tsukoyomi:
No, I'm implying the fantasy dwarf stereotype draws from several fictional characters, of course, being a stereotype it turns into a caricature, a caricature that is largely unplayable straight. Which is apparently the problem, I see the word stereotype and think of a caricature of something that is often fairly insulting, you see the word stereotype and it somehow lacks any of those implications.
But all that boiling together of Dwarven myths and legends was done on Tolkein's side of things, and his distillation is the one upon which D&D dwarves are based. You may (and I am guessing do) have a deeper understanding, but we are discussing the race as it is discussed within the D&D framework. Going beyond that is more than simply stretching the point.
tsukoyomi:
You're starting from the assumption that the stereotype is exactly the culture with no deviation, granted, there isn't much to go on with a fantasy culture, but if you truly care about the background you're writing, you can at least add some humanity, some rationality to it, some more depth than just a checklist before using it as such.
How have we drifted back to writing. Certainly if I was writing a novel or a script I would like to do more research, but we are talking about role-playing, and while I am not assuming that the stereotype of all that a culture is, I am assuming that within the context of a game it is unrealistic to expect or demand more.
You almost make my point there however when you say you have to add humanity to it. That statement implies that the character in based in, and growing out of the stereotype. It isn't 'more depth' to say 'I want my character to behave however I feel at the moment' that is less depth, and less humanity (Or dwarfity, or elfity, whatever.)
tsukoyomi:
what? are you mistaking me for dirigible? and when have I said that at all?
No, that was actually what I was getting out of your posts.
tsukoyomi:
Back to a more real world example, say you have a culture, then you have a stereotype, often an insulting caricature as seen from the outside and just as often tinged with a good dose of racism. Most individuals are unlikely to act like the stereotype, many may adhere to some of the traits, and the worst examples, often those looked down upon by the same culture, may adhere to nearly all of them.
Other times, the stereotype is a caricature of how the culture looks at it's own worst traits. Would you say that USA's culture is the same as, say, Homer Simpson? should I consider all people from the country to be Homer Simpson clones and everyone that strays from that would face dire consequences?
Your casting a wide net there, but I don't see that it's catching anything relevant. What exactly do you think common stereotypes include? Asians eat rice, and a lot fish. Certainly not all encompassing, but you try playing a character who is exactly like three billion people. If you're saying 'if you can't be like everyone at the same time, you should play?" You want to play the Average American by playing your character like Homer Simpson? Not a huge compliment, but I would certainly recognize it, and would think you were making from of me, as an American Male, by doing it. I would prefer it to playing the Average American as a Harvard Educated philanthropist who holds no racists thoughts and is a perfect (yet non-denominational) Christian, because while there may be an American like that, he's not representative of the fat part of the bell curve.
You see to imply that if I play a retarded person as slow, or a crippled polio victim as paralyzed, it is some giant insult, but when Larry David played a retarded clerk on LA Law, all he got was praise for his ability to make the character so recognizably retarded. By portraying the stereotype. That's what won him two emmys.
tsukoyomi:
I would guess that he doesn't, at least when it comes to the history/biography section of your character sheets, or he simply didn't care and saw no reason to include them in the adventure. Or perhaps it was simply a matter of miscommunication on what type of game you all wanted to play.
Or maybe he doesn't believe he has the skill to pull it off, or he feels the group is too new and wants to get a handle of how much is too much before including such things.
Fascinating, your entire diatribe agrees with my point.
tsukoyomi:
Mind you, if he only did that with the first combat, well, there are benefits to an early first fight from both a storytelling, social and mechanical perspectives, it's not a bad plot hook, it lets you know just what kind of players you're dealing with, and it lets you plan or adjust your adventure to be more fun while the players are busy having their post-battle back-patting.
Nonsense, we had no reason to be together, and no understanding of why we went where we did. It wasn't some forced happenstance, it was simply assumed that for the ease of playing, no friction would be allowed, and my friction, in this case, I mean 'any personal interaction'.
tsukoyomi:
I'm sorry, but after several posts this is just being deliberately obtuse.
How is not wanting a game where the friction does not get to the point of unplayability implying zero friction? is it a checkbox for you? is it either a hugbox or the drow assassin trying to murder the party 5 minutes in because "mah concept!" or the paladin gutting the thief the first time he sees him trying to unlock the door of the evil dungeon? is the idea that I'm advocating some middle ground so difficult to comprehend? a middle ground based on roleplay, where the characters are played true to their concept, only that their concepts are chosen so they don't hit 'derail beyond recognition and ruin everyone else's fun' levels?
You say that, but every level of human interaction mentioned has resulted in your response that it would make a game unplayable for you.
Case in point, my barbarian. I don't think it was huge imposition on the party to know what my characters attitude towards magic was, not because he was my character, but because by the rules, that was how every barbarian behaved.
I've yet to see anything you say advocate a middle ground, your party line seems to be 'everyone must behave in the most friendly fashion'. It puts me in mind of A Brave New World, it seems so mind numbingly cloying. That may be where you think the middle ground is, I disagree, that's not the middle ground any more then the Pope is agnostic. You have argued, repeatedly, that 'concept' takes not the backseat to party unity, but isn't allowed in the car. Your concept of a Paladin who doesn't care about behavior that falls outside of his honor code isn't a role-playing construct, it's a fighter with a bunch of cool abilities that will help us 'win'.
But it wasn't a problem in many games, because the party and the thief role-played that they understood the Paladin so they hid the thiefly behavior. Which isn't, by the way, unlocking a door, it's unlocking someones door illegally. Not so subtle a distinction in my mind.
tsukoyomi:
Wait, on the one hand you understand the depth and complexity of culture, but on the other you can't understand why I don't know how everyone else in the world played the game?
You've been around long enough, and interested in the hobby long enough, to at least have spotted the wargame roots, and you demonstrated a scorn to the kind of game Gigax ran. You don't need to know how everybody else in the world played the game to be aware that the 'rollplay' you're moaning about is not some newfangled invention of those annoying new kids.</quote>
Having never played with Gygax, as you apparently claim to have, I can speak only to your one dimensional definition that all his games were dice-oriented fight fests. If that is what he play, yes, I will cast aspersions on it. If, however, I look at the growth and expansion of the game, I find it hard to believe that is the only way he played, and I would go so far as to say his game 'grew' out of roll-playing into 'role-playing'.
Speaking of which, roll-playing is hilariously not only not new, archaeology suggests it may be one of the oldest game forms in existence. What I dislike is that a game which seemed to depart from roll-playing, and whose departure is what made it great, is being reduced to the lesser form. It is how I suspect you might feel if suddenly people had their cars pulled by horses again.
tsukoyomi:
Oh please, if you pick any sourcebook of any vaguely decent game system, you'll see Rule 0 being stated on pretty much all of them, from old school all the way to the newest systems.
You'll also see, particularly in newerish games, a great deal of care and love put into explaining what it's all about, how to handle things so everyone has fun, how to construct an interesting tale, how to model storytelling aspects and when to drop the rules to the side.
If you've never bothered to read that because you were only interested in the mechanics of the new system, if your powergamer obsessively read the rules but skipped a full chapter dedicated to this, if your GM just skipped reading it, then I'm sorry for you.
Specifically talking about D&D here, but I am poor and new systems cost way too much money for me. I only own a Pathfinder payers handbook because I found one for $35.00 bucks. I have never actually read 3.5 or 5th ed., my experiences are based on playing with other peoples help.
I have read a few free or cheap systems found on line though, and when (for example in the Window) the storytelling aspect of the game is given primacy, there are no rules to enable (or stop) power-gaming, the GM simply has to throw those kind (your kind I am guessing) out of the game.
Played in some superhero game awhile back, and the only thing that stopped it from being fun was that there was a powergamer who had a hissy fit if he wasn't always the bestest, fastest, most importantest little buttercup in the game. The DM wasn't up to the job of curtailing his behavior, so I quit, which was a shame, because there were some good roleplayers in the group, but if your not having fun, don't play, is my hard and fast rule.
tsukoyomi:
If all the players are at that level, well, you're simply playing a more superheroish game, if not, then you have a problem player.
But let's not kid ourselves, it wasn't some newfangled kids that started that trend, it was a trend that existed all the way back to the wargame roots, and I'm fairly certain it's a problem as old as games have existed. Are you telling me that you have never met or heard of someone trying that kind of rulelawyering with Monopoly? card games? Clue? never seen a kid cheat in hide and seek?<quote>
Actually hung with some wargamers for awhile. Too expensive a hobby for me, but the attitude of historical wargamer from my college ways was very much focused on authenticity. I've seem WarHammer, and watched people play, and that's a crowd who are willing to fudge a measurement or intentionally misunderstand a rule to win, but the guys who spent hours making sure their Napoleonic Soldiers were painted with the correct uniform colors (they used to sell books with no other value but to help do so) were not only not powergamers, but would have ostracized anyone who was.
We are talking about a class of gamers who a cut above in their devotion, and the fact that you would compare them to players of Monopoly of Clue would be hilarious if it wasn't so insulting.
And yes, the game has a problem, that's why I mentioned it in the context of being a problem.
<quote tsukoyomi>
It IS a problem that exhibits worse behavior when companies either not being as careful as they should be with the things they print or just wanting to sell more stuff and not caring, but let's not kid ourselves, that powergamer would powergame no matter what game you pick, if it is someone that routinely pulls that, it's someone you might not want in your table, or at least someone you might want to have a stern talking to.<quote>
That's why I would never play with Wil Wheaton. He's got a show on YouTube, and he is obnoxious.
You seem once again to agree with me though, people who play like that exist. I would go so far as to say flourish. I thought your side of this argument was that doing what it took to make those people happy was the reason to not have friction.
<quote tsukoyomi>
You're assuming an arbitrary idea of what first level means, but first level only really means "what the game assumes most adventures start at". Just because one system designed for a more gritty feel assumes first level is "threatened by a cat" doesn't mean another system or edition, designed for a more heroic feel, can't have first level be guys that are already past their rat catching days and are ready to be actual, serious adventurers now.
Some system are dedicated to the low magic, gritty feel you seem want, and that's fine, there's enough systems that there ought to be many that cater to your preferred genre. Or perhaps you want something that starts at the dirt bottom? that's fine too, plenty of systems do that as well.
But many systems are looking at modeling something where the starting characters are already skilled/powerful/awesome/special in their own right. That's fine too, there are plenty of books and movies that start that way, and many people that want to roleplay that.
The problem comes when you want and expect the first, and pick a system on the second category, obviously, your starting characters aren't where you want starting characters to be, and the game takes a heroic feel that is just not what you wanted.
Even first level Batman wasn't as disgusting as modern Batman. I grew up when he was mostly a detective and I could learn how to detect counterfeit money or tell if a guy was left handed by the way he wore his belt.
That said, if there is one game where I don't feel first level characters should be super heroes, it's D&D. My idea of first level comes from books like the Hobbit and the Trilogy, and if Bilbo, on page three, ran into a grizzly bear and tore it in half with his Super-Vorpal Hobbit-Kick-Of-Doom, it would have been a very different, and for me, less enjoyable book.
What we did when we wanted to be powerful in the old days was start an adventure with tenth level character, or fifth if we wanted a bit less horsepower. What are you going to do with 5th edition if you do want to play humbler, more day-to-day people? Nothing, because they are born gross.
Even if I play super hero games, I want my first level character to be less powerful than he he will become.
I guess the difference between the style I am championing and the new wave of D&D systems is that my character, if he became cool, did so thru my actions as a player, by the story that was told, the process of the game was to be cool. My younger friends who pay 3.5 can spend hours trying to generate and maximize a character, and the coolness is based, not on the result of creativity and story telling, but because they knew how to put their metaphorical lego's together in the most interesting fashion.
Much the way I don't cheat at Clue or Risk, because it reduces the feeling of accomplishment, and heck, if I can't have fun losing I should play, is the way I feel about the dominant power-gamer style of play.