may not contradict each other.

I prefer being able to say, "Hey guys, we will be playing B/X D&D with the following houserules on this single sheet of paper." It gives my Players an expectation of what will be going on and lessens confusion.

Imagine if someone nowadays said they were going to run Call of Cthulhu, but instead of the Chaosium version there was some homebrewed monstrosity that required the use of Rock'em Sock 'em Robots for character creation and sanity checks were determined by games of Hungry Hungry Hippoes? Are you still interested in playing?

I'm not sure what "Rock'em Sock 'em Robots" and "Hungry Hungry Hippoes" are. Are they better than a Jenga tower;)?

Quote from: jeff37923;879333I prefer being able to say, "Hey guys, we will be playing B/X D&D with the following houserules on this single sheet of paper." It gives my Players an expectation of what will be going on and lessens confusion.

Only if they know the differences between the various versions of D&D and whatever other games they play. In other words, that is only meaningful to people who already know the B/X D&D rules.

I've actually played both Rock-em-Sock-em-Robots and Hungry Hungry Hippos. So I know what those are like. But B/X D&D means jack shit to me. Never read it. Never played it. I have no idea whether is is more like OD&D, AD&D, or the 2E, 3E, 4E, or 5E versions of the game.

Quote from: AsenRG;879366Both are possible, but in this case it would be mainly by experiencing them and then maybe asking questions:).


I'm not sure what "Rock'em Sock 'em Robots" and "Hungry Hungry Hippoes" are. Are they better than a Jenga tower;)?

(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view5/2419145/rockem-sockem-robots-o.gif)

(http://ak-hdl.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr03/2013/7/15/15/anigif_enhanced-buzz-10915-1373915037-22.gif)

Quote from: Bren;879406Only if they know the differences between the various versions of D&D and whatever other games they play. In other words, that is only meaningful to people who already know the B/X D&D rules.

I've actually played both Rock-em-Sock-em-Robots and Hungry Hungry Hippos. So I know what those are like. But B/X D&D means jack shit to me. Never read it. Never played it. I have no idea whether is is more like OD&D, AD&D, or the 2E, 3E, 4E, or 5E versions of the game.

But you can look it up. You can't easily look up someone's homebrew.

Nice attempt at obfuscation, though.

...a child.

All the other choices listed can be annoying. But I have absolutely never run into a player who wanted to play a pre-pubescent character that wasn't going to be godawfully annoying in some way or another.  The default being playing them as deranged kenders rather than children, but there's lots of other unbelievably irritating ways to portray them.

Only time I've ever played a kid was in a Call of Cthulhu session. Things went... badly...

We had a Kid in our Star Wars game that worked out very well. Sparks became one of the the more well liked characters. Some other attempts at child characters didn't work out as well but oddly enough it seemed more a problem with the other players not the one the playing the kid. It felt like a mixture of resentment and jealousy as the "kid" was generally as skilled and able as the adults but depicted as much younger. It manifested in part as being really thin skinned about anything that kid character and attempts to be extremely restrictive "helicopter parents" towards it while seeing it as realistic role playing (and complaining about the additional burden).

But I'm not sure what issues were involved but that's the strong impression I had at the time and it was across more then one group. I have noticed some of the same attitude directed at child characters in fiction by more than a few gamers though.

So, kind of like every child in a movie or TV show, huh (I'm thinking Terminator 2, The Walking Dead, etc.)? Yeah, that doesn't sound fun.

Quote from: jeff37923;879436But you can look it up.

Where? It's not on my bookshelves and it's not at my local library.

QuoteYou can't easily look up someone's homebrew.

But that only matters if (1) you insist on reading the rules and (2) the house rules are available. Of course even if a player insists on reading the rules, many house rules are made available by the GM. In fact it would be rather odd for a GM to insist that their players read the rules, house rule more than a line or two, and then not have their house rules available to read. That would be nonsensical. Even if, as in your ridiculous example, some hypothetical GM insisted on using Rock-em-Sock-em Robots and Hungry Hungry Hippos the players can easily see (via the helpful links Omega provided*) what those two games look like at a level of detail sufficient for any half-way intelligent person to decide whether they would find a game using those two kids games something that might be fun to play or something that would be too silly and inane to enjoy.

What you seem to have is a circular argument. You insist that reading the rules is necessary because you insist on reading the rules. Well that's impossible to argue against. But nobody is arguing against it. People, like me, are saying that we don't require players to read the rules. Moreover that we don't see any necessity to require players to read the rules. And decades of gaming practice supports the fact that it isn't necessary for players to read the rules to play all sorts of RPGs.

QuoteNice attempt at obfuscation, though.

It's true that I found your Rock-em-Sock-em Robots and Hungry Hungry Hippos was overly hyperbolic and not a very interesting, apt, or intelligent example of what house rules actually look like in play. I also think it is funny that it is easier for the average person to "look up" your silly examples than your serious example. But I don't think anything I said obfuscated your point, such as it was, that if you insist on reading the rules you need rules to read. In fact, that is part of the point I made to which you then took exception. By claiming that telling people they will play D&D B/X is useful and meaningful information to give to the player you must have already assumed that players are all familiar with, and perhaps even have read, that specific, exact RPG rule set.

I am curious what exactly you think I am trying to obfuscate?

• That some GMs insist on their players reading the rules? --- That should be obvious to everyone.

• That some GMs don't find it necessary for players to read the rules to play and therefore don't insist on their players reading the rules? --- That too should be obvious to everyone.

• That no matter what the GMs attitude is towards their players reading the rules, some players will prefer to read the rules? --- I think that too should be pretty obvious, though I don't recall that anyone has already stated that in this thread. But for completeness, that is how I feel as a player. I prefer to read the rules to the games that I play. I'll start play without reading the rules, but if I continue to play I always read the rules.

• Or do you think I am somehow trying to obfuscate the fact that reading the rules isn't necessary to play an RPG. --- I'm not. I think that is pretty obvious to anyone familiar with RPG play. After all it is a fact which has been repeatedly demonstrated by metric fuck tons of players playing lots of different RPGs for mega fuck tons of years of play all without them ever reading the rules.

* Thanks Omega for the link to those two rocking blasts from the past!

Quote from: RPGPundit;879505...a child.

I think running a child character that enhances play can be difficult. There are several obstacles.

Some people find even fictional children in danger really upsetting which will cause a child character to be a problem for their enjoyment.

Many people see the role of all adults is to protect children form danger. Hence the rhetorical popularity of the "think of the children" argument. In a party of mixed age characters the adult characters may overprotect or feel like they are shirking their duty or not playing their character if they allow the children to be at risk or to intentionally do dangerous things. And if the child character can never do intentionally dangerous things the player of the child character is apt to be frustrated in play.

A lot of fictional children are annoying to real life adults (and even to other children) because they often seem overly competent which makes the adults look incompetent. This is the dreaded Wesley Crusher syndrome. Which again is more likely to be a problem in a mixed age party. And some people want to play Wesley Crusher.

Quote from: Bren;879589Where? It's not on my bookshelves and it's not at my local library.

There is this invention that has been around for a few decades called the internet.....But you already know this.

The rest of this is just you trying to muddy the waters again.

Sorry, but a set of rules that are available outside of a GMs head and not a homebrew provide a commonality of experience and expectation, which is preferred by Players. B/X D&D and any other known named RPG can be looked up on the internet, bought, downloaded and read, and then played by several groups that are not in direct contact with each other. You can't do that with someone's homebrew that only that GM knows.

Quote from: jeff37923;879641There is this invention that has been around for a few decades called the internet.....But you already know this.

So WOTC made B/X freely available and posted it on the Internet. Good to know. I don't hang out on any WOTC sites. What's the link?

QuoteSorry, but a set of rules that are available outside of a GMs head and not a homebrew provide a commonality of experience and expectation, which is preferred by Players.

Preferred by some players. Typically those players that like structured and organized play. It certainly isn't universally preferred outside of those structured situations. If it were universally preferred, we wouldn't have house rules for you to fret over and worry about.

QuoteB/X D&D and any other known named RPG can be looked up on the internet, bought, downloaded and read

So maybe I can't just look it up? I have to first buy and read the rules? That seems like a lot of investment just to figure out whether I want to play a session run by that GM. It would seem a lot easier to just play a session and see how it goes. Unless of course it's a session of Hungry Hungry Hippos or Jenga or something. But that isn't likely to take an entire session to realize. The introduction and a glance at the table should reveal the presence of things like Jenga Towers, Rock-em-Sock-em Robots, decks of cards, case loads of miniatures, or other paraphernalia that aren't (like dice) core to the majority of RPGs.

But again we arrive at what seems to be your insistence that players ought to read the rules for some unspecified reason. Which is what I said you said.  To paraphrase  Inigo Montoya "Obfuscate? I don't think that means what you think it means."

Quote... and then played by several groups that are not in direct contact with each other. You can't do that with someone's homebrew that only that GM knows.

No. No you can't do that. Of course I didn't say that one could. I said that many GMs write up their house rules and that if the GM is going to require the player to read their rules, we should be able to take it as given that the house rules are, in fact, written up so they can be read.

Now you might have gotten confused about what I said, since I mentioned your example of Rock-em-Sock-em Robots and Hungry Hungry Hippo wasn't a good example of an unknown and unknowable rule set, since I did, in fact know the rules to those games (while I did not know the rules to B/X despite having played two other versions of D&D for half a dozen years). But I'm not responsible for you choosing a silly and rather poor example. You are. But at least we now know (thanks to Omega) that the demos of the play style of ReSeR and HHH are easily, quickly, and freely available on the Internet. So that's covered should you or anyone decide to introduce those as additions to an RPG.

And since you mentioned organizing play of different unrelated groups, I don't actually want codified, organized play. My past experiences with that sort of codified play is that it results in an experience that tends to be ossified, homogenized, sanitized, and bureaucratized. All of which is the opposite of an experience where each GM chooses, creates, and runs their own unique setting. This includes creating the setting from scratch or at minimum interpreting, changing, and building on an existing setting such as Glorantha, Star Wars, or Star Trek. This includes the GM selecting or pitching a specific rule set and, in practice, it usually  includes the group or the GM tweaking the rules to better fit their setting and the tone of play that the group desires. In a few cases, it has even included the GM writing and publishing their own complete set of rules. But uniqueness is the bane of sameness. So you can't really have both. One must pick one's poison.

Again I have to ask, what point of yours is it that you think I have been trying to obfuscate?

Quote from: Bren;879648So WOTC made B/X freely available and posted it on the Internet. Good to know. I don't hang out on any WOTC sites. What's the link?

By some players. It certainly isn't universally true outside of organized and structured play run by some gaming organization.

So maybe I can't just look it up? I have to first buy and read the rules? That seems like a lot of investment just to figure out whether I want to play in that campaign. It would seem a lot easier to just play a session and see how it goes. Unless of course it's a session of Hungry Hungry Hippos or Jenga or something. But that isn't likely to take an entire session. The introduction and a glance at the table should reveal the presence of things like Jenga Towers, Rock-em-Sock-em Robots, decks of cards, case loads of miniatures, or other paraphernalia that aren't (like dice) core to the majority of RPGs.

But again we arrive at what seems to be you insistence that players ought to read the rules for some unclear reason. Which is what I said To paraphrase  Inigo Montoya "Obfuscate? I don't think that means what you think it means."

No. No you can't do that. Of course I didn't say that one could. I said that many GMs write up their house rules and that if the GM is going to require the player to read their rules, we should be able to take it as given that the house rules are, in fact, written up.

Now you might have gotten confused about what I said, since I mentioned your example of Rock-em-Sock-em Robots and Hungry Hungry Hippo wasn't a good example of an unknown and unknowable rule set, since I did, in fact know the rules to those games (while I did not know the rules to B/X despite having played two other versions of D&D for half a dozen years). But I'm not responsible for you choosing a silly and rather poor example. You are. But at least we now know (thanks to Omega) that the demos of the play style of ReSeR and HHH are easily, quickly, and freely available on the Internet.

And since you mentioned organizing play of different unrelated groups, I don't actually want codified, organized play. My past experiences with that sort of codified play is that it results in an experience that tends to be ossified, homogenized, sanitized, and bureaucratized. All of which is the opposite of an experience where each GM chooses, creates, and runs their own unique setting. This includes creating the setting from scratch or at minimum interpreting, changing, and building on an existing setting such as Glorantha, Star Wars, or Star Trek. This includes the GM selecting or pitching a specific rule set and, in practice, it usually  includes the group or the GM tweaking the rules to better fit their setting and the tone of play that the group desires. In a few cases, it has even included the GM writing and publishing their own complete set of rules.

Again I have to ask, what point of yours is it that you think I have been trying to obfuscate?

See? This is you obfuscating. It isn't even a worthy atempt by you. Your strawman based upon an all too broad definition opf "organized play" is amusing, though.

Quote from: jeff37923;879651See? This is you obfuscating. It isn't even a worthy atempt by you. Your strawman based upon an all too broad definition opf "organized play" is amusing, though.

Obfuscate what, exactly?

Because this looks like you once again not answering that question.

Is it that you don't understand what point you were trying to make in the first place? Or are you unable to clearly state it?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;878681For me, it helps me play my character as a 'role'.  See, I'm a firm believer that your past helps form who you are today.  Whether or not it's something you are mostly proud of, or not.  What you wish to accomplish in the future, so on and so forth.

Example.  Daughter of a tyrant, whom she hates, grew up watching all the depravities committed.  So, she becomes a free spirited hero of the people.  Growing to be a guerrilla style fighter, learning how to fight back.

So now, I have an idea of how I'd play her.  In D&D, that would mean a Chaotic Good fighting person.  Likely a Ranger, hopefully able to swing a decently high Charisma (like higher than 9.)

Now, in a Dungeon running campaign, in which we do nothing but do commando style room clearing for loot, the above is admittedly, pretty useless.  But in the games I tend to play and run, which has all sorts of settings and explorations, a background that allows me to interact with NPCs is fun and useful.

You've just proved my point: You described your character in a few lines.

Quote from: Ravenswing;878866Errrr ... some tables have a much lower mortality rate than others?  You can't be unaware of that.

That's certainly true, but beginner PCs are still much more likely to be killed than more experienced ones.

QuoteBeyond that, you know this is a spectrum.  There are players for whom naming a character something better than "Charlie the Cleric" is a waste of time, and they put no more thought into their character than they would to deciding which token to use for the Monopoly game the gang's about to play.  There are players who do up complete family trees, campaigns where doing so is a downright benefit, and where they care about the color and fabric of their garb.

And if it's not (I don't mean a campaign that's hostile to such a notion, just indifferent), you've wasted your efforts. If I go to great lengths to describe the exact shade of brown of my character's hair, and hair color plays no role in the campaign, it was for naught, now wasn't it?

Quote from: Elfdart;879692If I go to great lengths to describe the exact shade of brown of my character's hair, and hair color plays no role in the campaign, it was for naught, now wasn't it?

I'm not sure what role you imagine the exact shade of brown would play other than allowing you to better imagine your PC. And that is available no matter what hair shade affects.

I've always noted* my character's hair color, eye color, and what they wear. but in over 40 years of gaming it's rarely, if ever, mattered that Ragnar has red hair and green eyes, Tamlorn has long black hair that he curls, and Bren has unkempt blond hair and yellowish eyes to anyone except me. But then I wasn't doing the description in the expectation that it would matter in any material way. I didn't expect to get extra experience, save or risk my PC's life because of their shade of hair. What it did do was allow me to more clearly imagine what my character is like.


* By noted I mean written down or depicted (either a miniatures or drawn, commissioned, or found art that matches the concept and description). Art is shared with the rest of the table. Description is mentioned and may be reflected by a miniature, but otherwise is pretty easy for the other people at the table to overlook or ignore.

Quote from: Elfdart;879692And if it's not (I don't mean a campaign that's hostile to such a notion, just indifferent), you've wasted your efforts. If I go to great lengths to describe the exact shade of brown of my character's hair, and hair color plays no role in the campaign, it was for naught, now wasn't it?

If you enjoyed doing it, no, it wasn't for naught.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;879703If you enjoyed doing it, no, it wasn't for naught.

Even the deprotagonized clam???

Quote from: Omega;879723Even the deprotagonized clam???

OMG U DEPROTAGONIZED MY CLAM!

(https://whybecausescience.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/leave-britney-alone.jpg)

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;879724OMG U DEPROTAGONIZED MY CLAM!

(https://whybecausescience.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/leave-britney-alone.jpg)

Does the wife know?

Quote from: Willie the Duck;879554So, kind of like every child in a movie or TV show, huh (I'm thinking Terminator 2, The Walking Dead, etc.)? Yeah, that doesn't sound fun.

Games are not movies or TV shows.

Also, many RPGs feature a fair amount of combat.  Not only will most children not be real useful in combat, but the human race has this strange instinct to protect its larvae, so in character adults would be trying to keep the child safe and or out of combat.  Essentially, a child is the ultimate "special snowflake."

Quote from: Bren;879652Obfuscate what, exactly?

Because this looks like you once again not answering that question.

Is it that you don't understand what point you were trying to make in the first place? Or are you unable to clearly state it?

Dance, monkey! Dance!

And actually, why is it only you that is having trouble understanding my point? That is really the last thing I am curious about with you because you have become boring.

Quote from: Elfdart;879692And if it's not (I don't mean a campaign that's hostile to such a notion, just indifferent), you've wasted your efforts. If I go to great lengths to describe the exact shade of brown of my character's hair, and hair color plays no role in the campaign, it was for naught, now wasn't it?

If it improves your play experience by giving you a better image of your character and thus makes the game more fun then its served a purpose.

Quote from: jeff37923;879744Dance, monkey! Dance!

Yeah that seemed to be your point. Typical jeff.

Quote from: Bren;879747Yeah that seemed to be your point. Typical jeff.

Awwww, don't pout. All I did was mock your own intellectual dishonesty. Better luck next time.

Quote from: jeff37923;879762Awwww, don't pout. All I did was mock your own intellectual dishonesty. Better luck next time.

Also typical jeff. :hand:

Quote from: jeff37923;879744Dance, monkey! Dance!

And actually, why is it only you that is having trouble understanding my point? That is really the last thing I am curious about with you because you have become boring.

I would seriously suggest he might be the only one reading your point, because I tried to follow the discussion between you two back to its start, and simply gave up;).

Quote from: AsenRG;879963I would seriously suggest he might be the only one reading your point, because I tried to follow the discussion between you two back to its start, and simply gave up;).

Does it matter? If the last page or so is any indication, they've both declared themselves the winner and are just here to very visibly pat themselves on the back in front of the other.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;879974Does it matter? If the last page or so is any indication, they've both declared themselves the winner and are just here to very visibly pat themselves on the back in front of the other.

The discussion is pretty simple:

Bren: Player's don't always need to read the rules....

Jeff: Players should read the rules...

and back and forth for 3 or so pages.


The reason why a Player should read the rules is when they're using a system that is derived from a strong basis for System Mastery. Take into account both 3rd Edition and Pathfinder. I would never suggest to a player that he not read the rules for that specific edition considering the way it was created. Meaning that any attempt at something non-specialized will possibly net you a Punch in the Face (Attack of Opportunity), a penalty on the roll (non-lethal damage, special attacks against anything larger than you), and the chance that your special attempt will be turned against you (disarm, trip, etc.)

The reason why a Player should NOT read the rules is when they're using a system OR has a DM more likely to invoke liberal adjudication when they try something. In D&D, this was seen in pre-WotC days and in some non-Organized play with 4e and now with 5e. Basically the player doesn't HAVE to rely on strict interpretations of the rules to figure out if they can do something or not and trusts the DM to come up with an amicable roll/justification for the scenario to proceed.

In other words Adjudication (sometimes referred to as "Mother May I") Vs. Codification (sometimes referred to as "Rules Lawyering")

Quote from: AsenRG;879963I would seriously suggest he might be the only one reading your point, because I tried to follow the discussion between you two back to its start, and simply gave up;).

Scrolling down with the mouse is the best way to read some of these threads ...

Quote from: Batman;879981The discussion is pretty simple

I'd add the bolded bit below, but yeah you pretty much got it.

Bren: Player's don't always need to read the rules and many do not....

Quote from: Bren;879839Also typical jeff.

Heh, I've got him ignored, so I'm not seeing his drivel, but I expect it's just Jeff being Jeff.  I don't know if he's just like this when he can safely hide behind a computer screen or if he's a full-time asshole, but the difference doesn't matter much.

Quote from: Elfdart;879692And if it's not (I don't mean a campaign that's hostile to such a notion, just indifferent), you've wasted your efforts. If I go to great lengths to describe the exact shade of brown of my character's hair, and hair color plays no role in the campaign, it was for naught, now wasn't it?

Others have answered, of course, but c'mon.  There's a vast amount of roleplaying that "plays no role" in campaigns.  What my character blows his gold on -- brothels, booze, baccarat or Berlioz concerts -- has nothing to do with solving plot lines.  The orcs in the battle don't give a damn whether my basic personality is sullen, cheerful or manic, and there aren't many personality traits I could exhibit that add or subtract a single pip of damage I might to do them.  The trap I'm trying to disarm is entirely unimpressed by my garb, my psych lims, that I talk to cats as if they were people, that I tend to read random prayers over the bodies of the blokes I killed, or that the lady sitting across the room from me is playing my daughter.

I choose such traits because I want to play my characters as something other than a playing piece in a board game.  So do many other players.  Do I care all that much about hair color?  No, not really.  But RP's a spectrum.  You care about elements I don't, I care about elements you don't, and as long as we're having fun, nothing's going for naught.

How a lot of arguments on this site go:

(http://whatwouldjackdo.net/images/mission_accomplished_bush.jpg)

Quote from: Elfdart;879686You've just proved my point: You described your character in a few lines.

I don't think anyone was arguing that you couldn't describe most character in a few lines. But some don't find that adequate for their enjoyment.

/my charred leering husk clinging to the cauldron
...
*pop*

:popcorn:

Quote from: Opaopajr;880097/my charred leering husk clinging to the cauldron
...
*pop*

:popcorn:

You make good popcorn. Sadly, the thread faded a little in entertainment value near the end.

Quote from: rawma;880106You make good popcorn. Sadly, the thread faded a little in entertainment value near the end.

{shh! it's poetic denouement... let the audience soak it in.}

a Lesbian Stripper Ninja.

Really, where are the Lesbian Stripper Covert Ops? The Lesbian Stripper Ghurka? Lesbian Stripper Lin Keui (they're in the damn game!)?

No creativity anymore.

Quote from: Nexus;880116a Lesbian Stripper Ninja.

Really, where are the Lesbian Stripper Covert Ops? The Lesbian Stripper Ghurka? Lesbian Stripper Lin Keui (they're in the damn game!)?

No creativity anymore.

Totally do-able in Oriental Adventures. :cool:

Quote from: soltakss;880004Scrolling down with the mouse is the best way to read some of these threads ...

Or any thread where people discuss something you don't care about.

Quote from: Batman;879981The discussion is pretty simple:

Bren: Player's don't always need to read the rules....

Jeff: Players should read the rules...

and back and forth for 3 or so pages.

Quote from: Bren;880020I'd add the bolded bit below, but yeah you pretty much got it.

Bren: Player's don't always need to read the rules and many do not....

Nah, I got that much. What I'm not getting is why you felt the need to state your point over and over:).
I mean, what were you trying to prove? Such groups obviously exist, they just don't play Pathfinder or LotW, as a general rule;).
Personally, I'd have gone "have you never seen a group where only some people care about the rules, or are you just dumb" much faster:D.

Quote from: AsenRG;880210Or any thread where people discuss something you don't care about.

Oh, I don't even bother reading those. I reserve the Scroll/Page down for interesting threads that are spiraling out of control.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;879729Also, many RPGs feature a fair amount of combat.  Not only will most children not be real useful in combat, but the human race has this strange instinct to protect its larvae, so in character adults would be trying to keep the child safe and or out of combat.  Essentially, a child is the ultimate "special snowflake."

Point of order: it's not a "strange instinct", it's a perfectly natural and well-studied evolutionary phenomenon called K-selection strategy.

Sarcastic statement is sarcastic.  I don't really think it's strange.

Quote from: soltakss;880227Oh, I don't even bother reading those. I reserve the Scroll/Page down for interesting threads that are spiraling out of control.

Well, sometimes you're only interested in parts of what is being discussed in a thread;).

Quote from: AsenRG;880210Personally, I'd have gone "have you never seen a group where only some people care about the rules, or are you just dumb" much faster:D.

:duh: I didn't think of that.

Quote from: Bren;880271:duh: I didn't think of that.

And here I attributed it to you being more polite than me:D!