# Tropes that need to die



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 15, 2010)

There are lots of tropes, or accepted oddities in the DnD world that when thought about just make very little to no sense to me. I started this thread so we can list some of them and consider how they can be revised, or just straight removed, to make our game worlds feel more logical or at the least slightly more plausible.

Here are a few that come to my mind.

1. Cemeteries - In the average fantasy world there are dozens of ways that corpses can come back to life, reanimate, or shed their body to become evil spirits that then prey on the living. This does not even take onto the various evil experiments performed by mad wizards.

So why are there cemeteries? I am in the process of creating a small town as a campaign starting point and one item I added was the pier of mourning. This is a seaside community and they have one stone pier jutting out into the bay used for funerals. The bodies of dead townspeople are wrapped in cloth, piled with wood, and burned in a pyre the day of the their or the immediate following day. The ashes are then allowed to blow into the sea. No dead bodies left around means less chance of the dead coming back. Really the idea of burying bodies when it takes a low level spell to animate them just sounds silly when you think of it.

2. The Court Wizard - Look at the wizard spell list, now look at the cleric spell list. Hmmm, throwing Fireballs and Lightning Bolts or Heal spells and Neutralize Poison. I know as a powerful king I want both guys working for me, but in reality I want the court cleric at my side 24/7. He can check my food for poison, remove any pesky diseases, and in the event of an attack heal me while my guards kill the assassin(s). But because of Merlin we have court wizards and the nearest cleric who can save the kings life is down the street in the cathedral. Well no more.

3. The Party A$$hole - Not sure how to explain this one. The best is by example. Anyone who has ever read Band of Brothers ask yourself this question. How long would Lt. Sobel have lasted in Easy Company if it had not en egalitarian group of men working together instead of a military unit? Not long at all. The unmasked hatred Winter and others felt for him would have meant Sobel would have been killed or at the least abandoned at the first opportunity. So why are we to assume that the NE Rogue prick that annoys everyone, tries to steal when no one is looking, and is a general pain in the butt to the rest of the party is allowed to stick around? The dynamic of DnD party creation means extremely strange parties are often grouped together when there is no chance they would ever form in any sort of reality. 

The answer? I am not sure. Some players just revel in playing the NE jerk because it lets them do all the things they cannot do in real life. To me at least that can be very annoying. 


What illogical items exist in your campaign or in most campaigns that you have played in?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 15, 2010)

> 2. The Court Wizard - Look at the wizard spell list, now look at the cleric spell list. Hmmm, throwing Fireballs and Lightning Bolts or Heal spells and Neutralize Poison. I know as a powerful king I want both guys working for me, but in reality I want the court cleric at my side 24/7. He can check my food for poison, remove any pesky diseases, and in the event of an attack heal me while my guards kill the assassin(s). But because of Merlin we have court wizards and the nearest cleric who can save the kings life is down the street in the cathedral. Well no more.



Well, most castles had some form of worship space & clergy within their walls- few nobles wanted to go pray with the commoners, so the nearest priest is probably just as close as the court wizard.


----------



## olshanski (Nov 15, 2010)

I'd actually say that none of those tropes need to die:

Cemetaries:

Cemetaries are often literally "hallowed ground", and are thus immune having corpses rise from the dead or being haunted by undead.  If you've got a cemetary that isn't hallowed, then some cleric is not doing their job.  You bury someone because if you need to, it is easier to ressurect a corpse than true ressurect the ashes long since blown away.
If your campaign has townsfolk burying people in non-hallowed ground, they deserve to be overrun by undead.  

Court Wizard:
You've got a point about clerics being more useful in court than wizards, but wizards also have scry and teleport and contingency... and some people believe that the best defense is a good offense.  Frankly, they are both useful for a king, and the term "court wizard" doesn't come from D&D, but from fantasy literature, where the idea of a "court cleric" would sound rather foolish.

Jerk in the party:
I don't know where you think this is a trope, but if a player is a jerk, you boot them. If a character is a jerk but the player isn't, then presumably you are not bothered by the jerk in the party, or if you are, then you ask the player to retire the character and make a new one.

I'd say that D&D tropes are more often the following:

1) Undead wizard creates a trap-filled crypt
2) Mad wizard is trying to open a gate to the lower planes
3) An ancient evil has awakened, and you need to put together an artiact from X pieces in order to defeat the ancient evil.
4) The person who hired the party to recover a magic item is really the bad guy that intends to steal the item once the party recovers it.

There are a ton of other tropes, I don't know that they need to die.  My sons ages 5 and 7 are just starting to play, and it will be fun to see how they react to these tropes, as it will be their first time encountering them.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Nov 15, 2010)

4. Robe and Wizard Hat. - Yeah, okay it spells "this guy's the wizard". Quite frankly, that is exactly the problem. It makes it far too easy for the "target the caster" tactic to be applied because of the freaking clothes you're wearing.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 15, 2010)

Yes there are many tropes that exist in DM plot devices. As it was once explained they only make sense if you assume evil=batcrap insane.

Look through most published modules. Tell me how many graveyards dont have at least a few undead wandering in them. Technically they should be hallowed ground but they never are. The resurrection arguement may work for important people but 99% of the "occupants" of a graveyard are Bob the peasant or Fred the blacksmith. No one is ever going to raise them from the dead.

Hallowed ground also does nothing to stop corpses from being removed from a graveyard then animated.

I stick with what I said. They make no sense in a world filled with the undead. Ravenloft is of course the biggest culprit. Only a complete buffoon would have a cemetary in their town in any realm of Ravenloft. At least this can be explained away as acts of the Dark Powers.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 15, 2010)

Zhaleskra said:


> 4. Robe and Wizard Hat. - Yeah, okay it spells "this guy's the wizard". Quite frankly, that is exactly the problem. It makes it far too easy for the "target the caster" tactic to be applied because of the freaking clothes you're wearing.




Hey, my wizards love this trope. It allows them to use their hat of disguise to look like they are wearing full plate armor and feel quite safe from targetting right up until they start chucking fireballs around.


----------



## AllisterH (Nov 15, 2010)

Keep in mind that pre 3e, RAISE DEAD wasn't exactly a sure thing any wizard would want.

Indeed, pre 3e, yu have to remember that both magic items and magical spells are rare to the extent that even the players an not count on having access to them.


----------



## lin_fusan (Nov 15, 2010)

DocMoriartty said:


> 1. Cemeteries - In the average fantasy world there are dozens of ways that corpses can come back to life, reanimate, or shed their body to become evil spirits that then prey on the living. This does not even take onto the various evil experiments performed by mad wizards.




This might not prevent a ghost from rising from the dead, so an additional consecration might be in practice. I can also imagine that burial rituals would be more elaborate in areas of constant undead attack and more simple away from that. People, rituals, and culture change according to the situation. (You could even have a scenario where a necromancer would move to a far away town that never had an undead attack and still bury their dead.)

In addition, constant undead attacks might change a town's relationship to clerics. An unscrupulous religion might establish a base there by feeding off the town's fear. A religion of death might form simply because of constant undead attacks. 

I can even see a town that creates their own undead to defend the town. (Paizo's Savage Tide Adventure Path had the Aztec-like natives ritually create undead of their ancestors to protect their villages. The party cleric wanted to create a skeletal army. The other PCs were horrified, but then the village elders were "we already do that! Here's my uncle! Say "brains" uncle!")

But your towns might still have markers or icons of their loved ones, with or without the ashes. Not specifically a graveyard (as in a yard of graves, but still a place to honor the dead).



DocMoriartty said:


> 2. The Court Wizard - Look at the wizard spell list, now look at the cleric spell list. Hmmm, throwing Fireballs and Lightning Bolts or Heal spells and Neutralize Poison. I know as a powerful king I want both guys working for me, but in reality I want the court cleric at my side 24/7.




While you have a point, royalty traditionally has a love/hate relationship with religion. A wizard is like a contractor. You pay him to provide security and magical services, while a cleric has his/her own agenda, which might not coincide with the kings. A king with a powerful court cleric might find himself constantly performing tasks more for their god than for their kingdom, but that would add an interesting political angle to a court.



DocMoriartty said:


> 3. The Party A$ - Some players just revel in playing the NE jerk because it lets them do all the things they cannot do in real life. To me at least that can be very annoying.




Obviously, this is less a logical inconsistency in the game world than a problem with a player.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 15, 2010)

DocMoriartty said:


> Look through most published modules. Tell me how many graveyards dont have at least a few undead wandering in them.




Selection bias - modules don't tend to detail that which isn't tactically interesting or plot-related.  Tell me how many outhouses do you see in modules that don't have treasure or an otyugh or other monster in the muck?


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 15, 2010)

lin_fusan said:


> This might not prevent a ghost from rising from the dead, so an additional consecration might be in practice. I can also imagine that burial rituals would be more elaborate in areas of constant undead attack and more simple away from that. People, rituals, and culture change according to the situation. (You could even have a scenario where a necromancer would move to a far away town that never had an undead attack and still bury their dead.)
> 
> In addition, constant undead attacks might change a town's relationship to clerics. An unscrupulous religion might establish a base there by feeding off the town's fear. A religion of death might form simply because of constant undead attacks.
> 
> ...




Your comment on cemeteries and fequency of undead rising is a good point, the assumption though is that cemeteries are the standard all societies follow given the choice.

Royalty has a problem with religion in a Christian dominated Medieval Europe. In the average DnD society the same tension is much less likely where one annoying church can just be replaced with another one that worships a more accomidating deity.

Annoying party members is really a trope like you said, it just seems to be a very common and accepted illogical point. I know if I was a member of an actual party of adventurers I certainly would not accept some of the characters other players create. Its like a military until but with more surprises, every member is absolutely putting their lives in the hands of their companions.


----------



## jonesy (Nov 15, 2010)

DocMoriartty said:


> 2. The Court Wizard



A king is usually a powerful fighter type. A tank. It's better to have contengied artillery supporting him. And the queen might already have a healer at her side.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 15, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Selection bias - modules don't tend to detail that which isn't tactically interesting or plot-related.  Tell me how many outhouses do you see in modules that don't have treasure or an otyugh or other monster in the muck?




Yeah, but its pretty uniform. In the FR you have Waterdeep which is basically the New York City of Faerun. In a citty with over 1000 clerics you still have haunted graveyards and roaming undead.


----------



## TerraDave (Nov 15, 2010)

olshanski said:


> I'd say that D&D tropes are more often the following:
> 
> 1) Undead wizard creates a trap-filled crypt
> 2) Mad wizard is trying to open a gate to the lower planes
> ...





They better not die! Those and some small variations/combinations cover just about everything. (well, those plus Invasion or its close cousin Infiltration, but some wizard or extra-planer thing is usually behind it). 

And there is this trope:

A semisensical combination of charecters journeys through semisensical places and encounters semisensical (combinations of) monsters. And finds bling.

This trope must stay.


----------



## El Mahdi (Nov 15, 2010)

jonesy said:


> A king is usually a powerful fighter type. A tank. It's better to have contengied artillery supporting him. And the queen might already have a healer at her side.




Good point.  The Queen might even be a healer also.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Nov 15, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Selection bias - modules don't tend to detail that which isn't tactically interesting or plot-related.  Tell me how many outhouses do you see in modules that don't have treasure or an otyugh or other monster in the muck?




All those dungeons without bathrooms or kitchens. Where did the monsters "go"? In the corner? Wait, they're monsters, of course they did. ;-)


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 15, 2010)

El Mahdi said:


> Good point.  The Queen might even be a healer also.




The funny thing is that even when you consider the full varieties that a fantasy world allows it still does make the most sense that most Kings are fighters.


----------



## the Jester (Nov 15, 2010)

DocMoriartty said:


> 3. The Party A$ - Not sure how to explain this one. The best is by example. Anyone who has ever read Band of Brothers ask yourself this question. How long would Lt. Sobel have lasted in Easy Company if it had not en egalitarian group of men working together instead of a military unit? Not long at all. The unmasked hatred Winter and others felt for him would have meant Sobel would have been killed or at the least abandoned at the first opportunity. So why are we to assume that the NE Rogue prick that annoys everyone, tries to steal when no one is looking, and is a general pain in the butt to the rest of the party is allowed to stick around? The dynamic of DnD party creation means extremely strange parties are often grouped together when there is no chance they would ever form in any sort of reality.
> 
> The answer?




The answer is to make it very clear from the very start that the pcs are fully expected to _kick s out of the party._ And that if you're the one playing the , you're going to have to make a new pc and wait for a good chance to rejoin the party. 

Really, this is easy; just don't put up with it.


----------



## Deset Gled (Nov 15, 2010)

Character Trope - The Uncompromising Gish

_I wanna be an awesome caster!  But I also wanna be a strong warrior!  Why can't I be both?  The system doesn't support by concept!_

Because characters are supposed to have limitations, you dolt.  Now stop trying to be uber, build a character with some real flaws (Oh, jeez. That's "flaws" not "Flaws".  No, you can't get a permanent AC bonus for agreeing to always smell bad), and develop some dimension to your roleplaying.


----------



## olshanski (Nov 15, 2010)

DocMoriartty said:


> Hallowed ground also does nothing to stop corpses from being removed from a graveyard then animated.




So if whackos are digging in your cemetary and stealing corpses, the solution is to get rid of the cemetary and burn all corpses?


I hope those whackos don't kidnap any children...


----------



## invokethehojo (Nov 15, 2010)

The trope I want to die... the adventurer.  How many people walk around "looking for adventure", risking their life all the time to find money so they can buy a shinier sword so they can kill more things to get more money to buy shinier other things?  It's stupid.  Now yes, I have to admit I'm coming from a more serious gamer point of view, but I like my campaigns to be like books, there is room for humor and suspension of disbelief, but the fact that all PC's are built off of a model that almost no sane person would follow is just absurd.

At least pathfinder tried to help this by making the pathfinder society, meaning PC's are affiliated with a group and their job is to do these things (though the fact its still all about buying more shiney's doesn't help).

why can't a game focus on making characters have some kind of purpose, even if it's just being famous or accumulating wealth in an RP sense?


----------



## Cerebral Paladin (Nov 15, 2010)

DocMoriartty said:


> The funny thing is that even when you consider the full varieties that a fantasy world allows it still does make the most sense that most Kings are fighters.




I'm curious why you think so--I tend to think that fighters are among the weakest classes/archetypes for monarchs.  They're probably quite common among 1st generation monarchs, but for hereditary monarchs, there are many other classes/archetypes that seem stronger to me.

When I think about the tasks that a monarch needs to do to rule well, my conclusion is that overwhelmingly the tasks are tasks of judgment, politics, social interaction, and policy.  In D&D terms, they're tasks that call on Charisma, Wisdom, to a lesser degree Intelligence, and the associated skills (Diplomacy, Bluff, Insight/Sense Motive, Knowledge skills or the equivalent).  So that suggests that strong ruler classes include bards, clerics, warlords in 4e (or marshals in 3), and the like.  (It's not coincidental that the 4e classes that are well-suited to be monarchs tend to fill the Leader role.)  They have the right skill lists, the right attributes, and so forth.

When I compare them to fighters, fighters have a few advantages--they're harder to assassinate (although typically more vulnerable to mind control/suggestion/etc.), they can do some of the athlete style impressing people by winning tournaments and the like (Henry VIII was a major participant in jousting tournaments, and his prowess apparently added to his stature as a prince and later king), and in a war they're well suited to wading into the front of the combat and fighting people hand-to-hand.  But... even in the case of a war, it's much more important that the king be good at strategy (i.e. Int-based stuff) and at motivating, leading, and securing the loyalty of his nobles, allies, and followers (i.e. Cha-based stuff), than it is that the King get in the thick of it.  And it's not like the other classes (or the fantasy archetypes that they're based on) are worthless in battles.  Even within the family of fighter-types, paladins and rangers probably both make better kings:  they have many of the advantages that fighters bring, but they tend to be better at the non-combat roles of a king than fighters.

I'm not saying that fighter should be a rare class among rulers.  It's perfectly reasonable to believe that many prospective monarchs would be raised to be fighters, especially if you assume that first-generation monarchs (and hence the parents, grandparents, etc. of later generation monarchs) are disproportionately fighters.  And certainly a monarch can be both a fighter and a great monarch, especially with exceptionally good ability scores overall.  I'm just saying that as I think about it, the best (i.e. most effective) monarchs are probably disproportionately not fighters.


----------



## Thasmodious (Nov 15, 2010)

invokethehojo said:


> The trope I want to die... the adventurer. [snip]
> 
> why can't a game focus on making characters have some kind of purpose, even if it's just being famous or accumulating wealth in an RP sense?




Some games do.  D&D doesn't.  The adventurer, even today, exists, freelance mercenaries, ocean treasure hunters, archaelogists (not the Indy variety, but field archaeology has parallels to the D&D adventurer, and with less Umber Hulks).  Pirates, criminals, special forces, etc., its the lure of fast riches and exciting lives that still drive people to these dangerous activities.  People still plumb the depths of cave systems and ancient sites to uncover their mysteries.  "Adventuring" is still alive and well.


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 15, 2010)

DocMoriartty said:


> 1. Cemeteries - In the average fantasy world there are dozens of ways that corpses can come back to life, reanimate, or shed their body to become evil spirits that then prey on the living. This does not even take onto the various evil experiments performed by mad wizards.
> 
> So why are there cemeteries? I am in the process of creating a small town as a campaign starting point and one item I added was the pier of mourning. This is a seaside community and they have one stone pier jutting out into the bay used for funerals. The bodies of dead townspeople are wrapped in cloth, piled with wood, and burned in a pyre the day of the their or the immediate following day. The ashes are then allowed to blow into the sea. No dead bodies left around means less chance of the dead coming back. Really the idea of burying bodies when it takes a low level spell to animate them just sounds silly when you think of it.



Agreed.  But lets face it, the experiences of adventurer's and the experiences of townsfolk are two entirely different things.  Sure, you may run into a lot of zombies as an adventurer, but how many times does this happen in the same town?  At best, maybe once.  That zombie infestation is probably the first one the town has ever had since the town was founded.

Certainly people would be aware of other dead-raising events, but news travels slowly, perhaps the entire kingdom has only had one instance of dead-raising.  And the event was minor, perhaps it happened a hundred years ago.  

Of course, depending on the power level of whatever is raising the dead, even cremation may not be enough.  EX: in the MTG books, the dark god Yawgmoth is so powerful, he can recontitutue the dead matter in swamps into ooze-like monstrosities.  Of course, this is a near-god doing this, but on a much smaller scale, the concept remains the same.



> 2. The Court Wizard - Look at the wizard spell list, now look at the cleric spell list. Hmmm, throwing Fireballs and Lightning Bolts or Heal spells and Neutralize Poison. I know as a powerful king I want both guys working for me, but in reality I want the court cleric at my side 24/7. He can check my food for poison, remove any pesky diseases, and in the event of an attack heal me while my guards kill the assassin(s). But because of Merlin we have court wizards and the nearest cleric who can save the kings life is down the street in the cathedral. Well no more.



in theory, the "court wizard" also had many of those cleric-like powers too.  They were familiar with the smells and tastes of poison, they knew how to cure what ails you, and their fireball was generally enough to toast anyone in range.  I'll take the hybrid cleric-wizard plz.



> 3. The Party A$ - Not sure how to explain this one. The best is by example. Anyone who has ever read Band of Brothers ask yourself this question. How long would Lt. Sobel have lasted in Easy Company if it had not en egalitarian group of men working together instead of a military unit? Not long at all. The unmasked hatred Winter and others felt for him would have meant Sobel would have been killed or at the least abandoned at the first opportunity. So why are we to assume that the NE Rogue prick that annoys everyone, tries to steal when no one is looking, and is a general pain in the butt to the rest of the party is allowed to stick around? The dynamic of DnD party creation means extremely strange parties are often grouped together when there is no chance they would ever form in any sort of reality.



Generally, the jerk is tolerated because they must be.  Their quality as a fighter overcomes their lack of quality as a person.  Sometimes they're roped into things and have a quite reasonable desire to NOT want to be involved, but for some reason, are stuck with it.  Generally it comes down to the fact that the rest of the party is too good-natured to do anything about it, and the jerk holds their own well enough to not make an issue out of it.  Of course, the jerk is often dealt with by the "postal worker" of the group, who one day happens to be influenced a little by evil and blows the jerk's head clean off his shoulders.





> What illogical items exist in your campaign or in most campaigns that you have played in?



 Helpless women, is a big one.  I get that we're taking a medieval social standard for most games, but lets face it, we're in a fantasy world with all kinds of crazy stuff.  While yes, most women are going to be fairly helpless, so are most men.  However, there are still going to be a fair assortment of women who can kick butt.  

Likewise, amazons.  Anyone to really take the stance that the other sex is entirely unnecessary to life is in for a big surprise once they find their numbers dwindling.  Sure sure, there's immortality and godly reproduction, magical reproduction, ect...  Or they could use the "club and cave" method, but seriously, any society that is as educated and egalitarian as amazons are put forth to be, is not going to have a raging sexist streak.


----------



## rogueattorney (Nov 15, 2010)

Deset Gled said:


> Character Trope - The Uncompromising Gish
> 
> _I wanna be an awesome caster!  But I also wanna be a strong warrior!  Why can't I be both?  The system doesn't support by concept!_
> 
> Because characters are supposed to have limitations, you dolt.  Now stop trying to be uber, build a character with some real flaws (Oh, jeez. That's "flaws" not "Flaws".  No, you can't get a permanent AC bonus for agreeing to always smell bad), and develop some dimension to your roleplaying.




"I wanna cast spells."
"The magic-user is class for you."

"But I wanna wear armor."
"Oh, then you should be a cleric."

"But I want to use a sword."
"You can be an elf fighter-mage."

"But level limits suck."
"You can be an elf thief-mage."

"Thieves suck."
"You can dual class."

"The dual class rules suck."
"You suck."
"This game sucks."

...and thus 3e was born.


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 15, 2010)

DocMoriartty said:


> 1. Cemeteries - In the average fantasy world there are dozens of ways that corpses can come back to life, reanimate, or shed their body to become evil spirits that then prey on the living. This does not even take onto the various evil experiments performed by mad wizards.
> 
> So why are there cemeteries? I am in the process of creating a small town as a campaign starting point and one item I added was the pier of mourning. This is a seaside community and they have one stone pier jutting out into the bay used for funerals. The bodies of dead townspeople are wrapped in cloth, piled with wood, and burned in a pyre the day of the their or the immediate following day. The ashes are then allowed to blow into the sea. No dead bodies left around means less chance of the dead coming back. Really the idea of burying bodies when it takes a low level spell to animate them just sounds silly when you think of it.



Of course some religions teach that a burned corpse condemns the dead soul to some particularly nasty part of the Abyss or the Nine Hells, and there's the chance that a burned corpse may rise as a fire-wight or an ash-wraith, plus fire elementals may use the pyre as a portal to enter the Prime Material Plane, and there was that time an entire village was killed when a passing evil wizard cast _pytrotechnics_ on the pyre . . . 

_D&D_ tropes are only as illogical as you allow them to be.


----------



## Set (Nov 15, 2010)

lin_fusan said:


> I can even see a town that creates their own undead to defend the town.




Or one that uses animate dead, to prevent the dead from rising as something worse than skeletons/zombies, in an area where 'spontaneous' arisings as wights, ghouls, etc. is a possibility (say, areas that are infused with negative energy, or accursed, or in Ravenloft).

A subterranean chamber filled with mindless skeletons and zombies, only accessible through a hatch that leads to a smooth shaft that drops 20 ft, could represent the 'graveyard' of a community in such a place, as they'd rather have a chamber full of mindless shamblers under their community than have to worry about spontaneous outbreaks of ghouls or wights in the area.

The only reason why a culture would do this, rather than just burn their dead, would be if they have problems with some underground residents tunneling up and causing problems.  The local meenlocks may stop digging new tunnels up into the community if they have to fight a bunch of skeletons and zombies before they get to the good stuff.

Plus it's an adventure seed waiting to happen.

"The earthquake opened a fissue into the catacombs! I just saw George Romero with a camera! Run for your lives!"


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 15, 2010)

invokethehojo said:


> why can't a game focus on making characters have some kind of purpose, even if it's just being famous or accumulating wealth in an RP sense?



Nothing's ever stopped me from pursuing goals like these in any game I've played.


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 15, 2010)

Set said:


> A subterranean chamber filled with mindless skeletons and zombies, only accessible through a hatch that leads to a smooth shaft that drops 20 ft, could represent the 'graveyard' of a community in such a place, as they'd rather have a chamber full of mindless shamblers under their community than have to worry about spontaneous outbreaks of ghouls or wights in the area.




At least, we hope they're all mindless.  Otherwise those oppressed proletarian zombies could have a communist uprising and destroy the bourgiouse living!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 15, 2010)

From a folkloric point of view, the most common cause of spontaneously-formed undead should be _*improper burial*_.  As a result, a town would probably prefer to limit its undead potential by ensuring that proper burial is an option.

All those undead in modules?  The results of improper burial.  The ghouls were not buried in the graveyard; they came to ther graveyard from elsewhere to feast on the corpses.  But if those same corpses had not been buried properly, there would have been a veritable army of ghouls roaming the streets.

Likewise, folkloric undead have a real thing for targetting their families and close associates first -- you know, the people who should have seen to it that they can rest in peace!  Thus, the adventurers who callously leave the thief's remains in the trap that killed him may well discover that there is a reason to not simply take his stuff and press on.

Strangely, ghosts who want vengeance on their slayers are far rarer in actual folklore than undead who target their families and close associates.

That is a strong motive for proper burial -- for the average inhabitant of the fantasy world, mom and dad are potentially more dangerous than some ghoul who happens to be rooting around mom and dad's graves.

The gods may also demand particular burial practices.  Where this is the case, you have to ask yourself if you are more afraid of a random encounter with a ghoul if you enter the graveyard at night, or of Pelor's divine wrath?  The truth is, you can usually avoid the ghoul by staying out of the graveyard at night.

Proper burial appeases the dead, and appeases the gods.

Good luck to you if you fail to do either.



RC


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 15, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> Of course some religions teach that a burned corpse condemns the dead soul to some particularly nasty part of the Abyss or the Nine Hells, and there's the chance that a burned corpse may rise as a fire-wight or an ash-wraith, plus fire elementals may use the pyre as a portal to enter the Prime Material Plane, and there was that time an entire village was killed when a passing evil wizard cast _pytrotechnics_ on the pyre . . .
> 
> _D&D_ tropes are only as illogical as you allow them to be.




You are talking about real world religions that are trying to justify tradition or a new set of rules. One cannot use real world logic when talking about fantasy worlds because in DnD the Gods really do tell you what they do and dont like.

The graveyard trope is just illogical. In a world where the undead exist it makes no sense that graveyards ever came into being. To make things worse not only are there graveyards but they are often right in town.

It makes more sense in a world with undead that graveyards were never ever created and the very concept would sound pointlessly dangerous. Also it would make sense that clerics who worship gods that fight undead would very much be against any sort of graveyard. They are risk that does not need to be taken.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 15, 2010)

You are aware, I hope, that graveyards came into existence in a world in which the undead were believed to exist until very recently, and in some places are still believed to exist?

That the purpose of proper burial is (in part, and the earlier you go, the moreso) to limit the occurance of undead?

That destroying corpses does not eliminate the problem?  It just, in a D&D world, means a lot of noncorporeal undead (you know, the generally more dangerous kind) exist, and that they are not happy with you?

Graveyards make perfect sense.


RC


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 15, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> You are aware, I hope, that graveyards came into existence in a world in which the undead were believed to exist until very recently, and in some places are still believed to exist?
> 
> That the purpose of proper burial is (in part, and the earlier you go, the moreso) to limit the occurance of undead?
> 
> ...




Yes I am fully aware. I am also fully aware that undead do NOT actually exist so those who used graveyards to keep the dead from rising felt that their actions were 100% sucessful.

Exactly how does this benefit the discussion?

There are no zombies in our world. So whatever actions were taken to "stop" the dead from rising are of course going to succeed. 

That is like saying that since I lock my doors every night to keep Hitler from stealing my cheese I must be doing the right thing. Of course the fact that Hitler is dead and thus cannot steal my cheese. That is just a minor technicality.

Oh and graveyards came about as forced action by the Catholic Church. IT was part of a propoganda/fear campaign to force the people of Europe further under the church's thumb. They told horror stories about all the terrible things that happened if bodies were not buried on hallowed ground next to a church. Of course the sticker was the fact that your family could only be buried safely if you were a good christian, etc etc. How very convenient of the church.


----------



## olshanski (Nov 15, 2010)

DocMoriartty said:


> Oh and graveyards came about as forced action by the Catholic Church. IT was part of a propoganda/fear campaign to force the people of Europe further under the church's thumb. They told horror stories about all the terrible things that happened if bodies were not buried on hallowed ground next to a church. Of course the sticker was the fact that your family could only be buried safely if you were a good christian, etc etc. How very convenient of the church.




I know my Jewish ancestors would be apalled, as its been kind of a family tradition not to be buried in christian cemetaries.  I'd wager that humans have practiced burial since prehistoric times.

Really, I don't know why you are so crazy about banishing cemetaries. They make as much sense in a D&D world as many of the other methods of disposing of corpses... In real life you've got burial at sea, funeral pyres, tombs, burial mounds, cemetaries, mausoleums, cremation and spreading ashes in a familiar environment, excarnation....

A very important part of playing a roleplaying game is to set up a scene familiar enough to encourage immersion.  In real life, we know that cemetaries are supposed to be "spooky", even though we may not believe in ghosts or undead.  Haunted Houses often feature gravestonesand whatnot.  For many players and DMs, it is fun to use familiar environments and craft our D&D scenarios around what we are familiar with.

Seriously, if you want to invoke everything D&D related and recreate a world based on D&D physics and technology, you are going to have a very crazy world, I'd argue that such  world would be so alien as to be unplayable.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 15, 2010)

LOL

Gravesites have existed for far longer than the Catholic Church, and the fear of the dead rising if not properly buried probably goes back farther than recorded history.  Neolithic burials have been found with the dead bound and buried with grave goods.

Undead do not exist because of graveyards; they exist when proper burial is either not performed, or when it fails.  Remove the possibility of proper burial, and you dramatically increase the number of undead.

That is, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, the folklore that D&D emulates, and the existence of graveyards is perfectly logical within that framework.  That you are either unwilling or unable to accept that framework doesn't make it illogical.

(BTW, historically, people did not actually believe that their actions were 100% sucessful.  And when I say "historically", I mean at least as late as the 18th Century in Europe, and to modern times in some parts of the world.

Let me quote from wikipedia:



> During the 18th century, there was a frenzy of vampire sightings in Eastern Europe, with frequent stakings and grave diggings to identify and kill the potential revenants; even government officials engaged in the hunting and staking of vampires. Despite being called the Age of Enlightenment, during which most folkloric legends were quelled, the belief in vampires increased dramatically, resulting in a mass hysteria throughout most of Europe.  The panic began with an outbreak of alleged vampire attacks in East Prussia in 1721 and in the Habsburg Monarchy from 1725 to 1734, which spread to other localities. Two famous vampire cases, the first to be officially recorded, involved the corpses of Peter Plogojowitz and Arnold Paole from Serbia. Plogojowitz was reported to have died at the age of 62, but allegedly returned after his death asking his son for food. When the son refused, he was found dead the following day. Plogojowitz supposedly returned and attacked some neighbours who died from loss of blood.  In the second case, Paole, an ex-soldier turned farmer who allegedly was attacked by a vampire years before, died while haying. After his death, people began to die in the surrounding area and it was widely believed that Paole had returned to prey on the neighbours.  Another famous Serbian legend involving vampires concentrates around a certain Sava Savanović living in a watermill and killing and drinking blood from millers. The character was later used in a story written by Serbian writer Milovan Glišić and in the Serbian 1973 horror film Leptirica inspired by the story.
> 
> The two incidents were well-documented: government officials examined the bodies, wrote case reports, and published books throughout Europe.  The hysteria, commonly referred to as the "18th-Century Vampire Controversy", raged for a generation. The problem was exacerbated by rural epidemics of so-claimed vampire attacks, undoubtedly caused by the higher amount of superstition that was present in village communities, with locals digging up bodies and in some cases, staking them. Although many scholars reported during this period that vampires did not exist, and attributed reports to premature burial or rabies, superstitious belief increased. Dom Augustine Calmet, a well-respected French theologian and scholar, put together a comprehensive treatise in 1746, which was ambiguous concerning the existence of vampires. Calmet amassed reports of vampire incidents; numerous readers, including both a critical Voltaire and supportive demonologists, interpreted the treatise as claiming that vampires existed.




Vampire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)


RC


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (Nov 15, 2010)

DocMoriartty said:


> 1. Cemeteries




Better the occasional zombie or skeleton than a shadow, ghost or wraith...



DocMoriartty said:


> 2. The Court Wizard




Well, probably the "Jafar-style evil vizier" thing is a tad overused, but having one or two court wizards, a few court clerics of different religions, a court bard (jester) and a few court rogues makes for lively (and deadly!) political games.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Nov 15, 2010)

One that needs to die and thankfully has been dying - the idea that you need magic to do anything, _or_ that not all characters are magical.

One or the other.  That's how myth and fantasy work.  Either you don't need magic to be fantastic (Beowulf ripping off Grendel's arm then diving into the sea and spending hours underwater searching for the lair, without ever once using a magic waterbreathing or strength item, without asking a local wizard for help) or we admit that everyone is somehow divine or magical (Greek mythology).

This idea that fighters have to be mundane *and* non-fantastic is such a D&D-ism, and it's the worst kind.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 15, 2010)

Yeah, 'cause a fantasy game shouldn't be able to emulate, say, Peregrin Took, or Conan, or Fafrd.  That's just crazy talk to think that.  Sheesh!

(Obviously, that a game should offer a choice that is mundane and non-fantastic is a violation of *someone's* onetruewayism!)

RC


----------



## billd91 (Nov 15, 2010)

DocMoriartty said:


> You are talking about real world religions that are trying to justify tradition or a new set of rules. One cannot use real world logic when talking about fantasy worlds because in DnD the Gods really do tell you what they do and dont like.




Treading dangerous ground with that line of thought. There are people in this world who believe that their gods do, in fact, tell the people what they do and don't like.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 15, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> This idea that fighters have to be mundane *and* non-fantastic is such a D&D-ism, and it's the worst kind.




Depends on your definition of fantastic. Frankly, I think fighters in D&D can perform some pretty fantastic feats even if I think they shouldn't be able to jump down 200 foot cliffs and walk away. Plus there's plenty of literature that includes fighter-types doing relatively mundane and non-fantastic things all the time. It's not a D&Dism at all.


----------



## Leatherhead (Nov 15, 2010)

1. Cemeteries - OK, so fighting zombies is bad (skeletons are cool though). But wait one moment, imagine that instead of zombies you have to fight undead ash monsters because all the bodies are burned and necromancy still exists. And of course this doesn't stop animal zombies from being made, which can be even more dangerous than human zombies. Logicaly, cemeteries are just less risky than the alternatives. 


2. The Court Wizard - Most castles have a priest on the grounds, or in the local area anyway. The Wizard there is more about messing other people up than it is about protecting yourself. Turning your enemies into frogs is quite the way to make a statement.


3. The Party A$$hole - Yeah, this needs to go away. Especially that one guy who plays a rogue and steals from the rest of the party under the pretence of roleplaying. 



> What illogical items exist in your campaign or in most campaigns that you have played in?




"It's magic, I don't have to explain it": Seriously, take cultural anthropology class or something. Magic has rules and a form of logic behind it, even if you don't agree with said logic and the rules seem completely arbitrary. 

The DMPC: Do I really need to explain this one? The PCs are the protagonists, having NPCs hang around and do significant things (especially combat or puzzle solving) trivializes them. Having a king to do the mundane tasks of running a kingdom, and sending the PC's out on quests because he commands them is fine. But having said king go out and directly solve the problems that the PC's are supposed to be engaged in, is not.


----------



## gamerprinter (Nov 15, 2010)

Frankly if my adventure party entered a town to not find any cemeteries, this would be a red flag. Uh-oh, I think a necromancer must be secretly running this town - no don't ask anyone, they'll just get suspicious. Let's burn it to the ground! Evil doers, burn!

I enjoy playing with tropes, actually introducing NPCs that do not fall into a specific trope, though from the surface they are doing exactly that. Tropes play well to charcters perceptions. And proving those tropes wrong in game, is just as fun.

In my worlds, most kings are NOT former adventurers. Some have taken military posts and other social positions before becoming a monarch. But most my lands kings aren't 18th Fighters, rather zero level aristocrats. Aristocracy is not a meritocracy. Divine right to be king is a bloodline thing, not a reward for being a hero. Maybe the first king was that, but his son was as likely inept, just born of the line. If meritocracy was the thing, no stable noble line could exist it would change every generation.

I like fantasy tropes, they help tell a story, even if the wrong one.

GP


----------



## Diamond Cross (Nov 15, 2010)

I'd like to see the trope of "That's not realistic" die.

I'd like to see the end of entire races being evil alignment and let only individuals have the evil alignment.

Hafling rogues.

Elvish rangers.

Dwarves with scottish accents.

Elves with surfboarder (as in wow, okay dude) accents.


----------



## Leatherhead (Nov 15, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Yeah, 'cause a fantasy game shouldn't be able to emulate, say, Peregrin Took, or Conan, or Fafrd.  That's just crazy talk to think that.  Sheesh!




How is Conan not fantastic?


----------



## Jacob Marley (Nov 15, 2010)

I like my undead-filled cemeteries; my court wizards who wear pointy hats and long, flowing robes; my mundane fighters who become kings; my dwarves with Scottish accents; my fat halflings who smell of tobacco; my greedy dragons; my evil necromancers; my corrupt town guards; my princesses; etc., etc., etc.

Yeah, I like my fantasy tropes.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Nov 15, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Yeah, 'cause a fantasy game shouldn't be able to emulate, say, Peregrin Took, or Conan, or Fafrd.  That's just crazy talk to think that.  Sheesh!
> 
> (Obviously, that a game should offer a choice that is mundane and non-fantastic is a violation of *someone's* onetruewayism!)
> 
> RC




DOn't bring up LotR.  That's some kind of tabletop fallacy at this point.  There was a full webcomic designed to mock the idea of a LotR tabletop game.  LotR has never been a tabletop game, it's never been a good idea for a tabletop game, it never will be.

And yes, Conan or Fafrd, I remember those utterly mundane and non-fantastic characters, like the time Conan was dominated and controlled every time he fought a wizard, or the time he was stabbed and then bled out and died.


----------



## JeffB (Nov 15, 2010)

Lots of non sensical tropes in FRPGs

Then again I think some people are forgetting the "F" part of "FRPGs" 

I had a period in my gaming years where I questioned the "reality" of so many things in D&D  and other games. Few FRPGs can get away with the craziness in a sensical way (RuneQuest's Glorantha being a shining example).

Then one day it hit me that these are just games, and fantasy, and trying to make sense of it is an exercise in futility.

But to contribute to the thread in the manner intended

I'll agree with "the adventurer" (and god forbid..CITIES of Adventurers like Raven's Blufff in the realms- ugh...puke...)

I'll also throw in one of my D&D pet peeves- "the magic item shop"- Its one thing to have a rare merchant who may deal in these types of things, but in recent D&D times, the all too common bit of  "magic for sale" drives me nuts.

and finally- the megadungeon- ala  Undermountain. Yup- big dungeon, full of nastiness right under the largest city in the Realms- pay the barkeep your 5 GP access fee, and head on down the rope


----------



## Barastrondo (Nov 15, 2010)

gamerprinter said:


> Divine right to be king is a bloodline thing, not a reward for being a hero. Maybe the first king was that, but his son was as likely inept, just born of the line. If meritocracy was the thing, no stable noble line could exist it would change every generation.




I actually really like meritocracies for exactly this reason. If the king had to quest for a Grail, endure ordeals or pass through a gauntlet of tests, that spices a kingdom up rather considerably. Doesn't necessarily mean he's high-level, mind, depending on the tests, but a meritocracy produces interesting rulers.



ProfessorCirno said:


> And yes, Conan or Fafrd, I remember those utterly mundane and non-fantastic characters, like the time Conan was dominated and controlled every time he fought a wizard, or the time he was stabbed and then bled out and died.




Fafhrd is so mundane he grabbed a lit rocket under either arm and made a rocket-propelled ski jump over an immense crevasse while his beard was still coming in. And was a god once or twice, if only for a little bit. I'm also glad to see that "not magically empowered" doesn't mean "mundane" myself these days; a lot of those early fantasy swordsmen who got by on strength and cunning had rather a lot more of it than was entirely feasible.


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (Nov 15, 2010)

Back on topic: Tropes that have been overused to death:

1.- "You all meet in an Inn": Seriously guys!

2.- "You are all in Jail": Seriously, this is NOT an acceptable substitute!

3.- "Everyone is a white-skinned European-lookalike": And no, a token minority party member is not much better.


----------



## Mark Chance (Nov 15, 2010)

DocMoriartty said:


> You are talking about real world religions that are trying to justify tradition or a new set of rules....




In response to a post that referenced the Nine Hells and the Abyss, you walked away with "real world religions"? I guess such a leap explains how you came up with this laughable slander:



DocMoriartty said:


> Oh and graveyards came about as forced action by the Catholic Church. IT was part of a propoganda/fear campaign to force the people of Europe further under the church's thumb....






I guess history is easier when one just makes stuff up as one goes along.


----------



## Pseudonym (Nov 15, 2010)

Mark Chance said:


> I guess history is easier when one just makes stuff up as one goes along.




Or takes levels in the Cliff Claven prestige class.


----------



## Pseudonym (Nov 15, 2010)

Leatherhead said:


> Especially that one guy who plays a rogue and steals from the rest of the party under the pretence of roleplaying.




Halfling assassin in our group's case. Let's broaden that to thieving halflings regardless of class.


----------



## gamerprinter (Nov 15, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> I actually really like meritocracies for exactly this reason. If the king had to quest for a Grail, endure ordeals or pass through a gauntlet of tests, that spices a kingdom up rather considerably. Doesn't necessarily mean he's high-level, mind, depending on the tests, but a meritocracy produces interesting rulers.




While all this might be true for Arthur, answer me this, who was King of Britain after Arthur? Can you name any of the next 20 kings of Britain after Arthur? Probably because Arthur was the hero king, than his sons or rather his replacements were not. Not every King of Britain was a King Arthur, otherwise no one would remember the name as he was just like every other heroic king of Britain.

Meritocracies make sense, but then keeping power on the throne prevents meritocracies from happening. It might be a good idea for a generation or two, but eventually some king wants to keep in the family and it becomes an aristocracy eventually.

Now if we're talking Celtic Kingship and tannistry, well, that's much closer to a mertocracy. While the King still had to be of noble birth, it wasn't necessarily a father to son thing. Kingship was represented by the best representing hero king. Once the hero king was too weak to meet the criteria, he was voted off the throne and the next most worthy noble Celt ascended the clan throne. More than likely related to the previous king, but just as likely not his son.

GP


----------



## gamerprinter (Nov 15, 2010)

DocMoriartty said:


> Oh and graveyards came about as forced action by the Catholic Church. IT was part of a propoganda/fear campaign to force the people of Europe further under the church's thumb. They told horror stories about all the terrible things that happened if bodies were not buried on hallowed ground next to a church. Of course the sticker was the fact that your family could only be buried safely if you were a good christian, etc etc. How very convenient of the church.




What of the Neandrethals that practiced death burial? Those damned Neandrethal Catholics again - stirring up trouble.

GP

*Guys, stay away from discussion of real-world religions, please. Thanks! - Piratecat*


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Nov 15, 2010)

DocMoriartty said:


> 2. The Court Wizard - Look at the wizard spell list, now look at the cleric spell list. Hmmm, throwing Fireballs and Lightning Bolts or Heal spells and Neutralize Poison. I know as a powerful king I want both guys working for me, but in reality I want the court cleric at my side 24/7. He can check my food for poison, remove any pesky diseases, and in the event of an attack heal me while my guards kill the assassin(s). But because of Merlin we have court wizards and the nearest cleric who can save the kings life is down the street in the cathedral. Well no more.




Real-life kingdoms often had the king's confessor, who had a lot of power since the king kept confessing to him! But maybe think the separation of church and state was bigger in medieval western Europe than it really was. (And of course, Christianity-analogues are missing in many fantasy settings.)

Other tropes: Kingly classes! Well, there's no noble class that I've seen (although there are some sweet 4e controller noble types), but I think warlord is closest to what you're looking for. I don't know if it has the correct class skills, but a PC could pull it off with some Skill Training feats.


----------



## Barastrondo (Nov 16, 2010)

gamerprinter said:


> While all this might be true for Arthur, answer me this, who was King of Britain after Arthur? Can you name any of the next 20 kings of Britain after Arthur? Probably because Arthur was the hero king, than his sons or rather his replacements were not. Not every King of Britain was a King Arthur, otherwise no one would remember the name as he was just like every other heroic king of Britain.




Yeah, pretty much like I said: meritocracies lead to more interesting monarchs on the throne, which is why I like 'em. You can certainly get good intrigues from people who are "qualified" by virtue of their parentage trying to keep a hold of their power, of course. But meritocracies have, in my experience, led to the players getting more personally interested in the local rulers ("Duke Ironstorm? How'd he get _that_ name?"), and of course they naturally lead the players to consider making bids for rulership without having to retroactively insert royal blood into their backgrounds or consign themselves to marrying nobles instead of fellow heroes/divine agents/whathaveyou.

This may vary if player characters are taken with the romance of breeding, mind, but my group's a little more taken with the romance of skill, wisdom and cunning.



> Meritocracies make sense, but then keeping power on the throne prevents meritocracies from happening. It might be a good idea for a generation or two, but eventually some king wants to keep in the family and it becomes an aristocracy eventually.




Sure, and then the aristocracy winds up having problems with the sort of troubles that beset a D&D world, casting about desperately for meritorious individuals who can defend the realm, and enter the PCs -- who, if the aristos aren't all that, may well revert the kingdom back to a meritocracy. Another thing that I do enjoy about D&D; the stronghold phase simply isn't limited to people who wrote "noble background" on their character sheets.


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Nov 16, 2010)

DocMoriartty said:


> The funny thing is that even when you consider the full varieties that a fantasy world allows it still does make the most sense that most Kings are fighters.





What about the Wizard Kings? There's got to be some of those. 



invokethehojo said:


> The trope I want to die... the adventurer. How many people walk around "looking for adventure", risking their life all the time to find money so they can buy a shinier sword so they can kill more things to get more money to buy shinier other things? It's stupid. Now yes, I have to admit I'm coming from a more serious gamer point of view, but I like my campaigns to be like books, there is room for humor and suspension of disbelief, but the fact that all PC's are built off of a model that almost no sane person would follow is just absurd.
> 
> At least pathfinder tried to help this by making the pathfinder society, meaning PC's are affiliated with a group and their job is to do these things (though the fact its still all about buying more shiney's doesn't help).
> 
> why can't a game focus on making characters have some kind of purpose, even if it's just being famous or accumulating wealth in an RP sense?




And couldnt an 'adventurer' just be a kind of name for a wandering mercenary or 'sellword'? An even in real life, there were treasure hunters, tomb looters, etc.



Diamond Cross said:


> I'd like to see the trope of "That's not realistic" die.
> 
> I'd like to see the end of entire races being evil alignment and let only individuals have the evil alignment.
> 
> ...




Stoner/Cali-Elves? Where have there ever been those?


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Nov 16, 2010)

Sorrowdusk said:


> What about the Wizard Kings? There's got to be some of those.




Especially in FR :/

Wizards don't make great kings, as they tend to lack social skills and people often view them with suspicion.

"His father died of old age."

"Oh _really_?"

Of course, NPCs can break the rules.



> And couldnt an 'adventurer' just be a kind of name for a wandering mercenary or 'sellword'?




They have those in real life, as you point out. Only in DnD, they're more specialized.


----------



## Lanefan (Nov 16, 2010)

DocMoriartty said:


> Look through most published modules. Tell me how many graveyards dont have at least a few undead wandering in them. Technically they should be hallowed ground but they never are. The resurrection arguement may work for important people but 99% of the "occupants" of a graveyard are Bob the peasant or Fred the blacksmith. No one is ever going to raise them from the dead.



I'd think Bob the peasant and Fred the Blacksmith make just as good zombies as old Mayor George or Janet the Archdeacon... 

Lan-"Necromancers are so much fun"-efan


----------



## Lanefan (Nov 16, 2010)

Pseudonym said:


> Halfling assassin in our group's case. Let's broaden that to thieving halflings regardless of class.



Funny - there's one of those LE Hobbit Assassin things in my Friday game and he's well on the way to becoming the glue that holds the party together!  Lose him, and they're in big trouble.

Lanefan


----------



## Saeviomagy (Nov 16, 2010)

DocMoriartty said:


> 1. Cemeteries - In the average fantasy world there are dozens of ways that corpses can come back to life, reanimate, or shed their body to become evil spirits that then prey on the living. This does not even take onto the various evil experiments performed by mad wizards.
> 
> So why are there cemeteries? I am in the process of creating a small town as a campaign starting point and one item I added was the pier of mourning. This is a seaside community and they have one stone pier jutting out into the bay used for funerals. The bodies of dead townspeople are wrapped in cloth, piled with wood, and burned in a pyre the day of the their or the immediate following day. The ashes are then allowed to blow into the sea. No dead bodies left around means less chance of the dead coming back. Really the idea of burying bodies when it takes a low level spell to animate them just sounds silly when you think of it.



Given that people in the real world were worried about this (hence the whole "bury them then drop a half-ton slab of stone on top of the grave" approach in places), it's not really an issue. Also see various acts of burying people at crossroads (so their ghost won't be able to tell which way to go to get revenge) or in other odd conditions.

And boy, are you going to look like a dufus when you finally score a lucky free raise dead off a kindly passing adventurer, and you had the body of your lover burnt and spread to the winds....


> 2. The Court Wizard - Look at the wizard spell list, now look at the cleric spell list. Hmmm, throwing Fireballs and Lightning Bolts or Heal spells and Neutralize Poison. I know as a powerful king I want both guys working for me, but in reality I want the court cleric at my side 24/7. He can check my food for poison, remove any pesky diseases, and in the event of an attack heal me while my guards kill the assassin(s). But because of Merlin we have court wizards and the nearest cleric who can save the kings life is down the street in the cathedral. Well no more.



This is something that applies only in 3.5, and is pretty much fixed in 4. In 4 you get "that guy who knows rituals", be he a cleric, wizard, bard or fighter who dabbles.


> 3. The Party A$ - Not sure how to explain this one.



It's pretty easy. It's only really a D&D trope because it's assumed that the party starts out pre-formed out of whatever characters the group came up with.

If you actually try to have some backstory and history as to why a group are together (or play out the circumstances of their coming together), then the problem isn't there. Either the jerk has a good story reason why people put up with him, or he's not a member of the party.


----------



## Orius (Nov 16, 2010)

shidaku said:


> but seriously, any society that is as educated and egalitarian as amazons are put forth to be, is not going to have a raging sexist streak.




That's probably because the Amazons were created by a society that had a huge raging sexist streak.



DocMoriartty said:


> Royalty has a problem with religion in a Christian dominated Medieval Europe. In the average DnD society the same tension is much less likely where one annoying church can just be replaced with another one that worships a more accomidating deity.




How the heck is priest vs. king restricted to Christian Europe?  This is a pretty old trope (though I just blew an hour searching for it on TVTropes and came up empty handed, I'm sure someone will point it out though), going back a very long way, as priests and kings were both major authority figures in society. Unless you had priest-kings, and even then you'd likely get courtly intrigue.  A Christian setting is no more or less likely to have this conflict than any other setting; it's conceivable that the king might be very devout and trust the priest in all things.


----------



## Dandu (Nov 16, 2010)

> 2. The Court Wizard - Look at the wizard spell list, now look at the  cleric spell list. Hmmm, throwing Fireballs and Lightning Bolts or Heal  spells and Neutralize Poison. I know as a powerful king I want both guys  working for me, but in reality I want the court cleric at my side 24/7.  He can check my food for poison, remove any pesky diseases, and in the  event of an attack heal me while my guards kill the assassin(s). But  because of Merlin we have court wizards and the nearest cleric who can  save the kings life is down the street in the cathedral. Well no more.



You know I'm pretty sure there's more to the wizard's spell list than Fireball and Lightening Bolt.

Offhand, Contact Other Plane seems like it might be useful in a court setting, along with the various glyph and sigil trap spells.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 16, 2010)

Leatherhead said:


> How is Conan not fantastic?




I suppose that depends upon what you mean by "fantastic".

I also suppose that depends upon what you mean by "Conan".    When I say "Conan", I refer to nothing apart from the stories written by Robert E. Howard....as written by Robert E. Howard (as opposed to pastiches and poor, but perhaps well-meaning, edits after his death).



ProfessorCirno said:


> DOn't bring up LotR.  That's some kind of tabletop fallacy at this point.  There was a full webcomic designed to mock the idea of a LotR tabletop game.  LotR has never been a tabletop game, it's never been a good idea for a tabletop game, it never will be.




Ah.  I am sure I could do a webcomic that makes the same mockery of *anything* turned directly into an rpg.  If that makes the ideas, settings, etc. (i.e., everything but that specific plotline) unusable as fodder for a rpg, I guess we got nothing.

That's it folks.  Roll 'em up!  No more rpgs!  They are all a tabletop fallacy at this point!





> And yes, Conan or Fafrd, I remember those utterly mundane and non-fantastic characters, like the time Conan was dominated and controlled every time he fought a wizard, or the time he was stabbed and then bled out and died.




And yes, ProfessorCirno or Raven Crowking, I remember those utterly mundane and non-fantastic characters, like the time Raven Crowking was dominated and controlled every time he fought a wizard, or the time he was stabbed and then bled out and died.

But....since those things never happened.....ProfessorCirno and Raven Crowking must be fantastic and/or magical!  (Well, I have been told that I was, but I don't think it was in the context you mean.    )

Oh, wait, that isn't really the definition of mundane, or non-fantastic, is it?

In this particular parlance, we are talking about "non-magical".  You are implying that it takes some form of magic to resist magical influence, and that it takes some form of magic to engage in combat...to be wounded in combat, say...and not only survive, but triumph.

Now, I can't talk about what might be needed to resist magical influences, as I haven't encountered anything that I would claim to be so in the real world.  However, either you are not a student of history, or you must believe that there have been many, many fantastic and/or magical people throughout human history.  Or maybe you just want to make your point, and don't care about its accuracy.



Orius said:


> How the heck is priest vs. king restricted to Christian Europe?




It isn't.



RC


----------



## jonesy (Nov 16, 2010)

Since we're quoting TvTropes:
Tropes Are Tools - Television Tropes & Idioms

If you go through every single page of tropes they have, and then try to craft a story that doesn't have any of them, well, it's hard. There's a trope now for pretty much everything.


----------



## Piratecat (Nov 16, 2010)

Sorrowdusk said:


> Stoner/Cali-Elves? Where have there ever been those?



Dark Sun, remarkably enough.


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 16, 2010)

DocMoriartty said:


> 1. Cemeteries - In the average fantasy world there are dozens of ways that corpses can come back to life, reanimate, or shed their body to become evil spirits that then prey on the living. This does not even take onto the various evil experiments performed by mad wizards.
> 
> So why are there cemeteries?




In several nations of Sartha, and a good many more that are now extinct, there are cemetaries precisely so that corpses can be stockpiled, can come back to life, will be handy to reinanimate, and will attract evil spirits.  These nations view cemetaries as batteries or power plants.  They are extraordinarily useful.

In other nations of Sartha, Cemetaries are places where you put the dead in one place so that you can consecrate them all at once, where you can be sure that someone has cast 'lay to rest' on the bodies, where you can ring the whole area in protective anti-necromantic wards so that anything that does wake up stays where it is at, and so forth.  Quite often, the cultures of this later sort have the problem that the cemetary used to belong to a culture of the former sort, which can result in long term problems of disposing and putting down those dead that weren't happily buried.   Undertaker is a highly skilled professional trade on Sartha, and there are gods that are more or less the 'god of proper burial'.  I mean, you don't think that bad guys are the only ones with death gods do you?

In other nations of Sartha, you bury your loved ones in a graveyard so you can go talk to them (and occasionally even see them) on a semi-regular basis.  You go build a nice bonfire in the graveyard, roast some harvest veggies and a bit of some sacred animal, maybe throw a bit of tobacco on the fire, and wait for grandma to show up.  If grandma happened to get scattered to the four winds, guess what, your family is probably the only one on the block that is out of luck - no ancesteral wisdom and supernatural insight over the coming year for you.

There are actually places on my world where a consecrated cemetary has been built on top of a descrecated one and acts more or less as a lid.   And there places in the world where multiple cultures exist simultaneously and are more or less in tension with each others desires. 

The truth of the matter is that while most cemetaries have an undead problem of some sort, most undead aren't in cemetaries.  Cemetaries have an undead problem on the basis of sheer quantity.  You bury 400,000 people in one spot, you are bound to have a few mistakes.   But the percentage of bodies that end up as undead in a cemetary is very small compared to the percentage of bodies that end up as undead outside the cemetary.  Most undead are actually unburied people who died lonely horrifying deaths in out of the way places.   There is considerable utility in finding these bodies and buring them in an actual cemetary.

One thing you generally certainly don't want to do is start spreading necomantic residue all over your community.   Burning a body doesn't destroy it - it just disperses it.  This is especially true if the body isn't burned in a consecrated fire as part of a internment ritual.  Think of a body that used to contain a spirit as being something like low level radioactive waste.  The goal is to contain it and neutralize it.  Sure, if you do it wrong, burying all that waste in one location creates a heck of a toxic cesspool, but even then it beats the alternative of spreading it around.  Dilution is not the solution to polution.  What you end up doing there if you scatter ashes is creating nasty ash wraiths, sentient curses, widespread desecrated ground (which in turn tends to turn into undead anything buried there), haunts that occur over wide areas, possessing ghosts, hungry ghosts, and alot of things far worse than a haunted graveyard.



> This is a seaside community and they have one stone pier jutting out into the bay used for funerals. The bodies of dead townspeople are wrapped in cloth, piled with wood, and burned in a pyre the day of the their or the immediate following day. The ashes are then allowed to blow into the sea.




This sounds pretty good provided that they have some deities on board with the ritual to catch the souls when they get thrown into the sea and some clerics around to make sure they get the message.  Otherwise, what you just did is create one heck of a haunted harbor.  On the other hand, that might actually be the goal.  Them northmen are likely to have a heck of a time ambushing you in your bed in the middle of the night if they try landing quietly in the harbor.  Your ancestors aren't likely to take that 'lying down'.  



> No dead bodies left around means less chance of the dead coming back.




Not really.  The dead come back on their own when they are unhappy and unwilling or unable to undertake the difficult journey into the afterlife.  Not having a body just means that they've lost a point of attachment and are more likely to be confused and angry.  The corporeal undead are generally not a problem.  An outbreak of rage zombies is troublesome, but not something that the town watch backed up by a few low level clerics can't handle.   It's the incorporeal ones that tend to be the real problem.  Exorcisms are difficult, and even compotent soldiers tend to be useless against even fairly minor spirits.



> Really the idea of burying bodies when it takes a low level spell to animate them just sounds silly when you think of it.




Low to mid-level necromancers aren't really a big problem either.  They have a hard time hiding and being mortal they can always be drugged, grappled, and/or killed in their sleep.  You average town watch will have very effective albiet quite brutal methods for dealing with suspected spellcasters.   Witches and wizards represent pretty ordinary problems.  It's not like you are going to cast something obvious like Invisibility and have everyone go into a panic.  Zombies are scary, but no scarier to a Sarthan than having a blowout on the interstate is to someone from our world, and animate dead is unlikely to get you very far.   Body disposal represents the usual hazards, but if you know ahead of time what you are dealing with that simplifies the problem.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 16, 2010)

Orius said:


> How the heck is priest vs. king restricted to Christian Europe?  This is a pretty old trope (though I just blew an hour searching for it on TVTropes and came up empty handed, I'm sure someone will point it out though), going back a very long way, as priests and kings were both major authority figures in society. Unless you had priest-kings, and even then you'd likely get courtly intrigue.  A Christian setting is no more or less likely to have this conflict than any other setting; it's conceivable that the king might be very devout and trust the priest in all things.




It isn't limited to it, per se, but it's an example where there was often a political dispute between one power and another, both of which wanted to wield ultimate authority. In medieval Christian Europe, there was just the one church hierarchy so kings didn't have an alternative to bring in as a substitute if they didn't see eye to eye. In a pantheist society like a lot of D&D campaigns, if the king isn't getting along with a religious hierarchy or two, there may yet be another one more willing to operate as the main religious advisor. Kings can basically shop around to find something with a more similar outlook or something more compliant.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Nov 16, 2010)

DocMoriartty said:


> 1. Cemeteries




Because you might want them back.  And holy ground means that the worst won't happen accidently.



> 2. The Court Wizard




I'm a fan of bards for Court Wizard anyway.  The job of court wizard is king's advisor on the arcane - and politician.  Political skill matters more than raw power.



> 3. The Party A$




I've just (as DM) warned mine that unless he shapes up the PCs may kick him out when they make it back to civilisation.



Zhaleskra said:


> 4. Robe and Wizard Hat.




Oh, I don't know.  Several of my characters like that trope and wearing rogue and hat.  None of them wizards, oddly enough...



DocMoriartty said:


> The funny thing is that even when you consider the full varieties that a fantasy world allows it still does make the most sense that most Kings are fighters.




Huh?  Why?  A king's most important abilities are Will save, Sense Motive, and Diplomacy.  I.e. political skill and the ability to gather people behind him (and in front of him).  Aristocrat (3e), Marshal, Bard, Warlord (4e), Cleric, and even arguably Paladin are all better choices.  If the king _needs_ to draw his sword something's gone badly wrong.



Deset Gled said:


> Character Trope - The Uncompromising Gish




As someone who likes Bards and finds them pretty powerful - I see no reason you need to be more powerful than a Battle Sorceror.



invokethehojo said:


> The trope I want to die... the adventurer. How many people walk around "looking for adventure", risking their life all the time to find money so they can buy a shinier sword so they can kill more things to get more money to buy shinier other things?




It tends to lead to short lives.  And joining mercenary companies.



> why can't a game focus on making characters have some kind of purpose, even if it's just being famous or accumulating wealth in an RP sense?




Mine do.



Raven Crowking said:


> Yeah, 'cause a fantasy game shouldn't be able to emulate, say, Peregrin Took, or Conan, or Fafrd. That's just crazy talk to think that. Sheesh!




Pippin starts off at level 1.  Conan and Fafrd are from what I recall significantly less realistic than most Holywood blockbuster action heroes (others have given specifics).  By attempting to tie them down to realism, you ensure that your fantasy game _can't _emulate either of them.  (Or was this your whole point?)


----------



## Umbran (Nov 16, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> Dark Sun, remarkably enough.




Before Dark Sun...


North of Geoff, South of Ket
By the River Javan wet
Living with the stubby gnomes
The Valley Elves do make their homes...

Like, fer sher, man.  Okay, so we have this archmage, y'know, and he's like, just so totally... total, man!


----------



## DragonLancer (Nov 16, 2010)

DocMoriartty said:


> So why are there cemeteries? I am in the process of creating a small town as a campaign starting point and one item I added was the pier of mourning. This is a seaside community and they have one stone pier jutting out into the bay used for funerals. The bodies of dead townspeople are wrapped in cloth, piled with wood, and burned in a pyre the day of the their or the immediate following day. The ashes are then allowed to blow into the sea. No dead bodies left around means less chance of the dead coming back. Really the idea of burying bodies when it takes a low level spell to animate them just sounds silly when you think of it.




Because then you get fiery undead and potentially incorporeal ones which the locals can't hope to deal with. At least a skeleton or zombie can be put down by the village or town militia.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 16, 2010)

You could always feed the corpses to something.  Of course, then you might get some sort of excremental undead.  That would really stink.  

One of the D&D tropes that I would like to see die is the whole "My character is an orphan sprung fully formed without a single attachment anywhere in the world".  I know that if I lived in a D&D world and any offspring that I had showed the slightest inclination to becoming an adventurer, I'd take the little bastard out and drown him forthwith.  Every family member of a PC is either dead, eaten or kidnapped, sometimes all three and possibly in that order.


----------



## invokethehojo (Nov 16, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> Nothing's ever stopped me from pursuing goals like these in any game I've played.




This is what I get for posting quickly while at work.  I should've explained myself in more detail.  In 1st edition (and maybe 2nd, don't really remember) you had a goal of acquiring money to build a stronghold, or rise to the top of the druidic order.  Now D&D and Pathfinder at least, assume that all the money you aquire will go directly to magic items because those are things you must have in order to keep up with the monsters that are appropriate to your level.  Money has essentially become part of all character classes, and I don't like that, because if I want to run a campaign based around characters being in the military or on a privateer ship (or in any situation where I don't want them to constantly have a lot of money available) I really can't.  They have to be adventurers, seeking treasure wherever they go.  I don't think adventureres shouldn't exist, I think they should be relegated to one of many choices, however with the current trope that doesn't seem viable... that's what should die.


----------



## Mercurius (Nov 16, 2010)

It isn't the tropes themselves that get outworn, it is how they are used. 

A "trope" is basically analogous to "cliche," which is a kind of superficial variant on an archetype. We don't want to get rid of archetypes but we don't want our cliches/tropes (i.e. specific forms that archetypes take within a given context) to get old.

Another form of trope which I haven't seen mentioned is the "changing an archetype for the sake of novelty or to distance oneself from another's version of said archetype." An example would be Gygaxian elves - you know, the ones that are 5' and basically pointy-eared lesser versions of Tolkien's elves. This is a trope that I'm glad to see dead and gone (at least with later editions of D&D). 

Related to this is "the old classic with a twist." This can be good but often it is just...silly. Like sea-faring dwarves or savage halfings or schizophrenic intelligent swords (OK, the last is kind of cool).

In a sense I'm talking about two extremes: The first being the superficial cliche that offers nothing new or fresh and is basically a derivation of derivative material; the second is the cliche of difference-for-difference sake. Somewhere between the two is the archetype: a symbol that has many possible forms, but in order for it to come alive it needs to have a kind of depth and subtlety, and a connection to the universal.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 16, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> Conan and Fafrd are from what I recall significantly less realistic than most Holywood blockbuster action heroes




I suppose that depends upon what you mean by "Conan".    When I say "Conan", I refer to nothing apart from the stories written by Robert E. Howard....as written by Robert E. Howard (as opposed to pastiches and poor, but perhaps well-meaning, edits after his death).



Neonchameleon said:


> (others have given specifics).




Can you point those out to me, please?



RC


----------



## Stalker0 (Nov 16, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Selection bias - modules don't tend to detail that which isn't tactically interesting or plot-related.  Tell me how many outhouses do you see in modules that don't have treasure or an otyugh or other monster in the muck?




While I agree with the point, aren't Troupes by their definition a creation of selection bias?


----------



## Thasmodious (Nov 16, 2010)

invokethehojo said:


> Money has essentially become part of all character classes, and I don't like that, because if I want to run a campaign based around characters being in the military or on a privateer ship (or in any situation where I don't want them to constantly have a lot of money available) I really can't.




Of course you can.  That's why it's called Dungeon *Master*.

The information isn't presented as a requirement, the math is just exposed.  You're told what the baseline is and are free to adjust as you see fit.  When a party of x level is balanced to face a monster of y level, it is based on certain assumptions about the power levels of the PCs (so was 1e/2e, the difference is in access to those assumptions).  If that power level is different, adjustments can be made.  But to say "you can't do that" is absurd.


----------



## invokethehojo (Nov 16, 2010)

Thasmodious said:


> Of course you can.  That's why it's called Dungeon *Master*.
> 
> The information isn't presented as a requirement, the math is just exposed.  You're told what the baseline is and are free to adjust as you see fit.  When a party of x level is balanced to face a monster of y level, it is based on certain assumptions about the power levels of the PCs (so was 1e/2e, the difference is in access to those assumptions).  If that power level is different, adjustments can be made.  But to say "you can't do that" is absurd.




Excuse me, I can do that, but considering that I already have a lot to do as the DM, I would prefer the guys who get paid to design games did the work of rewriting rules for me, so I don't have to, but this is getting off topic so lets just drop it.


----------



## Thasmodious (Nov 16, 2010)

invokethehojo said:


> Excuse me, I can do that, but considering that I already have a lot to do as the DM, I would prefer the guys who get paid to design games did the work of rewriting rules for me, so I don't have to, but this is getting off topic so lets just drop it.




The point is that the math behind the system is shown to you in the later editions.  It was there in the earlier editions as well.  Module writers and designers used a set of assumptions on PC power and party makeup.  With the information, you can run your game to suit your needs with predictable, balanced results.  Information is a good thing.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Nov 16, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I suppose that depends upon what you mean by "Conan".    When I say "Conan", I refer to nothing apart from the stories written by Robert E. Howard....as written by Robert E. Howard (as opposed to pastiches and poor, but perhaps well-meaning, edits after his death).




I'm not sure which I've read is actual REH.



> Can you point those out to me, please?






Barastrondo said:


> Fafhrd is so mundane he grabbed a lit rocket  under either arm and made a rocket-propelled ski jump over an immense  crevasse while his beard was still coming in. And was a god once or  twice, if only for a little bit. I'm also glad to see that "not  magically empowered" doesn't mean "mundane" myself these days; a lot of  those early fantasy swordsmen who got by on strength and cunning had  rather a lot more of it than was entirely feasible.


----------



## Harlekin (Nov 16, 2010)

invokethehojo said:


> This is what I get for posting quickly while at work.  I should've explained myself in more detail.  In 1st edition (and maybe 2nd, don't really remember) you had a goal of acquiring money to build a stronghold, or rise to the top of the druidic order.  Now D&D and Pathfinder at least, assume that all the money you aquire will go directly to magic items because those are things you must have in order to keep up with the monsters that are appropriate to your level.  Money has essentially become part of all character classes, and I don't like that, because if I want to run a campaign based around characters being in the military or on a privateer ship (or in any situation where I don't want them to constantly have a lot of money available) I really can't.  They have to be adventurers, seeking treasure wherever they go.  I don't think adventureres shouldn't exist, I think they should be relegated to one of many choices, however with the current trope that doesn't seem viable... that's what should die.



Play 4th and use inherent boni? Suddenly you can do without any magic items and hand out as much money as you want.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Nov 16, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I suppose that depends upon what you mean by "fantastic".
> 
> I also suppose that depends upon what you mean by "Conan".    When I say "Conan", I refer to nothing apart from the stories written by Robert E. Howard....as written by Robert E. Howard (as opposed to pastiches and poor, but perhaps well-meaning, edits after his death).




When you have a point to make and wish to stop typing gibberish, get back to me.

*This has just gotten him booted from the thread. This post is an excellent example of how not to post. ~ PCat*



> Ah.  I am sure I could do a webcomic that makes the same mockery of *anything* turned directly into an rpg.  If that makes the ideas, settings, etc. (i.e., everything but that specific plotline) unusable as fodder for a rpg, I guess we got nothing.
> 
> That's it folks.  Roll 'em up!  No more rpgs!  They are all a tabletop fallacy at this point!




When you have a point to make and wish to stop typing gibberish, get back to me.



> And yes, ProfessorCirno or Raven Crowking, I remember those utterly mundane and non-fantastic characters, like the time Raven Crowking was dominated and controlled every time he fought a wizard, or the time he was stabbed and then bled out and died.
> 
> But....since those things never happened.....ProfessorCirno and Raven Crowking must be fantastic and/or magical!  (Well, I have been told that I was, but I don't think it was in the context you mean.    )




When you have a point to make and wish to stop typing gibberish, get back to me.



> In this particular parlance, we are talking about "non-magical".  You are implying that it takes some form of magic to resist magical influence, and that it takes some form of magic to engage in combat...to be wounded in combat, say...and not only survive, but triumph.




Conan was crucified and lived.  That's just about that.



> Now, I can't talk about what might be needed to resist magical influences, as I haven't encountered anything that I would claim to be so in the real world.  However, either you are not a student of history, or you must believe that there have been many, many fantastic and/or magical people throughout human history.  Or maybe you just want to make your point, and don't care about its accuracy.
> 
> It isn't.
> 
> RC




When you wish to make a hahaha no you will never make a point, let's stop fooling ourselves.


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 16, 2010)

Harlekin said:


> Play 4th and use inherent boni? Suddenly you can do without any magic items and hand out as much money as you want.




Or simply make magic items cheaper.  Cut a zero off the end of all the prices.

And certainly, treasure hunters find valuable treasure more often than they find currency, and usable equipment is often valuable treasure.


----------



## jmucchiello (Nov 16, 2010)

I have an aborted 3e supplement detailing why graveyards exist. Reading this thread shows me I was on to something. The basic gist of the supplement was to show how bad other forms of burial were, complete with new undead monster templates (and ash/fire creatures were there). I just never really finished it before my RPG output stalled.

I have to say I'm kind of sad that some tropes are already eradicated. You don't see the "rescue the fair maiden from the dragon" any more. In fact if you did it, the party would spend the whole adventure wondering when the twist was coming. "I bet we have to rescue the dragon from the evil maiden." Amazing that a trope is so tired that even its opposite is banal.

I'm most guilty of the evil patron trope. And to use tvtrope-speak, my favorite campaign setup involves (one or more) evil patron(s) attempting a Xanatos Gambit with the party as the pawns.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Nov 16, 2010)

billd91 said:


> In medieval Christian Europe, there was just the one church hierarchy so kings didn't have an alternative to bring in as a substitute if they didn't see eye to eye.




Well... until one of those kings created a second church heirarchy precisely because he didn't see eye to eye with the catholic church.

But that didn't really bring an end to things either: all kinds of problems arise when the majority of your population is (say) catholic while the king is protestant (or vice versa).



jmucchiello said:


> I'm most guilty of the evil patron trope. And to use tvtrope-speak, my favorite campaign setup involves (one or more) evil patron(s) attempting a Xanatos Gambit with the party as the pawns.




Just because the simpsons did it, doesn't make it an inherently bad plotline.


----------



## jonesy (Nov 16, 2010)

jmucchiello said:


> I'm most guilty of the evil patron trope. And to use tvtrope-speak, my favorite campaign setup involves (one or more) evil patron(s) attempting a Xanatos Gambit with the party as the pawns.



I've been trying to plot out a campaign where everything that happens is a result of two BBEG's plotting against each other, and the PC's aren't even targets. Just bystanders who get caught up in the crossfire.


----------



## Barastrondo (Nov 16, 2010)

jmucchiello said:


> I have to say I'm kind of sad that some tropes are already eradicated. You don't see the "rescue the fair maiden from the dragon" any more. In fact if you did it, the party would spend the whole adventure wondering when the twist was coming. "I bet we have to rescue the dragon from the evil maiden." Amazing that a trope is so tired that even its opposite is banal.




Not a lot of well-written dragons in recent sources of inspiration who have any real interest in fair maidens. Smaug has some great dialogue, but it's all about terror and flames and avarice and pride.


----------



## jonesy (Nov 16, 2010)

Dragons sometimes take up human form. So where's the dragon prince who really needs rescuing?


----------



## Mark Chance (Nov 16, 2010)

billd91 said:


> It isn't limited to it, per se, but it's an example where there was often a political dispute between one power and another, both of which wanted to wield ultimate authority. In medieval Christian Europe, there was just the one church hierarchy so kings didn't have an alternative to bring in as a substitute if they didn't see eye to eye.




That's not accurate, historically speaking. Kings could and did come up with alternatives to the Church's hierarchy, to include abducting popes, installing their own men as bishops, murdering clergy, declaring themselves local pope, et cetera. For example.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 17, 2010)

Mark Chance said:


> That's not accurate, historically speaking. Kings could and did come up with alternatives to the Church's hierarchy, to include abducting popes, installing their own men as bishops, murdering clergy, declaring themselves local pope, et cetera. For example.




I think it's fair to say they tried such things, yet typically kept coming back to the same old disputes with the same old hierarchy in Rome, hence the repeated deposing of popes and ultimate failure to prevail. And that's the point. They were in continual conflict rather than simply bringing in an alternative religion that saw eye to eye.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 17, 2010)

I would really like to see the "random band of misfits thrown together by chance" trope, if not die, at least get scaled back a WHOLE lot.  It would be nice if gaming advice focused on creating parties rather than individuals.  IMO, it would solve a whole host of table issues.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Nov 17, 2010)

Amphimir Míriel said:


> 3.- "Everyone is a white-skinned European-lookalike": And no, a token minority party member is not much better.



In a recent game, the Manticore in an Arabian setting said "What are you palefaces doing here?"

Since 3/5 of our group had gray or black skin (Deva, Tiefling, Drow) we shouted back "Who are you talking to?"


----------



## TarionzCousin (Nov 17, 2010)

"I predict that one day (hopefully soon) it will be against the Law to dub the players 'Chosen' or in any way involve prophecy in the game." --The Oracle at Del Fuego.

Having the PC's be "The Predicted Saviors" is boring and can be an excuse for them to do any stupid thing they want. "Sure, we killed the Queen and stole from the Royal Treasury, but what are they going to do? We're 'the Chosen Ones.'"


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 17, 2010)

Mark Chance said:


> That's not accurate, historically speaking. Kings could and did come up with alternatives to the Church's hierarchy, to include abducting popes, installing their own men as bishops, murdering clergy, declaring themselves local pope, et cetera. For example.



In Early Modern France, the conflict between the Gallicans who took the king - "His Most Christian Majesty" - as the head of the Church in France and the ultramontanists who believed that all Catholics were subservient to the Pope first and foremost was sharp and divisive.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 17, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> I'm not sure which I've read is actual REH.




That makes sense.  A lot of the pastiche things are horrible.

Also, not only did I somehow miss the post you quoted, but I also apparently failed to have read the stories it refers to.

However, if X is mundane, and X is magically made into a god for a brief period, then X becomes briefly non-mundane.....but that doesn't mean X was not mundane to begin with, or not mundane again afterwards.

Likewise, a mundane fighter can have a wizard cast Strength on him, without that meaning that _*fighters*_ per se are not mundane.



ProfessorCirno said:


> Conan was crucified and lived.  That's just about that.




It might interest some in this thread that, rather than simply some uneducated hack, REH was a meticulous researcher.  The story of Conan's survival of crucifixion was not something pulled out of the air -- it was based off of REH's research.  To be more precise, it was based off of accounts from the real world.....and, unless you are willing to credit the real world with containing magical fighters, that's (as the man says) just about that.  



RC


----------



## Neonchameleon (Nov 17, 2010)

And while we're on the subject of Conan being realistic in the REH version, I believe that in _The Jewels of Gwahlur_ he reads a scroll in an ancient, dead, and largely forgotten language. Something many, many scholars would love to have the ability to do.

Edit: The rocketry takes place in the chronologically earliest of the Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser stories before the two ever met. I can't remember which it was - I've only got it as an anthology edition.

Edit 2: Meticulous researchers sometimes make some of the most unbelievable claims - see the "That's unrealistic retort thread".  We had to stop a game once for google when one of my characters did some rapid EVA without a space suit (and fell unconscious after 30 seconds despite being back in the airlock) and I claimed that her skin-tight clothing was protecting her from many of the problems of space and she wouldn't get that cold (no conduction or convection to speak of).


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Nov 17, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I would really like to see the "random band of misfits thrown together by chance" trope, if not die, at least get scaled back a WHOLE lot.  It would be nice if gaming advice focused on creating parties rather than individuals.  IMO, it would solve a whole host of table issues.




Cheers! In every group I've been in, characters are usually generated indepedently.

FATE has a great way of dealing with this, even giving slight mechanical benefits for it.


----------



## jonesy (Nov 17, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> And while we're on the subject of Conan being realistic in the REH version, I believe that in _The Jewels of Gwahlur_ he reads a scroll in an ancient, dead, and largely forgotten language. Something many, many scholars would love to have the ability to do.



"...Scowling, his lips unconsciously moving as he struggled with the task, he blundered through the manuscript, finding much of it untranslatable and most of the rest of it obscure..."

Umm, not exactly.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 17, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> And while we're on the subject of Conan being realistic in the REH version, I believe that in _The Jewels of Gwahlur_ he reads a scroll in an ancient, dead, and largely forgotten language. Something many, many scholars would love to have the ability to do.




You mean this part?



			
				REH said:
			
		

> Remembering something, the Cimmerian drew forth the roll of parchment he had taken from the mummy and unrolled it carefully, as it seemed ready to fall to pieces with age. He scowled over the dim characters with which it was covered. In his roaming about the world the giant adventurer had picked up a wide smattering of knowledge, particularly including the speaking and reading of many alien tongues. Many a sheltered scholar would have been astonished at the Cimmerian's linguistic abilities, for he had experienced many adventures where knowledge of a strange language had meant the difference between life and death.
> 
> The characters were puzzling, at once familiar and unintelligible, and presently he discovered the reason. They were the characters of archaic Pelishtic, which possessed many points of difference from the modern script, with which he was familiar, and which, three centuries ago, had been modified by conquest by a nomad tribe. This older, purer script baffled him. He made out a recurrent phrase, however, which he recognized as a proper name: Bit-Yakin. He gathered that it was the name of the writer.
> 
> ...




Again, if that seems like a magical ability to you, my ability to read Shakespeare must seem equally magical, because I can get far more out of English from Shakespeare's time than Conan can get out of an older version of a modern language he knows.  Heck, I can get more out of Chaucer!  And perhaps as much from some even older versions of the English tongue.

I also note that REH remarks upon Conan's ability as unusual:  "Many a sheltered scholar would have been astonished at the Cimmerian's linguistic abilities".

However, scholarship is not a magical ability, AFAICT.  It is something many people -- esp. those familiar only with non-REH or modified-REH work -- might be surprised to see associated with Conan, however!

The full story is available here:  Conan - Jewels of Gwahlur



> Edit: The rocketry takes place in the chronologically earliest of the Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser stories before the two ever met.  I can't remember which it was - I've only got it as an anthology edition.




I would be interested in reading that story, after which it would be easier to judge whether or not Fafhrd per se has fantastic qualities.


RC


----------



## Barastrondo (Nov 17, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Also, not only did I somehow miss the post you quoted, but I also apparently failed to have read the stories it refers to.




The rocket-jump happens in "The Snow Women", one of the later stories written but essentially the youngest we've ever seen Fafhrd. In the course of the story he also forces his way out of magical bindings and kills swordsmen considerably older and more experienced than himself. None of this is impossible without magic, mind, but neither is it presented as him being lucky. If you were to use a level-based system, the best way to emulate Fafhrd would either be to rule "he gets to start at 3rd level even when it's chronologically the first adventure he's ever been on" to model his exceptional quality, or you'd want to use a system where 1st level for a PC is heroic notably above and beyond the average man-at-arms.

The god thing is arguable: Fafhrd claims he was temporarily Issek during the (pretty impressive) events of "Lean Times In Lankhmar," but there's no proof -- in fact, from what we know of Fafhrd it's entirely possible he pulls off the climactic scene based on sheer Fafhrdness. After all, he breaks his own sword over his knee in what's simply a throwaway line early in the story (though he does cut himself badly in the process). It's a little more overtly supernatural later on in _Swords and Ice Magic_, but in both cases the implication is that Fafhrd is so awesome that he gets close enough to godliness that the gods begin to choose him as an aspect.

I love the Lankhmar books. But part of their appeal is that the heroes are clearly fantastic (though not magically enhanced), but with approachable personalities. The dichotomy of these guys who are clearly capable of scaling incredible mountains and riding into Death's realm to swipe his mask but can also be totally bilked by a pretty face -- it's hilarious, as intended.



> However, if X is mundane, and X is magically made into a god for a brief period, then X becomes briefly non-mundane.....but that doesn't mean X was not mundane to begin with, or not mundane again afterwards.




Fafhrd isn't made of magic, but he is a good ways from mundane -- which is kind of the point. A first-level fighting man from OD&D is several steps weaker than Fafhrd as we've ever seen him, even as a youth. 

I have to agree with ProfessorCirno: death to the trope that fighters and their ilk should be non-magical and non-fantastic. It may model Peregrin Took, but it's crap at Fafhrd or Orlando or Jason.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 17, 2010)

Dandu said:


> You know I'm pretty sure there's more to the wizard's spell list than Fireball and Lightening Bolt.
> 
> Offhand, Contact Other Plane seems like it might be useful in a court setting, along with the various glyph and sigil trap spells.




Yep there are. A court cleric has some offensive power to throw around, can buff better than a mage, and can heal which a mage cannot do at all.

Contact another plane < Commune - I would rather talk to a deity I trust than some random Outer Plane creature, but that is just me.

There are also those awesome Glyphs of Warding, so a cleric can lay down some awesome security spells as well.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 17, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> I have to agree with ProfessorCirno: death to the trope that fighters and their ilk should be non-magical and non-fantastic. It may model Peregrin Took, but it's crap at Fafhrd or Orlando or Jason.




Thanks for the added information.

I think that there is nothing wrong with having a system that can model Pippen, Jason, Conan, and Fafhrd.  Conversely, I would rather not play in a system that fails on the Pippen and Conan front.  YMMV, and that's okay....that's one of the reasons why there are different games.



RC


----------



## Neonchameleon (Nov 17, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Thanks for the added information.
> 
> I think that there is nothing wrong with having a system that can model Pippen, Jason, Conan, and Fafhrd.  Conversely, I would rather not play in a system that fails on the Pippen and Conan front.  YMMV, and that's okay....that's one of the reasons why there are different games.
> 
> ...



The thing is that Pippin's easy.  He's just low level and other than 4e and falling rules I think there's no edition that can't handle him.  It's Conan that's damn hard.  Getting someone who can hang with seriously powerful mages because he's Just That Good.  And not having it be seen as over the top.  Where does Conan end and Fafhrd begin?  (High level fighters in just about any edition of D&D are into Fafhrd territory with the oodles of hit points they get - it's just they get there a lot faster in newer ones.  And if anything I'd say that pre-3e L1 characters often weren't even in Pippin territory).

(And I should have done my research better before mentioning the story).


----------



## Barastrondo (Nov 17, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I think that there is nothing wrong with having a system that can model Pippen, Jason, Conan, and Fafhrd.  Conversely, I would rather not play in a system that fails on the Pippen and Conan front.  YMMV, and that's okay....that's one of the reasons why there are different games.




I think a system that models Fafhrd can model Conan just fine; Howard certainly wanted Conan to have limitations, but ultimately he was describing a kind of alpha male, top of his class in physical and mental ability. 

That said, "modeling" is probably something given to selection bias: you have to specifically go after a subsection of a genre and have a lot of metagaming rules to simulate in-game what ultimately boils down to a lot of authorial fiat on the original writer's part. Without it, we tend to go after what we remember or like most of all. If you have a bad-ass pulp hero in a grim and very mortal setting, it's pretty clear that the author is writing about a setting in which the hero is a clear exception. Some people like to model the setting by making all the PCs in-line with the setting, and assuming heroes of the author's ilk are exceptions even among PCs. Others figure that the point is to play someone like the hero, so every PC is "the exception" within the world, but by default you're assigned the same kind of play experience.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 17, 2010)

So, one has to wonder, if there is no problem with a system that models Fafhrd, Conan, and Pippen, whysoever should that trope have to die?

It's rather like the discussion about graveyards; if the trope is only nonsensical from a certain point of view, why must it die if you are not using that point of view?


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 17, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> It's rather like the discussion about graveyards; if the trope is only nonsensical from a certain point of view, why must it die if you are not using that point of view?




This exactly.  Whenever something appears to be nonsense, you need to consider closely whether it is you or the one you accuse of nonsense that isn't thinking deeply enough about the matter.   In the case of a fantasy graveyard, it might well be that the writer hasn't considered the question, "Why bury things in a graveyard if you have certain knowledge that undead exist?", but it may be that the writer has considered that and you just haven't considered the answer.  

The truth of the matter is that since this is a fantasy, the answer to almost any question depends strongly on the assumptions you make about how the fantasy universe and undead work.  Graveyards may or may not be in context nonsensical, but without some knowledge of the universe we can't really say one way or the other.  However, the upshot of this is that in anything but the most well described universe, its always pretty easy to post-hoc rationalize anything in a fantasy setting simply by inventing the rules.


----------



## Barastrondo (Nov 17, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> So, one has to wonder, if there is no problem with a system that models Fafhrd, Conan, and Pippen, whysoever should that trope have to die?




"Only magical characters can be truly fantastic, but you can play a non-magical character" isn't the same thing as "a system that models Fafhrd, Conan and Pippin." A system that models all three of the above allows non-magical characters to be fantastic. For example, if using HERO System, Pippin might be about a 50-150 point character, and Conan or Fafhrd about 125-250, maybe more, depending on when you picked up on their careers. The trope that's being criticized is not the existence of the HERO System itself. It would be the equivalent of saying "you can't buy your attacks over 5 DC if you don't have the special effect of being magical," or putting a 150-point point cap on non-magical characters while levying no cap on magical characters. 

The trope under fire is one that promotes non-magical heroes as part of the source of inspiration but relegates them to a "mundane" role in a game. It's a game that tells you "Why yes, you can do something like the Hyborean or Newhon stories" but then mechanically sorts things out so that the sorcerers trump the swords. If magicians and magical weapons are the real power in a setting, that's fine: but act like Ars Magica or Stormbringer, and announce it up front. Don't pretend that you're inspired by Howard and Leiber.

(Edit: Okay, that last sentence is probably unfair, but that is really more going back to the idea that you can be inspired by a work in which the hero is an exceptional being in two very different ways: by assuming that all the PCs are exceptional, like the hero, or by assuming that the PCs are typical of the world, and they aren't intended to be emulating the hero's prowess. Playing a mook in Hyborea can be fun, but the GM should be very up-front about the fact that you aren't going to be having the Conan experience.)


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 17, 2010)

Personally, I think the trend to try and classify EVERYTHING as a trope is what needs to die.  I loathe TV Tropes, which tries to shoehorn every single concept every thought of by man as a 'trope', no matter how much effort it takes to force it in there.

I recognize that D&D has plenty of tropes, recurring themes and the like.  Individual mileage will obviously vary, but I like most of them, when handled well.  It's only when folks aren't having fun that I think they need to be disposed of.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 17, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> "Only magical characters can be truly fantastic, but you can play a non-magical character" isn't the same thing as "a system that models Fafhrd, Conan and Pippin."




I think that you are conflating more than one meaning of "fantastic" here.  

For the sake of discussion, I think we might consider coming up with some common definitions.  "Mundane", as I am using it, means "not coming from a supernatural source".  "Magical" means "coming from a supernatural source".  I think we could add a working definition of "Fantastic" (in this context) as "Not considered likely or possible in the real world; that which would tend to confound belief if claimed for the real world".

By these definitions, this thread has already demonstrated (IMHO) that elements which some might find unlikely or impossible in the real world have, indeed, been part and parcel of the real world.

When I was a child, it was gospel that we would never find soft tissue from a dinosaur, never be able to detect extra-solar planets from our solar system, and never know what colour any part of a dinosaur was.  Yet, all of these things have now come to pass, within a relatively short span of time.

So, what qualifies as "Fantastic" is, of course, based both upon the individual and the perspective of society at the time.  I would agree that a system that models all three of the above must allow non-magical characters to be fantastic, if (and only if) one is prepared to also accept that the real world has contained (and likely contains right now) "Fantastic" people and events.



> The trope under fire is




For you, perhaps, but I jumped into this part of the debate in response to some pretty black-and-white statements about what can, and what cannot, be done in a game.

What you go on to describe isn't a trope, but bad game design (i.e., game design that fails to live up to its goals).  I am not going to comment on whether or not any particular game fails in the way you suggest, except to say that I think the claim (in general) exceeds the actual failure, IMHO and IME.

AFAICT, and IMHO, "I dislike games that promise X, but then fail to deliver on that promise" isn't a contentious statement, regardless of what X is.  That hardly needs a rebuttal!



WizarDru said:


> Personally, I think the trend to try and classify EVERYTHING as a trope is what needs to die.




Hear, hear!



RC


----------



## Hussar (Nov 18, 2010)

Meh, this is a trend that's existed for pretty much as long as we've been able to communicate.  Classifying and categorizing is a basic reaction to any complex system.  The problem is thinking that classifying will always be a perfect fit and that all things must fit within a given classification and thus cannot be in two different classes at the same time.

There's nothing wrong with a trope in and of itself.  And I don't think anyone is claiming that there is.

The problem comes when the tropes become so cliche or restrictive that they harm the experience.  Thus the trope of "All non magical characters cannot be fantastic" is one that people do have problems with.  People want non magical characters that are fantastic.  

And then, you have the debate on what actually constitutes fantastic.  If someone is crucified, hung out to dry for a day or two, then cut down roughly and stuck on a horse to hard gallop for several hours and suffers no permanent damage, is that fantastic or not?  Is being able to handle the One Ring without temptation for months or even years fantastic or not?  On and on.  

And it does get hard to tell the difference sometimes.


----------



## lin_fusan (Nov 18, 2010)

I think the real problem comes from when a trope is adopted into a story or campaign without realizing its context or origins. 

Using the OP's example of the haunted graveyard, I think the trope is being seen in the wrong way. The graveyard is a fixture of life, nearly universal if different in other cultures, and is assumed to be part of a town or village. Then the idea of the walking dead or gravediggers or the like comes around, and now it sounds like a spooky, gothic adventure. 

But after nearly 20 years of D&D, it has become such a staple, astute players and GMs start to deconstruct the idea and wonder, like OP has done, why anyone would want to have a graveyard when it is the main source of undead. 

So the solution is not to blindly take a trope, but to see how it fits in your campaign world. The OP has decided to choose the make the trope so ubiquitous, that even the NPCs are aware of it and adjust their culture accordingly by eliminating graveyards.

Other people have suggested that it's not graveyards that are the problem, but it's the lack of consecration. So now you can keep your graveyards, but people or clerics now know a ritual that prevent undead from rising.

By examining the origins or context of the trope, it gives you a place to add detail to fix what you might see as a plot hole, and the result is that you end up adding depth to your setting. 

So I say that a trope's fine, it's blindly adopting a trope that's the problem.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 18, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Beowulf ripping off Grendel's arm then diving into the sea and spending hours underwater searching for the lair, without ever once using a magic waterbreathing or strength item, without asking a local wizard for help




Because of this thread, I have recently been re-reading Beowulf (in this case the prose translation by David Wright), and there are a few things which might be worth pointing out:

(1)  Ripping off Grendel's arm is not a magical ability, nor is it presented as such.

(2)  Although we are told that it was half a day before Beowulf saw the lake bottom, we are also told that there was a space down there where he could breathe, and that his total time below the lake was something just over 9 hours......including the time spent where there was air.

(3)  Finally, it is not unusual to encounter magical lakes in Anglo Saxon folklore, and this lake is otherwise described as having unusual qualities....such as boiling black with blood.  It may well be the setting that is fantastic, and Beowulf survives that long below water not because he can breathe water, but because the lake itself is prepresentative of an "Otherworld" with non-mundane qualities.


RC


----------



## Neonchameleon (Nov 18, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Because of this thread, I have recently been re-reading Beowulf (in this case the prose translation by David Wright), and there are a few things which might be worth pointing out:
> 
> (1) Ripping off Grendel's arm is not a magical ability, nor is it presented as such.




In which case the argument dissolves.  Ripping of the arm of a super-strong monster isn't normal either.  But we're off the end of physical human territory and even the "That's unrealistic retort compendium" and into action movie territory.  Into "Can regularly hit a moving target through the eye slits" territory.  (Which, I would argue, is where Conan is).  And the difference between that and ski-jumping with a rocket under each arm is a matter of the DM and plausibility as much as it is rules.  You don't have to be magical to do outlandish things - but at high levels you should be implausibly good.


----------



## Wereserpent (Nov 18, 2010)

WizarDru said:


> Personally, I think the trend to try and classify EVERYTHING as a trope is what needs to die.  I loathe TV Tropes, which tries to shoehorn every single concept every thought of by man as a 'trope', no matter how much effort it takes to force it in there.


----------



## AllisterH (Nov 18, 2010)

It should be noted....

I can't actually remember a lot of mythic or literary influences where the wizards/spell slingers were as well, over the top as the typical high level D&D mage.

Fahrd & Grey Mouser certainly had "powerful" patrons but I don't remember them being presented as even co-stars.

I'm trying to think of an influence where you have both magic and muscle in equal limelight showing...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 18, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> In which case the argument dissolves.  Ripping of the arm of a super-strong monster isn't normal either.




No....It is "Fantastic" as I defined it above.....Something we would tend not to credit in the real world, but may well be wrong for that tendency.

We do not know how strong Grendel actually is; although we are told that Beowulf is the strongest human there is, we don't really know how strong that is, either.  Nor do we know enough about Grendel's anatomy to know how weak or strong his shoulder joints are.  It is indicated, though, that Grendel's attempt to get away, combined with Beowulf's attempt to hold him fast, rip his arm and shoulder off.



> Into "Can regularly hit a moving target through the eye slits" territory.  (Which, I would argue, is where Conan is).




When Tarzan throws or shoots, he never misses.  Conan is less wahoo.  I highly recommend reading as many of the original Conan stories as you can....or, for that matter, anything by REH.  



> You don't have to be magical to do outlandish things - but at high levels you should be implausibly good.




Depending upon the system and the group, of course.  

Otherwise, we agree here.


RC


----------



## Barastrondo (Nov 18, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> For the sake of discussion, I think we might consider coming up with some common definitions.  "Mundane", as I am using it, means "not coming from a supernatural source".  "Magical" means "coming from a supernatural source".  I think we could add a working definition of "Fantastic" (in this context) as "Not considered likely or possible in the real world; that which would tend to confound belief if claimed for the real world".




That's what I'm generally going by, yes.



> By these definitions, this thread has already demonstrated (IMHO) that elements which some might find unlikely or impossible in the real world have, indeed, been part and parcel of the real world.




This is true, but -- and this is the sticking point for me personally -- a player should not be beholden to defend non-magical yet fantastic feats by pulling out real-world examples as a matter of course. If that's what a group likes to do, a la Howard, awesome. But it's not a universal feature of fantasy fiction, and it's definitely not a universal feature of the myths and sagas that are often inspirational. I don't think the author of Beowulf looked for a historical example of someone who swam a stormy sea for a week before he attributed a feat like that to Beowulf, and he didn't attribute the task to godly blood or whatnot. 



> So, what qualifies as "Fantastic" is, of course, based both upon the individual and the perspective of society at the time.  I would agree that a system that models all three of the above must allow non-magical characters to be fantastic, if (and only if) one is prepared to also accept that the real world has contained (and likely contains right now) "Fantastic" people and events.




As long as one isn't limiting "fantastic" to what is provably possible in the real world, sure. Otherwise one is modeling not all three characters, but a certain perception of all three, in much the same way that modeling a scientific interpretation of Beowulf is a slightly separate goal than modeling Beowulf in the spirit of the saga's presentation.



> For you, perhaps, but I jumped into this part of the debate in response to some pretty black-and-white statements about what can, and what cannot, be done in a game.




The black-and-white statement was against the idea that fighters have to be mundane and non-fantastic. I would emphasize the wording "have to be". At no point did ProfessorCirno say that fighters cannot be both: only that the idea that they _must_ be is a poor one. I simply agreed: if fighters have to be mundane and non-fantastic, the ability to do a Fafhrd is sharply curtailed, and frequently not nearly as much fun as reading the stories. Or probably not as much fun as Leiber had writing them.



lin_fusan said:


> I think the real problem comes from when a trope is adopted into a story or campaign without realizing its context or origins.




Yeah, exactly so. The strength of a trope is familiarity: if dwarves are earthy guys interested in gold and beer, then players don't have to do any homework to figure out how to get on a dwarf's good side, they can act with the confidence that offering gold and beer is a good start. Tropes can make it easier to get to the heart of the fun in a game, get things rolling faster. (Or they can slow it all down: "you have to earn your fun" is a regrettable gaming trope in itself, though thankfully not universal.)

Gaming identifies tropes differently than literature does, as we tend to identify tropes in gaming as things that repeatedly come out in play. The cemetery example is a little tenuous because it's questionable whether the cemetery is the trope, or the cemetery as the source of trouble. I'd guess it's the latter -- that the stereotype comes from the assumption that undead are a common occurrence in cemeteries. And it's just as easy to change the incidence of undead as it would be to get rid of cemeteries as a concept.

Like you say, if you look at any trope long enough you can probably figure out its strengths and weaknesses. Then you can hit the players where they want to be hit, while still being creative.


----------



## Nagol (Nov 18, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> It should be noted....
> 
> I can't actually remember a lot of mythic or literary influences where the wizards/spell slingers were as well, over the top as the typical high level D&D mage.
> 
> ...




The patrons weren't co-stars not because they weren't powerful enough --they had bigger fish to fry than hang around with a couple of "petty" thieves unless the thieves were being offered a task.

That said, equal limelight can be hard to find. 

Zelazny's _Dilvish the Damned_ series has a strong reliance on both arms and magic though magic can (and does) destroy cities.

Glen Cook's fantasy private investgator series relies on arms mostly, but dips into magic.  His older Dread Kingdom series has both magical and arms protagonsts though again, magic can perform feats beyond mortal capacity.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 18, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> a player should not be beholden to defend non-magical yet fantastic feats by pulling out real-world examples as a matter of course.




Depending upon the game, the group, and the system, of course.  



> I don't think the author of Beowulf looked for a historical example of someone who swam a stormy sea for a week before he attributed a feat like that to Beowulf, and he didn't attribute the task to godly blood or whatnot.




No, he attributed it to the grace of God as well as the swimming prowess of Beowulf.  OTOH, he does seem to have a very good working knowledge of history in his region, and alludes to it often for dramatic effect (which means he is able to assume his audience does, as well).  It also seems as though the storm occurred while they were at sea, and was not, in fact, "a stormy sea for a week".  It was, in fact, a storm occurring after five nights on the sea.

It is also true that we have only Beowulf's description of what happened....although, interestingly enough, that description is given because at least one character had heard differently.  So, I would be careful about concluding that Beowulf was superhuman on the basis of this account.



> As long as one isn't limiting "fantastic" to what is provably possible in the real world, sure.




There are quite a few things provably possible in the real world that qualify as "Fantastic" as I have defined it.  Indeed, this thread demonstrates just that -- things that are provably possible are called "Fantastic" because literary characters perform the actions in question.  For example, surviving crucifixion is "Fantastic" when Conan does it, despite the details in Conan's case being taken from a real-world source.



> The black-and-white statement was against the idea that fighters have to be mundane and non-fantastic. I would emphasize the wording "have to be". At no point did ProfessorCirno say that fighters cannot be both: only that the idea that they _must_ be is a poor one.




You are either reading different posts than I am, or you are interpetting them very differently.



ProfessorCirno said:


> One that needs to die and thankfully has been dying - the idea that you need magic to do anything, _or_ that not all characters are magical.
> 
> One or the other.  That's how myth and fantasy work.  Either you don't need magic to be fantastic (Beowulf ripping off Grendel's arm then diving into the sea and spending hours underwater searching for the lair, without ever once using a magic waterbreathing or strength item, without asking a local wizard for help) or we admit that everyone is somehow divine or magical (Greek mythology).
> 
> This idea that fighters have to be mundane *and* non-fantastic is such a D&D-ism, and it's the worst kind.




Note that, apart from that "have to be" in the last sentence, this is not a post that suggests that there is anything okay with mundane, non-fantastic fighters.  Indeed, that doesn't seem to be what is being said at all.  The choice presented is "One or the other....Either you don't need magic to be fantastic.....or we admit that everyone is somehow divine or magical".  There is no room in there whatsoever for a mundane, non-fantastic choice.

And when I suggested that a game should be able to support a mundane, non-fantastic choice, ProfessorCirno did not say, "Yes, that is what I meant to imply".  He instead said:



			
				;5377285 said:
			
		

> DOn't bring up LotR.  That's some kind of tabletop fallacy at this point.  There was a full webcomic designed to mock the idea of a LotR tabletop game.  LotR has never been a tabletop game, it's never been a good idea for a tabletop game, it never will be.
> 
> And yes, Conan or Fafrd, I remember those utterly mundane and non-fantastic characters, like the time Conan was dominated and controlled every time he fought a wizard, or the time he was stabbed and then bled out and died.




So, yes, if your point is that a game may have either, or both, mundane/non-fantastic characters and non-mundane/fantastic characters, then I agree with you.  I would go so far as to say it is obviously true.  Indeed, I have never heard anyone complain that System X has non-mundane/fantastic choices, but only that System X has *only* non-mundane/fantastic choices.

IOW, "fighters must be mundane and non-fantastic" is a non-trope.  It exists nowhere.  "Fighters should be able to be mundane and non-fantastic", OTOH, is a real complaint, made about real games, in real time.



RC


----------



## Neonchameleon (Nov 18, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> No....It is "Fantastic" as I defined it above.....Something we would tend not to credit in the real world, but may well be wrong for that tendency.
> 
> We do not know how strong Grendel actually is; although we are told that Beowulf is the strongest human there is, we don't really know how strong that is, either. Nor do we know enough about Grendel's anatomy to know how weak or strong his shoulder joints are. It is indicated, though, that Grendel's attempt to get away, combined with Beowulf's attempt to hold him fast, rip his arm and shoulder off.




The thing is, as I've read Justin Alexander outline in detail, level 5 in 3.X is about the human maximum in the real world.  The wizard gains power at a more than linear rate past that point.  What do you want the fighter to do?  Also in a world as openly magical as most D&D worlds, turning your back on any use of magic is ... of questionable wisdom.



> When Tarzan throws or shoots, he never misses. Conan is less wahoo. I highly recommend reading as many of the original Conan stories as you can....or, for that matter, anything by REH.




What's put me off is the reports that all civilisation is evil and only the barbarians are pure and good.


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 18, 2010)

Nagol said:


> The patrons weren't co-stars not because they weren't powerful enough --they had bigger fish to fry than hang around with a couple of "petty" thieves unless the thieves were being offered a task.




Equally important is the fact that they were literary characters, just like Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser themselves (who, it should be noted, used magic when it suited them, Mouser having been a Sorceror's apprentice, iirc).  They were not balanced on a character sheet, nor were they intended to be (though Lieber was highly influential ON the game itself).  



Nagol said:


> TGlen Cook's fantasy private investgator series relies on arms mostly, but dips into magic.  His older Dread Kingdom series has both magical and arms protagonsts though again, magic can perform feats beyond mortal capacity.




Cook's "Black Company" series has very powerful mages...who can still be brought down by force of arms under the right conditions.  Although in that series, powerful mages tend to trump each other, cancelling each other out.  They also tend to be barking mad, something I asked Cook about when I met him.  He said that he hadn't really thought about it, but on reflection that this was the case for most wizards/mages he wrote about.  Magic takes a heavy price...and you can STILL get a spear in the gut.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 18, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> What's put me off is the reports that all civilisation is evil and only the barbarians are pure and good.




Not an accurate description of the stories at all. The Picts, who are even more barbaric than Conan's fellow Cimmerians are described as disgusting beasts full of perversions.

Also Conan has a habit of hanging out in the underside of society. It would be like following around a gangbanger on the south side of Chicago and using what he does and what he sees to make an accurate determination on our society.


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 18, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> What's put me off is the reports that all civilisation is evil and only the barbarians are pure and good.




This is a Western Civilization Trope that definately traces back to at least the Roman Republic, and arguably all the way back to Classical Greece.  In other words, it's as Old As Dirt.  It's hard to find Western Civilization without finding someone moaning that we were all better off and more moral before we back civilized.


----------



## AllisterH (Nov 18, 2010)

There's also the weird belief I have that high level magic (spell levels 7 to 9) was never intended to be used in a normal game...

Reason why I think this is because the original high level module, a module where you go into the Abyss and kill a god should be a prime example of what the original D&D designers thought high level would be like.

Queen of the Demonweb pits though is only for levels 10-14....


So, if you're killing a goddess at level 13, exactly what were you supposed to be doing at level 15+?

As well, I distinctly remember Gygax talking about his games and himmentioning that all of his players at high levels were rnning high level spellcasters and would have henchmen/hireling figters that the players would run as well,,,

Kind of like Ars Magica troupe play...


----------



## jonesy (Nov 18, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> So, if you're killing a goddess at level 13, exactly what were you supposed to be doing at level 15+?



Whatever it was that Doctor Manhattan did after the comic ended.


----------



## Thasmodious (Nov 18, 2010)

lin_fusan said:


> But after nearly 20 years of D&D, it has become such a staple, astute players and GMs start to deconstruct the idea and wonder, like OP has done, why anyone would want to have a graveyard when it is the main source of undead.




I never thought about this before, but it seems genre theory can apply to tropes from the genres as well.  Specifically, I mean the stages - primitive, classical, revisionist, parody.

Take our graveyard trope for example.  The primitive stage of the trope would be the early literature and film in which undead came from graveyards or creepy dudes stole bodies from the graveyard for nefarious purposes (Frankenstein, Dracula, White Zombie, etc). Folklore held such myths, but seeing them brought to life through literature and film would be the primitive exploration/creation of the trope.

I think, for the most part, we don't get to experience the primitive stage in our gaming, as these things are only tropes we take to the game table after the trope has "matured" past that stage.  

But classical graveyard, yeah, a lot of us have done that.  Undead plaguing the town, mysterious noises from the graveyard on the hill at night, underground burrows beneath, all those trappings that are part and parcel to the trope.  

Then there's the revisionist stage - such as we've been discussing here, cultures changing their death rituals due to the existence of undead, a populace, both PC and NPC well aware of the undead's existence, the types, how they are made, and steps to take to minimize the threat.  And, too, DMs devious ways to get around the trope - the graveyard as sanctuary (because its hallowed ground), the undead menace having a non-graveyard source, the undead being raised as soldiers or guards by the town, etc.  In film (TV) Buffy is a good example of a revisionist graveyard (and parody sometimes).  It is numerous things in Sunnydale, information source (good guys doing the grave robbing, hunting for ancient scrolls and relics); the haunt of allies, informants, and villains; hang out spot; set piece for romantic, emotional or developmental character scenes; action setpiece; pretty much all things for all people.  

The parody stage would be represented by things like RPGs featuring undead, good guy PCs, or interesting, tongue-in-cheek undead NPCs (the Hogwarts ghosts, for example; the Death Day party was pretty brilliant), undead or graveyard encounters as comic relief.  

I agree with lin_fusan that the great thing about tropes is that they can be deconstructed, contextually, for a wealth of gaming opportunities, and that's why old tropes should never die.


----------



## AllisterH (Nov 18, 2010)

Well, it can be extended to more than just the "undead/cemetery" angle..

Take the classic Light spell...In 3.x, given the relative ease of magic, why weren't most cities lit up like Vegas?

The OP is actually starting to think about the "rules as gameworld physics" (which is a view I personally tend to shy away from BECAUSE you end up with these sort questions)


----------



## The_Gneech (Nov 18, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> What's put me off is the reports that all civilisation is evil and only the barbarians are pure and good.




Actually, it's not a good/evil axis. The actual theme behind REH's work is that civilization can't last, not that it's evil ... I don't think there's anything in there that's held up as "good." The best you can hope for is to enjoy what fleeting time you have before your flame is snuffed out.

REH was not a cheerful guy. 

-The Gneech


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 18, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> The thing is, as I've read Justin Alexander outline in detail, level 5 in 3.X is about the human maximum in the real world.  The wizard gains power at a more than linear rate past that point.  What do you want the fighter to do?




The fighter?  I expect the *reader* to realize that the model you just described is not only not the only possible model, but also not necessarily the best model for all (or even the majority) of people. 



> What's put me off is the reports that all civilisation is evil and only the barbarians are pure and good.




I would refer you back to the source, then.  You are sure to find it more informative than he-said, she-said.

I started a thread some time back (http://www.enworld.org/forum/media-...jrrt-comparative-exploration-their-works.html) which may be of interest to you.  _*It is no substitute for reading the stories, though.*_  And I have been somewhat remiss on getting an examination of the next Conan story up.



DocMoriartty said:


> Not an accurate description of the stories at all. The Picts, who are even more barbaric than Conan's fellow Cimmerians are described as disgusting beasts full of perversions.




I wouldn't say that.  The picts eventually become such in Howard's mythos, but that is long after the time of Conan.  In Conan's era, the picts are savage, but neither better or worse than other peoples.  More dangerous, perhaps, than many!  In Kull's era, a pict becomes Kull's closest friend.



> Also Conan has a habit of hanging out in the underside of society. It would be like following around a gangbanger on the south side of Chicago and using what he does and what he sees to make an accurate determination on our society.




Again, I would be careful of that assessment.  Conan spans societies over his travels and adventures.  He is, at times, a pirate, a thief, a king, a general, consort to princesses, and a leader of hard men.  Conan doesn't shun people on the basis of social class, nor does social class particularly impress him.  

I think we get a pretty good overview of the Hyborian Age through REH's Conan adventures.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 18, 2010)

Thasmodious said:


> Then there's the revisionist stage - such as we've been discussing here, cultures changing their death rituals due to the existence of undead, a populace, both PC and NPC well aware of the undead's existence, the types, how they are made, and steps to take to minimize the threat.





That's not revisionist -- that's what people in the real world thought/did.  They believed that undead existed, and they believed that they were aware of the existence of the undead.  They therefore implimented death rituals intended to placate the dead and/or prevent the dead from rising and/or move the spirits of the dead onto other rewards.

Unless, for example, Hamlet, should be considered revisionist, or Dracula, or centuries of folklore.

"Revisionism" IMHO arises only when the original intent is forgotten.  We forget why graveyards exist, so they become only convenient places for storing bodies.  Then, one looks at the threat and says "Why not burn 'em?"  That is revisionism -- it revises the original purpose, reimagines it to be something else, and then wonders why it no longer seems to make sense.

I would say:

(1)  Primitive:  I know undead exist, and I take steps to placate/bind/move the dead on their way to the next world.

(2)  Classic:  The primitive rituals become formalized.  While I still know the undead exist, I might no longer know what the relationship between the ritual and the placating/binding/moving the dead on is.

(3)  Revisionism:  I no longer believe in undead, and I know longer understand the reasons behind the rituals.  Therefore, my mind tries to fill in the gaps, and things don't seem to make sense anymore.

(4)  Parody:  I now make fun of how things don't seem to make sense anymore.

You know, this topic makes me think I should do an Undead thread similar to the one I created for Faerie Encounters..........  



RC


----------



## Thasmodious (Nov 18, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> That's not revisionist -- that's what people in the real world thought/did.  They believed that undead existed, and they believed that they were aware of the existence of the undead.  They therefore implimented death rituals intended to placate the dead and/or prevent the dead from rising and/or move the spirits of the dead onto other rewards.




We're talking about the genre, the trope, not real life.  So, yes, that's the revision.  Don't confuse the two (fantasy/reality).  The stories based on the myths created the trope.  Your list applies just fine to our real world death rituals, but that's not what I was discussing.



> "Revisionism" IMHO arises only when the original intent is forgotten.



Thorough knowledge of the subject is required to revise the subject.  That's why it's called revisionism and not forgot-it-ism.


----------



## Zelda Themelin (Nov 18, 2010)

CUT....



rogueattorney said:


> "
> 
> ...and thus 3e was born.




And you got very reason why I like 3rd edition.


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 18, 2010)

Thasmodious said:


> We're talking about the genre, the trope, not real life.  So, yes, that's the revision.  Don't confuse the two (fantasy/reality).  The stories based on the myths created the trope.  Your list applies just fine to our real world death rituals, but that's not what I was discussing.




I thought the entire point of the OP was the the very concept of graveyards needs to die in D&D because it's a trope, particularly in that adventurers often find themselves travelling to them to fight the undead.  His argument was that given that undead can and DO happen in a fantasy setting, the very act of having a graveyard was a nonsensical idea that needs to die.

A lot of folks have responded to that with a variety of logical explanations why that would be.  RC's specific point, from what I got, was that the idea that undead happen means there should be no graveyard doesn't make sense, because historically most cultures believed that the dead could return as the undead (hence the variety of what WE NOW call myths, which they called reality) and THEY STILL HAD GRAVEYARDS.  Further, that the REASON they had those graveyards was PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE of the supposed trope...i.e. that they existed to PREVENT the rise of undead that might otherwise occur.  That the dead do not actually rise has no bearing on the validity of graveyards, only the perception of their effectiveness.

Every culture has it's specific burial or corpse-disposal rituals.  Often informed by practical realities (such as burning a corpse in a hot, wet climate or burying it in a cold one), these rituals have a lot of importance beyond just hiding the body or even just preventing undead.  The very notion of a graveyard is not, IMHO, a trope.  Now, the notion of a town where people have started to disappear around a graveyard and they soon discover the dead have risen?  Sure, I'll give you that.  I don't see it as something needing to die, however.

But that same graveyard could be the place where the exorcist leads his line of hopping vampires to be returned to the earth.  It could be the place where the paladin's virtuous ghost rises from the defend the town.  It could be the place the mad wizard steals parts from to build his masterpiece.  It could be a place of final rest, where spirits are freed from torment or a place of remembrance where heroes come to respect the fallen or loved ones long gone (who may return at their grave to grant solace or advice).  The graveyard can take many forms.  But a trope?  If it is one, it's one I'll gladly keep.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Nov 18, 2010)

No, revisionist is when a person doesn't like something so they change it.

For example, people who write history. There's very little truly objective history out there, and people write it according to how they think it should be. Such as Abraham Lincoln, if he's a villain or a Saint.


----------



## Mark Chance (Nov 18, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> We do not know how strong Grendel actually is; although we are told that Beowulf is the strongest human there is, we don't really know how strong that is, either.  Nor do we know enough about Grendel's anatomy to know how weak or strong his shoulder joints are.  It is indicated, though, that Grendel's attempt to get away, combined with Beowulf's attempt to hold him fast, rip his arm and shoulder off.




We've got a very good idea about how strong Grendel is. He carries off multiple victims at once, toting them to his lair to feast upon. Grendel is superhumanly strong, and so is Beowulf. The epic is clear on this, even if it isn't explicitly stated.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 18, 2010)

Mark Chance said:


> We've got a very good idea about how strong Grendel is. He carries off multiple victims at once, toting them to his lair to feast upon. Grendel is superhumanly strong, and so is Beowulf. The epic is clear on this, even if it isn't explicitly stated.




Sorry, but this is not clear at all.  The translator, AFAICT, has to make a guess as to how to read the passage.  In fact, what is actually clear in Beowulf is that Grendel consumes at least one man _*in the hall*_, the Geat who dies before Beowulf acts.....Grendel's mother, who is described as being stronger, carries _*one man *_away.

The door bursts in when Grendel touches it with his nails, but it is unclear whether this is intended to be supernatural, or due to strength.


RC


----------



## Thasmodious (Nov 18, 2010)

WizarDru said:


> I thought the entire point of the OP was the the very concept of graveyards needs to die in D&D because it's a trope, particularly in that adventurers often find themselves travelling to them to fight the undead.  His argument was that given that undead can and DO happen in a fantasy setting, the very act of having a graveyard was a nonsensical idea that needs to die.
> 
> A lot of folks have responded to that with a variety of logical explanations why that would be.  RC's specific point, from what I got, was that the idea that undead happen means there should be no graveyard doesn't make sense, because historically most cultures believed that the dead could return as the undead (hence the variety of what WE NOW call myths, which they called reality) and THEY STILL HAD GRAVEYARDS.  Further, that the REASON they had those graveyards was PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE of the supposed trope...i.e. that they existed to PREVENT the rise of undead that might otherwise occur.  That the dead do not actually rise has no bearing on the validity of graveyards, only the perception of their effectiveness.




Yes.  I agree with Mr. Crowking's point. I believe I xp'ed him for it several pages ago.  I'm not sure where the disconnect is.  It seems you are arguing against something I said, but I'm not sure what that is?



			
				Diamond Cross said:
			
		

> No, revisionist is when a person doesn't like something so they change it.
> 
> For example, people who write history.




I'm talking about revisionism as it applies to genre theory.  It's a specific term about a specific thing.  "Revisionist history" is something different.  For example, one of the greatest revisionist westerns is Sam Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch, a brilliant film that plays with the western form, the genre, to make a powerful anti-violence film.  He challenges the notions of the classic western (paladin gunfighters roaming the west righting wrongs, bloodless shootings, etc) by making the gun violence in the film as stark and brutal as possible.  He, like Eastwood later with Unforgiven, directs with full knowledge of the classic western, challenging its assumptions and using its conventions in new ways.


----------



## Janx (Nov 18, 2010)

DocMoriartty said:


> You are talking about real world religions that are trying to justify tradition or a new set of rules. One cannot use real world logic when talking about fantasy worlds because in DnD the Gods really do tell you what they do and dont like.
> 
> The graveyard trope is just illogical. In a world where the undead exist it makes no sense that graveyards ever came into being. To make things worse not only are there graveyards but they are often right in town.
> 
> It makes more sense in a world with undead that graveyards were never ever created and the very concept would sound pointlessly dangerous. Also it would make sense that clerics who worship gods that fight undead would very much be against any sort of graveyard. They are risk that does not need to be taken.




Um.  Wood dude.  England darn near ran out of trees burning their dead.  Burial takes less wood than burning.

Besides, I don't know where your PCs live, but I've never seen that many problems with graveyards (if any).   Now vampires...


----------



## Mark Chance (Nov 18, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Sorry, but this is not clear at all.  The translator, AFAICT, has to make a guess as to how to read the passage.  In fact, what is actually clear in Beowulf is that Grendel consumes at least one man _*in the hall*_, the Geat who dies before Beowulf acts.....Grendel's mother, who is described as being stronger, carries _*one man *_away.




Lines 120-125, Seamus Heaney translation:

".... Suddenly then
the God-cursed brute was creating havoc:
greedy and grim, he grabbed thirty men
from their resting places and rushed to his lair,
flushed up and inflamed from the raid,
blundering back with the butchered corpses."

Grendel carries off nearly three dozen man. You figure 150 pounds a man, and that's a bit over two tons. Grendel is superhumanly strong, and Beowulf matches him in a wrestling match.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Nov 18, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> I can't actually remember a lot of mythic or literary influences where the wizards/spell slingers were as well, over the top as the typical high level D&D mage.




Lord of the rings and the hobbit basically have Gandalf not just solving every problem via magic simply because he doesn't want to. Admittedly he's got a really good reason for not wanting to. The closest any of the martial characters come to that is simply that they wield immense political power.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 19, 2010)

The biggest problem with trying to define the "fantastic" is the people's definitions will vary more based on their own particular biases than any sort of objective view.  Which makes sense since fantastic is pretty vague.

A hobbit can hide a short distance away from one of the most powerful beings in Middle Earth and not be found. Fantastic?  A hobbit can resist the most powerful artifact, the one that destroys even the elves.  Fantastic?  Depends on how you define things.

From a D&D perspective though, the problem is, fighters and the non-magic types become essentially Muggles in a Harry Potter Universe as soon as the casters hit any significant levels.  Conan, in a Harry Potter world, wouldn't last ten seconds against children, considering what students can do in that world.  And that's what (at least 3e and 4e) casters become in D&D.

But, if you allow the non-magic types to be fantastic - James Bond, Conan (yes, I do consider Conan fantastic), Batman, that sort of thing - not magical in the special effects way, but still far beyond normal human, then it works a great deal better, IMO.


----------



## Leatherhead (Nov 19, 2010)

Hussar said:


> But, if you allow the non-magic types to be fantastic - James Bond, Conan (yes, I do consider Conan fantastic), Batman, that sort of thing - not magical in the special effects way, but still far beyond normal human, then it works a great deal better, IMO.




Exactly.

Imagine the prototypical level one DnD fighter: A farmhand who gets their hands on a sword, and then joins up with a band of mercenaries who save the town from a monster or warband. This sets off their adventuring career.

Just picking up a sword and suddenly being competent with it is already head-and-shoulders above the common person. Going out and saving the day makes them solidly fantastic. But for some reason, this character is played as a "mundane."


----------



## Hussar (Nov 19, 2010)

Leatherhead - well, I suppose it goes back to the fragility of earlier edition characters.  A 1st level fighter in Basic D&D wasn't really all that much head and shoulders above a commoner, depending on how the dice rolling went.

But, we've moved away from that a pretty long time ago.  Even by 2nd edition, with character generation methods that created pretty high stat character (something 1st edition did as well - see the Unearthed Arcana), kits and things like weapon specialization and two weapon fighting, a 1st level fighter (or fighter type) was head and shoulders above the man, common.  3e and to a much greater extent 4e, made 1st level characters signficantly better.  

In 3e it's built right in.  PC's use elite stats or even higher, commoners don't.  There's a basic presumption that your PC is measurably better than a regular joe, even at 0 xp.


----------



## Orius (Nov 19, 2010)

Hussar said:


> There's nothing wrong with a trope in and of itself.




And even that's a trope! 



Barastrondo said:


> Like you say, if you look at any trope long enough you can probably figure out its strengths and weaknesses. Then you can hit the players where they want to be hit, while still being creative.




I think too it depends on what kind of game people want to play.  A group that just wants to smash up imaginary monsters over pretzels and beer is probably going to be less concerned about tropes than a group interested deep immersive RPing.  My guess is that the power gamers, simulationists and the like will tend to be less concerned, while the storytellers and method actors will roll their eyes at any undecontructed trope that turns up. (The causal gamers won't care and the munchkins as always are playing to "win").


----------



## Jacob Marley (Nov 19, 2010)

Leatherhead said:


> Imagine the prototypical level one DnD fighter: A farmhand who gets their hands on a sword, and then joins up with a band of mercenaries who save the town from a monster or warband. This sets off their adventuring career.
> 
> Just picking up a sword and suddenly being competent with it is already head-and-shoulders above the common person. Going out and saving the day makes them solidly fantastic. But for some reason, this character is played as a "mundane."




Certainly. In a world where every character is a first-level commoner, expert, or warrior then that first-level fighter is going to seem truly remarkable; fantastic even! He does things that most ordinary people simply cannot do. 

Now imagine a world where there are hundreds, if not thousands, of people just like him; and in this world there are people who speak to gods, throw balls of fire from their finger tips, and change into animals on a daily basis. How fantastic is one guy swinging a sword, really? Seems rather mundane to me.

I don't see fantastic or mundane as traits where something either is or is not. Rather, I see it as a perspective. From a certain point of view something can be both mundane and fantastic. 

Using 3.5 as an example, take the Everfull Mug. From the point of view of your average commoner an Everfull Mug is a truly fantastic item. Here is an item unlike any other mug in their house - it creates water! From the point of view of an adventurer, an Everfull Mug can seem rather mundane. Every adventurer has one, you can find one in almost any old town, and all it does is creates water.


----------



## Lanefan (Nov 19, 2010)

Janx said:


> Um.  Wood dude.  England darn near ran out of trees burning their dead.



And building ships.  A ridiculous amount of British lumber went into ships, mostly warships. 


			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> A 1st level fighter in Basic D&D wasn't really all that much head and shoulders above a commoner, depending on how the dice rolling went.
> 
> But, we've moved away from that a pretty long time ago. Even by 2nd edition, with character generation methods that created pretty high stat character (something 1st edition did as well - see the Unearthed Arcana), kits and things like weapon specialization and two weapon fighting, a 1st level fighter (or fighter type) was head and shoulders above the man, common. 3e and to a much greater extent 4e, made 1st level characters signficantly better.
> 
> In 3e it's built right in. PC's use elite stats or even higher, commoners don't. There's a basic presumption that your PC is measurably better than a regular joe, even at 0 xp.



And that too has become a trope within the game; that the most basic of PCs are so much different than commoners before earning a single experience point.

If a trope needs to die, that one gets my vote.

Lanefan


----------



## AllisterH (Nov 19, 2010)

Hussar said:


> In 3e it's built right in.  PC's use elite stats or even higher, commoners don't.  There's a basic presumption that your PC is measurably better than a regular joe, even at 0 xp.




I'm not sure this is true with regard to either 3e or 4e....

Note that in both 3e and 4e, the town guard is ALSO tougher than the common person. Indeed, in 4e, a town guard is tougher than the 1st level PC as are the bandits, pirates etc.


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 19, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> (3)  Finally, it is not unusual to encounter magical lakes in Anglo Saxon folklore, and this lake is otherwise described as having unusual qualities....such as boiling black with blood.  *It may well be the setting that is fantastic*, and Beowulf survives that long below water not because he can breathe water, but because the lake itself is prepresentative of an "Otherworld" with non-mundane qualities.



Emphasis mine. In other words: In a fantastic setting, even 'mundane' people are able to perform actions that would be deemed fantastic in a mundane setting.

Hence, there is no reason not to allow mundane (martial) characters to have fantastic (magical) powers in a setting that is entirely fantastic. I think all of the popular D&D settings fall into that category.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 19, 2010)

Mark Chance said:


> Lines 120-125, Seamus Heaney translation:




I am aware of it; I am also aware of other translations.  Which is why I said it depends upon the translation.  It may also depend upon Grendel's "Glove of Holding"!  



Leatherhead said:


> Just picking up a sword and suddenly being competent with it is already head-and-shoulders above the common person. Going out and saving the day makes them solidly fantastic. But for some reason, this character is played as a "mundane."




Again, this argument conflates meanings of "fantastic" and "mundane".  No one is claiming that a fighter should not be able to perform better than the average man; in this case "mundane" is opposed to "magical" or "supernatural".  It does not mean "hum-drum" or "run-of-the-mill".

Any argument that relies upon the "hum-drum" or "run-of-the-mill" meaning of "mundane" is, therefore, a straw man.  Easy to set up, easy to knock down, and wholly irrelevant.  



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> The biggest problem with trying to define the "fantastic" is the people's definitions will vary more based on their own particular biases than any sort of objective view. Which makes sense since fantastic is pretty vague.
> 
> A hobbit can hide a short distance away from one of the most powerful beings in Middle Earth and not be found. Fantastic? A hobbit can resist the most powerful artifact, the one that destroys even the elves. Fantastic? Depends on how you define things.




This is exactly correct.  Some things that seem fantastic can, and do, occur in the real world.  Some things that do not seem fantastic are, in point of fact, pretty darn unlikely in the real world.  I've known players who imagine that building a cart can be done in an afternoon without tools or materials, for example.  I would call that a pretty fantastic feat!



> From a D&D perspective though, the problem is, fighters and the non-magic types become essentially Muggles in a Harry Potter Universe as soon as the casters hit any significant levels. Conan, in a Harry Potter world, wouldn't last ten seconds against children, considering what students can do in that world. And that's what (at least 3e and 4e) casters become in D&D.




I would say that this is a problem with the system, if and only if you want a game in which it is possible to play Conan.  I have a sneaking suspicion that, in most D&D worlds, there should actually be fewer spellslingers than there typically are, and even fewer at high levels.  Smart money would have the Conans and James Bonds killing them before they become a threat!  



> But, if you allow the non-magic types to be fantastic - James Bond, Conan (yes, I do consider Conan fantastic), Batman, that sort of thing - not magical in the special effects way, but still far beyond normal human, then it works a great deal better, IMO.






Jhaelen said:


> Emphasis mine. In other words: In a fantastic setting, even 'mundane' people are able to perform actions that would be deemed fantastic in a mundane setting.
> 
> Hence, there is no reason not to allow mundane (martial) characters to have fantastic (magical) powers in a setting that is entirely fantastic. I think all of the popular D&D settings fall into that category.




I would point out that there is a difference between the fantastic inherent in the setting (at Grendel Lake, you can breathe the water) and in the character (you can always breathe the water).  Likewise, there is a difference between the fantastic being inherently pervasive in the setting (on Algol, the water is breathable) or in the character (on Barsoom, only John Carter can leap about like a cricket).

Certainly, if that is what is desired, there is no reason not to allow mundane (non-supernatural) characters from doing things that would seem fantastic from our perspective, at least to the level of Conan.  When you get to the level of Batman, though.......

Obviously, it depends upon the desires of the people involved with the game.  There is nothing wrong, and quite a bit right, with ensuring that the game you are playing is the game you want to be playing.  

There is nothing wrong with wahoo! fighters if you want wahoo! fighters.  

Likewise, there is nothing wrong with having other options if you want those options.


RC


----------



## Bluenose (Nov 19, 2010)

Hussar said:


> From a D&D perspective though, the problem is, fighters and the non-magic types become essentially Muggles in a Harry Potter Universe as soon as the casters hit any significant levels. Conan, in a Harry Potter world, wouldn't last ten seconds against children, considering what students can do in that world. And that's what (at least 3e and 4e) casters become in D&D.
> 
> But, if you allow the non-magic types to be fantastic - James Bond, Conan (yes, I do consider Conan fantastic), Batman, that sort of thing - not magical in the special effects way, but still far beyond normal human, then it works a great deal better, IMO.




A better solution, surely, is to reign in the casters in most games to something a lot closer to most of their fictional/mythical counterparts. Have your casters be Merlin-level, rather than Harry Potter. If you let D&D wizards be more powerful than Merlin, or Circe, or Thoth-Amon, or Baba Yaga, then you shouldn't be surprised that warriors comparably as powerful as the ones in those tales are outclassed.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Nov 19, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> I'm not sure this is true with regard to either 3e or 4e....
> 
> Note that in both 3e and 4e, the town guard is ALSO tougher than the common person. Indeed, in 4e, a town guard is tougher than the 1st level PC as are the bandits, pirates etc.



Indeed.  A 1st level PC in 4e can easily beat up the average craftsman or member of a pitchfork-waving mob.  But armoured or trained humans such as town guard are about third level I think.  First level you're about on a par with a goblin or kobold and you need to reach fourth level to be officially a match for the average orc warband member (excluding the unarmoured minions they bring along - and those shock troops are _nasty_).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 19, 2010)

Thasmodious said:


> I agree with Mr. Crowking's point.




Thank you.  



> I believe I xp'ed him for it several pages ago.




'fraid not.  



> I'm talking about revisionism as it applies to genre theory.  It's a specific term about a specific thing.  "Revisionist history" is something different.




Yup.


RC


----------



## AllisterH (Nov 19, 2010)

re: Graveyards and D&D

now that I think about it...the reasons why graveyards existed in real life even moreso make the graveyard not make sense in D&D.

In our world, the graveayard prevented the creation of the undead and this was born out by the fact that well, there WERE no undead risings (that we know of)..

So of course, this "proves" to the ancient people that graveyard prevent undeads...

Move this to a D&D world and you no longer have this correlation - Indeed...massive graveyards seem to have a higher chance of undead rising...thus the people of the D&D world would start to associate graveyards WITH the creation of undead.

re: Wizards and Warriors

The only genre I know where the mages are even close to the level of D&D mages would be certain manga/anime that are based on D&D. Slayers for example.

In those cases, the warriors go BEYOND human and are blatantly superhumans which is accomplished by swordsmanship training (Gourry from the aforementioned Slayers is for example, moves so fast in battles that his sorceress companion actually loses track of where he is at times)


----------



## MoxieFu (Nov 19, 2010)

Conan would just take Harry Potter's wand away from him and spank him with it.

Without the wand the wizard in Harry Potter's world is helpless. Same thing in D&D; at least 3E and before. Take away a wizard's spellbook and they can't replenish their spells. Take away their spell components and they lose a vast majority of their spells. Strip a wizard naked and they are almost utterly useless. A fighter still has a big pile o' hit points and fighting ability. He could use something as simple as a club to do damage. Take away a clerics holy symbol and watch the fun. Does the player by chance have a spare written down on his character sheet?

I am sick and tired of the squealing that spell casters are over powered. Of course they are overpowered, they use MAGIC! If you cut them off from the source they can't do diddly. Put a cleric on a plane where his god doesn't exist and he's just a second-rate fighter. I like for magic to be powerful because it's... magical! Otherwise it's just currency.

I'm also willing to bet many of those complaining the loudest about spell casters play or DM in a game where casters are not required to record what spells they currently have prepared. I've played in games where the DM didn't require this and the spell casters always seem to have just the right spell for the right job. Eliminating this requirement makes spell casters even MORE powerful. 

Are spell casters actually more powerful? At least at medium and upper levels, yes. But that doesn't stop me from enjoying playing fighters and rogues as well. If the spell casters just hoard their spells for their own use and don't buff up the fighters and rogues that would make them more powerful. The game assumes the the members of the party will cooperate. There are prices to be paid if the casters don't bolster the entire party. If the casters in the party don't use some of their magic to boost the fighters and rogues they could end up in the depths of the dungeon by themselves. Then they better have some Raise Deads or Teleports to get them out of the mess they're in. And they better hang on to their spell books and their holy symbols!


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 19, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> It may also depend upon Grendel's "Glove of Holding"!



Actually it's the Grendel Grip feat (prerequisite Monkey Grip).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 19, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> In our world, the graveayard prevented the creation of the undead and this was born out by the fact that well, there WERE no undead risings (that we know of)..




Excepting, of course, that people believed that there WERE undead uprisings (see upthread for a link to an example that swept Europe in relatively recent times).

Wheras



> Move this to a D&D world and you no longer have this correlation - Indeed...massive graveyards seem to have a higher chance of undead rising...thus the people of the D&D world would start to associate graveyards WITH the creation of undead.




is only true if one can demonstrate that removing the graveyard results in fewer undead.  This may be true in some D&D worlds; it should not be assumed to be true in all.  Particularly in a world where the GM knows the purpose of graveyards, and uses that knowledge.



MoxieFu said:


> Conan would just take Harry Potter's wand away from him and spank him with it.




Well, no.  Even if HP got the initial advantage, he wouldn't kill Conan, so Conan would eventually take his wand and run him through or decapitate him.  HP goes from "The Boy Who Lived" to "The Boy Who Died Rather Horribly".



The Shaman said:


> Actually it's the Grendel Grip feat (prerequisite Monkey Grip).




In Old Norse legends, trolls tend to carry large gloves (often made of dragonhide or things like that), with which they can pack and carry enormous loads.  When Beowulf returns home, he says that Grendel had such a glove.  So, it is quite possible that Grendel can carry off 30 men in his glove, still be weaker than Beowulf, while Beowulf is still within human-possible strength.


RC


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 19, 2010)

Leatherhead said:


> Imagine the prototypical level one DnD fighter: A farmhand who gets their hands on a sword, and then joins up with a band of mercenaries who save the town from a monster or warband. This sets off their adventuring career.
> 
> Just picking up a sword and suddenly being competent with it is already head-and-shoulders above the common person.



Is this really the prototypical level one fighter?

A first-level fighter in 1e _AD&D_ is called a Veteran. He has up to ten hit points (and up to fourteen if he has a top CON score), as opposed to the maximum seven hit points of the hired men-at-arms accompanying the adventurers or six points possessed by the other hirelings, and he will strike succesfully with a weapon about five percent more often than an active or laboring man, such as your average farm boy. Thought neither the _PHB_ nor the _DMG_ explicitly states it, in my experience the number of weapon proficiencies are significantly less for zero-level humans compared to first-level fighters.

I don't think first-level _D&D_ fighters are just farmboys-with-swords. I think they are better trained and more skillful than most of the populace before they ever face their first goblin or skeleton in combat.


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 19, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> In Old Norse legends, trolls tend to carry large gloves (often made of dragonhide or things like that), with which they can pack and carry enormous loads.  When Beowulf returns home, he says that Grendel had such a glove.  So, it is quite possible that Grendel can carry off 30 men in his glove, still be weaker than Beowulf, while Beowulf is still within human-possible strength.



Uh, *RC*, I was making a little joke there.

Obviously not a very good one.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 19, 2010)

Nah, it was a good joke.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 19, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> now that I think about it...the reasons why graveyards existed in real life even moreso make the graveyard not make sense in D&D.
> 
> In our world, the graveayard prevented the creation of the undead and this was born out by the fact that well, there WERE no undead risings (that we know of)..




Well, "graveyards exist to prevent undead from rising" is a vast oversimplification (perhaps even outright trivialization) of human burial rituals.
Graveyards exist because we have complicated feelings about the dead and human remains - a combination of the need to preserve the memory (and perhaps the soul) of the departed, a need to not have a corpse right next to you, and a simple fear of the unknown final frontier.

Outright destruction of corpses is often not an option, for either physical (it takes a whole lot of fuel to reduce a human body to ash) or religious (it may mean the dead don't go to the proper afterlife, f'rex) reasons.


----------



## Barastrondo (Nov 19, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> In Old Norse legends, trolls tend to carry large gloves (often made of dragonhide or things like that), with which they can pack and carry enormous loads.  When Beowulf returns home, he says that Grendel had such a glove.  So, it is quite possible that Grendel can carry off 30 men in his glove, still be weaker than Beowulf, while Beowulf is still within human-possible strength.




Argh. This. This is why I have fallen so out of love with the "let's keep the fighters from being too fantastic now" approach. "You can play Beowulf, as long as you accept that it's you don't have astounding endurance, it's a magic pool, Grendel wasn't really notably strong, he had a magic glove, and that swimming in the ocean thing was something you made up to sound impressive."

In a strictly non-magical setting like The 13th Warrior's, I'd actually be fine with a carefully rationalized Beowulf. But in a more mystical setting, it jars. I'd much rather see a game where you're allowed to be Beowulf-strong as presented, and then the GM makes Grendel and his mother just _that much stronger_ in response.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Nov 19, 2010)

MoxieFu said:


> Conan would just take Harry Potter's wand away from him and spank him with it.
> 
> Without the wand the wizard in Harry Potter's world is helpless.




Wandless casting is explicitly taught in the later books.  Take thirteen year old Harry Potter's wand away and he's helpless.  Take eighteen year old Harry's wand and he's just impeded and probably about as powerful as thirteen year old Harry with a wand.



> I am sick and tired of the squealing that spell casters are over powered. Of course they are overpowered, they use MAGIC! If you cut them off from the source they can't do diddly. Put a cleric on a plane where his god doesn't exist and he's just a second-rate fighter. I like for magic to be powerful because it's... magical! Otherwise it's just currency.




It _is_ powerful.  But powerful and overpowered are two different things.  Multiply all spellcasting times in 3E by a factor of ten and magic will _still_ be powerful.  And so will mages.  But weapon wielders will have much more of a place.



> I'm also willing to bet many of those complaining the loudest about spell casters play or DM in a game where casters are not required to record what spells they currently have prepared. I've played in games where the DM didn't require this and the spell casters always seem to have just the right spell for the right job. Eliminating this requirement makes spell casters even MORE powerful.




Of course it does.  But if there's any downtime at all it's easy to almost eliminate the limits here in 3e.  Those obscure utility spells you generally don't prepare but when they are useful are _really_ useful?  Scrolls.  Those that you want to cast three or more times per day?  Wands.



> Are spell casters actually more powerful? At least at medium and upper levels, yes. But that doesn't stop me from enjoying playing fighters and rogues as well. If the spell casters just hoard their spells for their own use and don't buff up the fighters and rogues that would make them more powerful.




A given.  But the real question comes if the casters buff each other or don't buff at all rather than turning their spells over to the fighter for use.  Is that what is best for the party?  If the answer is yes, then buffing the fighters and rogues is not working as a team.  It's holding a pity party for the poor meatshields and thieves.



> The game assumes the the members of the party will cooperate.




Cooperation is not holding a pity party.  It's working together to ensure the success as a group.  Even from the earliest levels clerics make better meatshields than fighters - they come with almost as many hit points and the ability to heal themselves and other people.  And can wear the same armour.



> There are prices to be paid if the casters don't bolster the entire party.




Also prices to be paid if they do.  Like a share of the loot.  And arguably a less effective party overall.



> If the casters in the party don't use some of their magic to boost the fighters and rogues they could end up in the depths of the dungeon by themselves. Then they better have some Raise Deads or Teleports to get them out of the mess they're in.




Good job they are the people who can do that then.  Because the fighters certainly can't!  And can't fly either.  And can't even really tank without the mages supporting them.



> And they better hang on to their spell books and their holy symbols!




Always.  And have spares.  Getting captured and chained up _sucks_.  But the fighters aren't better off with their hands chained.  At that point it's the bards and the rogues who are the useful guys.  Also most high level wizards IME have a spare spellbook that's not kept with them...


----------



## MoxieFu (Nov 19, 2010)

Neon can you do that again but only one sentence at a time?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 19, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> Argh. This. This is why I have fallen so out of love with the "let's keep the fighters from being too fantastic now" approach. "You can play Beowulf, as long as you accept that it's you don't have astounding endurance, it's a magic pool, Grendel wasn't really notably strong, he had a magic glove, and that swimming in the ocean thing was something you made up to sound impressive."




In AD&D terms, I think I'd say something more like:  "Sure, you can play a character with 18/00 Strength and 18 Constitution.  After all, I was there when you rolled him up!"



> I'd much rather see a game where you're allowed to be Beowulf-strong as presented




My point was that your "as presented" is really "as I interpreted was presented".  That Grendel had a large glove is in the text; knowing its purpose requires a little Old Norse lore, but would certainly have been known to the original audience.  Failing to know doesn't change what is presented; it only changes your understanding of what is presented.

If I failed to understand that Batman needed the Batmobile to race along Gotham's streets at 90 mph, that doesn't suddenly mean that Batman is presented as the Flash, or that you are not allowing me to play Batman as presented because you don't let me have super-speed.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 19, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Well, "graveyards exist to prevent undead from rising" is a vast oversimplification (perhaps even outright trivialization) of human burial rituals.




Or, perhaps, it is just focusing on part of human burial rituals because it is a relevant part to a discussion.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Nov 19, 2010)

Here's one: the big dumb warrior who's only good for his fighting and physical skills.

I'd like my fighters to be more knowledgeable about things like history and geography and the like.

In 3e they don't have many class skills and Knowledges is not one of his primary skills and I think it should be.


----------



## Barastrondo (Nov 19, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> In AD&D terms, I think I'd say something more like:  "Sure, you can play a character with 18/00 Strength and 18 Constitution.  After all, I was there when you rolled him up!"




It doesn't really address the point, though. I still wouldn't know (without the context of this thread) if that would mean a fighter would be allowed to regularly do fantastic things in said game, or if such fantastic things would be sharply regulated. What you can reasonably expect an 18 Constitution to get you is something that still varies from GM to GM, and what inspires them to sit down and run.



> My point was that your "as presented" is really "as I interpreted was presented".  That Grendel had a large glove is in the text; knowing its purpose requires a little Old Norse lore, but would certainly have been known to the original audience.  Failing to know doesn't change what is presented; it only changes your understanding of what is presented.




But do you see how it comes across as a focus on limitation? Consistent arguments that Beowulf is not really that impressive, or if he is, that it's an implied conjurer's trick, don't give the impression that one would do well to select a fighter in such a setting. It's the spirit of the "let's not get too fantastic, here, you're still playing a human fighter" that I don't care for. 

Still, yes, point taken. It's not unlike basing an interpretation of a pulp hero on one story instead of many: it's only over the course of many stories where you can see if a hero is generally not that much more competent than the people around him, or if he's regularly outstanding. We only have the one Beowulf.


----------



## Barastrondo (Nov 19, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> Here's one: the big dumb warrior who's only good for his fighting and physical skills.
> 
> I'd like my fighters to be more knowledgeable about things like history and geography and the like.
> 
> In 3e they don't have many class skills and Knowledges is not one of his primary skills and I think it should be.




Whoo, preach it brother.


----------



## MoxieFu (Nov 19, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> Wandless casting is explicitly taught in the later books.  Take thirteen year old Harry Potter's wand away and he's helpless.  Take eighteen year old Harry's wand and he's just impeded and probably about as powerful as thirteen year old Harry with a wand.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





I am not going to get into a pedantic line-by-line argument where we strips sentences out of their contexts. I am not saying that A is always true and that B is never true. I am not standing on one extreme side of an argument and claiming all other arguments to be the opposite extreme. 

What I am saying is that Yes, magic is powerful. But that's the way I LIKE it in my games. IMHO YMMV TT&LNI. But even if magic IS powerful, it does have limitations. It is up to the DM to enforce those limitations. If they don't, then characters using magic can run amuck. 

If a DM wanted to, he could really screwover the spell casters. I've seen it happen and I'm glad I wasn't playing the wizard in that game. Characters shouldn't have to plan for contingencies upon contingencies upon contingencies. They should just exercise a reasonable amount of preparation. And everybody's interpretations of "reasonable" is not the same.  But at the same time the players shouldn't assume that they will always have all the time and money and opportunity to do what they plan. And If a DM lets them do that, then he is asking for trouble.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 19, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> It doesn't really address the point, though. I still wouldn't know (without the context of this thread) if that would mean a fighter would be allowed to regularly do fantastic things in said game, or if such fantastic things would be sharply regulated.




Hrm.  "Regularly do fantastic things"?  The epic poem Beowulf spans more than 50 years.  How regularly does Beowulf do fantastic things within that poem?  Even if we throw the context of the poem out the window because some might say "Beowulf is not really that impressive" -- as if the accomplishments of human beings cannot be!

Again, as this thread has shown, one doesn't need to take the leap into fantasy to uncover real human feats that others think fantastic.  Beowulf doesn't need to out benchpress the Hulk to be impressive, nor need he be Aquaman.  The emphasis of the poem -- what actually makes Beowulf impressive to the intended audience -- is that he does what he ought to do.  And anyone can do what they ought, if they (like Beowulf) are willing to pay the price.



			
				Beowulf said:
			
		

> Then twelve cheiftains, all sons of princess, rode round the barrow lamenting their loss, speaking of their king, reciting an elegy, and acclaiming the hero.  They praised his manhood and extolled his heroic deeds.  It is right that men should pay homage to their king with words, and cherish him in their hearts, when he has taken leave of the body.  So the Geats who had shared his hall mourned the death of their lord, and said that of all kings he was the gentlest and most gracious of men, the kindest to his people and the most desirous of renown.




It is sometimes said that S&S, and games like D&D, are about adolescent power fantasy.  This may be true, especially if all one does is focus on the power.  But this doesn't have to be the primary focus, as it was not the primary focus of Beowulf and is not the primary focus of the REH Conan stories.

Adolescent power fantasy is about "What can I do?  What can I take?  What do I get?"  

Beowulf is no less desirous to do great deeds, or to win renown, but he is focused on "What is right for me to do?  What can I give back?  What is the honourable way to face my foes?  What gifts do I bring my king?"  IOW, one focuses on "What's in it for me?" while the other focuses on "What can I bring to the table?"

I far prefer "What can I bring to the table?"

YMMV.

As for "focus on the limitations", then if you say X is Y, and I say X is not-Y, sure, you can say "You are focusing on the limitations!  Like how X is not-Y!"  But the "focus" here is brought about by the original claim, not be the refutation of it.  And the refutation exists only because the original claim is used to back other claims, which are equally -- or even more! -- questionable.

RC


----------



## Harlekin (Nov 19, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> Argh. This. This is why I have fallen so out of love with the "let's keep the fighters from being too fantastic now" approach. "You can play Beowulf, as long as you accept that it's you don't have astounding endurance, it's a magic pool, Grendel wasn't really notably strong, he had a magic glove, and that swimming in the ocean thing was something you made up to sound impressive."




All you have to do is to apply the same logic to Magic users: "Fireball" may just be a big Molotov cocktail, the "magic missile" was fired from a crossbow and Fly spells only work in special magic areas that yo will find once in your adventuring career. This is the type of wizard you would expect in a story with "realistic fighters", a Con Man that claims to have magic powers but is mostly bluff and bluster.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Nov 19, 2010)

Another one: the belief that playing a game is telling a story and best described in the vocabulary of literature.  Not to mention the absolutist devotion and pejorative behaviors of said believers.  The simple thought is so blindingly wrong it is difficult to know where to begin.  A story is the expression of a pattern.  Playing a game is the learning of this pattern through pattern recognition.  Games are memory tests like puzzles.


----------



## Mallus (Nov 19, 2010)

howandwhy99 said:


> Another one: the belief that playing a game is telling a story and best described in the vocabulary of literature.



I'm quite fond of this one.



> Not to mention the absolutist devotion and pejorative behaviors of said believers.



Can you show me on this doll where the Narrativist touched you? 



> A story is the expression of a pattern.



This sounds like literary criticism written by a robot (though it *is* smoking a Gauloises and wearing a beret!). 



> Playing a game is the learning of this pattern through pattern recognition.  Games are memory tests like puzzles.



Most games are rather more, or at the very least can be described better than as mere memorization and pattern-recognition, no? Particularly RPG's, where success at a task can often be dependent on how amusing or outlandish the solution is/is described.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Nov 19, 2010)

Mallus said:


> I'm quite fond of this one.  Can you show me on this doll where the Narrativist touched you?



And that's fine, if you accept that your belief is a belief.  



> Most games are rather more, or at the very least can be described better than as mere memorization and pattern-recognition, no? Particularly RPG's, where success at a task can often be dependent on how amusing or outlandish the solution is/is described.



Mere and better?  If you have a metric for judging this, you are already relying on patterns.  RPGs, role playing as the act of recognizing human behavioral patterns and demonstrating this recognition, are best understood in the vocabulary of games rather than those of stories.  Success in RPGs is correctly demonstrating such recognition.  If the pattern is humor, than the game or portion thereof is about recognizing such.  Outlandishness operates similarly.

To your other comment, how do you differentiate between robotic behavior and human behavior?


----------



## jonesy (Nov 19, 2010)

howandwhy99 said:


> If the pattern is humor, than the game or portion thereof is about recognizing such.



Any portion? How big of a portion?

Anything and everything is or has or can be seen as a pattern. When the pattern of a solution for a puzzle is what the players own imagination can create and the DM's imagination can accept then the scope of the pattern becomes so all-inclusive as to be meaningless and useless for defining anything.

Other than just your imagination.


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 19, 2010)

Mallus said:


> Particularly RPG's, where success at a task can often be dependent on how amusing or outlandish the solution is/is described.



_Some_ rpgs, yes.

_Feng Shui_ is a roleplaying game, but all roleplaying games are not _Feng Shui_.


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 19, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> _Feng Shui_ is a roleplaying game, but all roleplaying games are not _Feng Shui_.




DUDE.  You just blew my mind.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Nov 19, 2010)

jonesy said:


> Any portion? How big of a portion?



Yes, any portion.  As big as the portion within the borders of the game as created by the designer.  As for any game the scope of these borders should be known by the players.  This is delineated in the rule set.



> Anything and everything is or has or can be seen as a pattern. When the pattern of a solution for a puzzle is what the players own imagination can create and the DM's imagination can accept then the scope of the pattern becomes so all-inclusive as to be meaningless and useless for defining anything.
> 
> Other than just your imagination.



Yes, everything is within a pattern.  For a game, limiting the scope of the game's pattern only by the totality of human expression of those playing is a monumental task for a designer.  Limiting scope to a social role or roles within the game is far easier.


----------



## Barastrondo (Nov 20, 2010)

> Beowulf doesn't need to out benchpress the Hulk to be impressive, nor need he be Aquaman.  The emphasis of the poem -- what actually makes Beowulf impressive to the intended audience -- is that he does what he ought to do.  And anyone can do what they ought, if they (like Beowulf) are willing to pay the price.




I know. But that's not what I'm talking about. The discussion of motivation, or of being challenged: those are entirely separate issues. I'm not talking about wanting fighters and non-supernatural characters to be the baddest guys in the room because that's the player motivation, or for power fantasy. I'm certainly not talking about jacking them up to hyperbolic levels like high-end superhero comics. I'm talking about them mechanically fitting the feel of the works they're inspired by. In many cases, ruling that they should be held to a specific plateau of "fantastic" while other characters in the same game world are not doesn't look right. That's why I don't support it as the rule.



Harlekin said:


> All you have to do is to apply the same logic to Magic users: "Fireball" may just be a big Molotov cocktail, the "magic missile" was fired from a crossbow and Fly spells only work in special magic areas that yo will find once in your adventuring career. This is the type of wizard you would expect in a story with "realistic fighters", a Con Man that claims to have magic powers but is mostly bluff and bluster.




Sure. Like I said, I have no issue with handling things this way in a game where everyone's subject to comparable limitations. I mainly have some issues with the double standard.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 20, 2010)

*Ladies and gents,

It's okay to say that you don't like "magic shops" in game, or that you think the old saw of everyone meeting in a bar is so overdone as to make you nauseous.  But when you get to the level of, "I think the way some others think about playing RPGs in general" should die, then you're leaning over the line into being kind of a jerk.

So, please, keep it short of telling others they're doing it wrong.  Thanks.*


----------



## Lanefan (Nov 20, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> It _is_ powerful.  But powerful and overpowered are two different things.  Multiply all spellcasting times in 3E by a factor of ten and magic will _still_ be powerful.  And so will mages.  But weapon wielders will have much more of a place.



Sorry, but no they won't.

Most spells in 3e have an effective casting time of 0, in that the casting both starts and resolves on the caster's initiative with extremely limited opportunity to interrupt.

Multiplying 0 by a factor of 10 still leaves ... 0.

That said, if spell casting in 3e actually *took* time - say, for an average spell you start casting on your initiative then take 5 or 10 or some arbitrary number off your initiative to determine when you resolve, with any intervening initiatives having an opportunity to interrupt you (and while you're at it do away with combat casting; if the caster is interrupted at all the spell is lost) - then you're on to something.

Lanefan


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 20, 2010)

WizarDru said:


> DUDE.  You just blew my mind.



Landru cannot help you now.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 20, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Outright destruction of corpses is often not an option, for either physical (it takes a whole lot of fuel to reduce a human body to ash) or religious (it may mean the dead don't go to the proper afterlife, f'rex) reasons.




The material cost of burning a corpse is a good reason for burial over cremation and one that would have to be considered in a society where every body is destroyed.


The second reason really does not matter, especially in regard to our society. Our religious beliefs (as varied as they are) come from men and women either believing they hear their deity speak to them or just making it up. So in reality it becomes a circular arguement.

Why do you bury the dead? So they make it to the afterlife. How do you know that is what you have to do? Cause we decided that is what needed to do. Why didnt you just decide cremation gets you to the afterlife? Oh we used to do that, but we were cutting down all the forests, and we didnt want to freeze in the winter, so we decided to go with burial instead. Who decided this? The priests of course, they were granted a vision by the almighty. Ok.....

See what I mean?


----------



## Hussar (Nov 20, 2010)

Bluenose said:


> A better solution, surely, is to reign in the casters in most games to something a lot closer to most of their fictional/mythical counterparts. Have your casters be Merlin-level, rather than Harry Potter. If you let D&D wizards be more powerful than Merlin, or Circe, or Thoth-Amon, or Baba Yaga, then you shouldn't be surprised that warriors comparably as powerful as the ones in those tales are outclassed.




The problem is, all those characters you name are NPC's.  

Who wants to be a wizard if all you do is stand around looking important but never actually doing anything?


----------



## Hussar (Nov 20, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> Sorry, but no they won't.
> 
> Most spells in 3e have an effective casting time of 0, in that the casting both starts and resolves on the caster's initiative with extremely limited opportunity to interrupt.
> 
> ...




That's actually not true.  Most, and certainly the majority, of spells in 3e take 1 Standard action.  Multiplying it by ten takes it up to a 1 round casting time - so any hit before the beginning of your next turn would interrupt the spell - or at least force a Concentration roll.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 20, 2010)

> Here's one: the big dumb warrior who's only good for his fighting and physical skills.




I've only played one of those, and it was ridiculously fun.


----------



## Bluenose (Nov 20, 2010)

Hussar said:


> The problem is, all those characters you name are NPC's.
> 
> Who wants to be a wizard if all you do is stand around looking important but never actually doing anything?




Protagonist, antagonist, or bystander, I don't think it really matters. Wizards in most stories are limited in the things they can do. there are a few virtually universal things - finding things out, the D&D divination school, although the 'how' often varies - magical protection and breaking of other enchantments, so abjuration - and then there are that particular spellcasters special abilities. Necromancers draining life from people and raising armies of the dead, enchanters (often enchantresses) using magic to trick people into doing things against their will and compel an army of minions, etc. They don't stand around doing nothing all do, but their spells don't solve every problem. In D&D (and Harry Potter) those limits are drastically reduced by allowing a much wider range of spells to every caster.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 20, 2010)

But, again, Bluenose, everything you've listed off is fantastic for an NPC.  For a PC, it's useless.  Oooh, I can get information from the DM.  Ooo, I can raise armies of minions, which means I'm going to have to control umpteen bajillion NPC's.  

Great for NPC's.  Terrible for PC's.

Me, I'd rather my PC modeled after Doctor Strange, or Quick Ben from the Steven Erikson Malatzan books, or any number of other wizard types that don't sit and direct from the back.

By the way, when I mentioned Conan in a Harry Potter universe, people jumped on the idea of Conan VS Harry Potter.  That wasn't what I meant at all actually.  It's not that Conan could or could not defeat Harry Potter, it's that, in a Harry Potter universe, Conan is utterly useless many times.

How does Conan deal with a Dementor, for example?  He can't see it or hurt it in any way.  Yet the Dementor can certainly kill him.  

And that's what happens in D&D.  So many of the baddies can stomp all over the fighter.  The fighter needs the casters just to be able to fight them.  Incorporeal undead, for example.  In earlier editions, if you didn't have the right plus, you died.  In 3e, you still have a huge amount of problems.  Particularly if the undead can fly and have fly by attack.  

Never mind things like swarms.  Or anything rather large with improved grab (which is pretty much everything huge it seems sometimes).  Oops, no fly or free action?  You die.  

Teamwork is great and I'm all for teamwork.  But the rules shouldn't require one class to be propped up by another one in order to get basic functionality.


----------



## DragonLancer (Nov 20, 2010)

I don't see there should be much issue with troupes. At the end of the day we see them all the time on TV and movies, and in books. It's part and parcel of modern fiction.

Getting away from the burial/cremation topic for the moment, what about the classic troupe of adventurers finding employment in taverns? I think this one works on a realistic level. Adventurers and mercenaries, especially at low levels, will hang out at taverns drinking and telling tales of their deeds. What better place to go to in order to hire someone for a quest than a tavern?


----------



## Mallus (Nov 20, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> _Some_ rpgs, yes.
> 
> _Feng Shui_ is a roleplaying game, but all roleplaying games are not _Feng Shui_.



Heh... I wasn't thinking about Feng Shui. I've never played it. I was thinking about the way we used to play AD&D back in high school and college, and, frankly, the way my buddies still play it today.

My experience is --and mind you I've never played it-- there's a little Feng Shui in most role-playing game campaigns. Occasionally the DM/GM just says "What the Hell, that sounds really cool! It works". 

In other words, the DM/GM stops being an impartial arbiter of the game environment, stops drawing on whatever knowledge they might have of the real world, it's peoples, and it's physical processes, and rules the players succeed for the sheer entertainment value of it or because the players made them laugh.

My understanding is games like Feng Shui made this a formal part of the rules, but informally this kind of thing has been going on for the length of the hobby.


----------



## Bluenose (Nov 20, 2010)

Hussar said:


> But, again, Bluenose, everything you've listed off is fantastic for an NPC. For a PC, it's useless. Oooh, I can get information from the DM. Ooo, I can raise armies of minions, which means I'm going to have to control umpteen bajillion NPC's.
> 
> Great for NPC's. Terrible for PC's.
> 
> Me, I'd rather my PC modeled after Doctor Strange, or Quick Ben from the Steven Erikson Malatzan books, or any number of other wizard types that don't sit and direct from the back.




And I'd rather model my wizard PC, at least at low level, after Merlin from the current BBC tv series. Competent at magic, but not all sorts of magic. All the magic-users in that series work with warriors, without it looking as if they're unnecessary. I'm much happier with that sort of approach than I would be with Doctor Strange. 



> By the way, when I mentioned Conan in a Harry Potter universe, people jumped on the idea of Conan VS Harry Potter. That wasn't what I meant at all actually. It's not that Conan could or could not defeat Harry Potter, it's that, in a Harry Potter universe, Conan is utterly useless many times.
> 
> How does Conan deal with a Dementor, for example? He can't see it or hurt it in any way. Yet the Dementor can certainly kill him.
> 
> ...




This, of course, I entirely agree with. Allies who need help before they an contribute aren't exactly particularly helpful.


----------



## MoxieFu (Nov 20, 2010)

Bluenose said:


> And I'd rather model my wizard PC, at least at low level, after Merlin from the current BBC tv series. Competent at magic, but not all sorts of magic. All the magic-users in that series work with warriors, without it looking as if they're unnecessary. I'm much happier with that sort of approach than I would be with Doctor Strange.
> 
> 
> 
> This, of course, I entirely agree with. Allies who need help before they an contribute aren't exactly particularly helpful.




Bluenose this is not directed at you but at the text you quoted. I normally can't see that text unless someone quotes it.


If you run a wizard in a dungeon without those "meatsheilds" they will get rushed, grappled, and the pounded into chutney. Now which class needs propping up by others? If you push examples into the extreme then ALL classes will fail.


----------



## AllisterH (Nov 20, 2010)

MoxieFu said:


> If you run a wizard in a dungeon without those "meatsheilds" they will get rushed, grappled, and the pounded into chutney. Now which class needs propping up by others? If you push examples into the extreme then ALL classes will fail.




This was true in 1e/2e...

But in 3.x after 8th level IME? Nah, a 4 person wizard party can handle anything equally as well if not better than a "balanced party"...and this is actually based on actual experience.

Now, druids can do this pretty much from 1st level though...


----------



## Diamond Cross (Nov 20, 2010)

Hussar said:


> But, again, Bluenose, everything you've listed off is fantastic for an NPC.  For a PC, it's useless.  Oooh, I can get information from the DM.  Ooo, I can raise armies of minions, which means I'm going to have to control umpteen bajillion NPC's.
> 
> Great for NPC's.  Terrible for PC's.
> 
> ...





So you want your character to be a mary sue with inklings of godhood?

And all classes should be the same?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Nov 20, 2010)

Hussar said:


> How does Conan deal with a Dementor, for example? He can't see it or hurt it in any way. Yet the Dementor can certainly kill him.




Instantly made me think of the Conan story "The phoenix on the sword", which illustrates that even in the Conan stories, he sometimes needs aid from magic using friends/divine allies to overcome foes.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 20, 2010)

Mallus said:


> Can you show me on this doll where the Narrativist touched you?




Sadly, the Eric's Grandmother rule prevents me from providing a graphic...... 



Hussar said:


> How does Conan deal with a Dementor, for example?  He can't see it or hurt it in any way.  Yet the Dementor can certainly kill him.




I'm not sure; the rules of JKR's universe seem very obscure and self-contradictory to me.  AFAICT, Conan could beat a dementor by thinking happy thoughts at it; i.e., by simply refusing to give in.

Rather like Happy in the wardrobe, which was used as the lesser example of the dementor for practicing dispelling such creatures.

I actually think Harry Potter is a poor example to use, because AFAICT the HP universe is pretty poorly thought out.  Apart from the events that happen within the novels, it is difficult to say what could or could not happen.

The one thing we _*can*_ say is that the Wizarding world seems to be concealed from the Muggles, and it is the Muggles who are in charge.  This implies rather that the Wizarding world knows that potential Conans are out there, somewhere, ready to spank them if need be.  It is only insane wizards, like Voldemort, who are willing to chance it.  And even their attacks on Muggles, in the novels, were not open and obviously the results of magic.  Heck, the Wizarding world devotes quite a bit of its resources in avoiding the attention of potential Conans....er, Muggles.

For all the big talk about how overwhelmingly powerful HP magic is, the reality may well be that much of it works only on other wizards.


RC


----------



## Hussar (Nov 21, 2010)

DragonLancer said:


> I don't see there should be much issue with troupes. At the end of the day we see them all the time on TV and movies, and in books. It's part and parcel of modern fiction.
> 
> Getting away from the burial/cremation topic for the moment, what about the classic troupe of adventurers finding employment in taverns? I think this one works on a realistic level. Adventurers and mercenaries, especially at low levels, will hang out at taverns drinking and telling tales of their deeds. What better place to go to in order to hire someone for a quest than a tavern?




The problem with this particular trope, is that meeting the dark stranger in the Color/Animal Inn isn't so much a trope as a cliche.  It's been done to death.  Sure, it makes some sense, but, for some time, it was pretty much the standard and only way it seemed, that groups got together.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 21, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> So you want your character to be a mary sue with inklings of godhood?
> 
> And all classes should be the same?




Wow, is that what you took from what I wrote?  I'm not even sure where to start here.

I did say that a class that needs another class just to be barely competent is poorly designed.  I also did say that groups should be encouraged to work together, so classes should synergize with each other.

If that means "mary sue with inklings of godhood" to you, I have no idea how to respond to that.

See, as was said, a 10th level party of all clerics (or possibly 3 clerics and a druid) is probably the strongest mechanical party you can make.  Swap out a cleric for a wizard and it's still pretty much going to stomp on anything.

A 10th level party of all fighters is monster kibble.

If you don't see a problem with this, then, fine.  No worries.  I do think this is an issue.  You could go two ways with it.  Drop down the power of the casters and the monsters so that the mundane classes can catch up. No more size bonuses to grapple, or do away with grapple entirely, no more "needs +X to fight" - 3e did do this to some degree, drastically reduce the number of flying creatures as well as creatures with spell like abilities.

Essentially, turn every monster into a hill giant.

Or, you could go the other way.  Go with the idea that this is fantasy and let the "mundane" classes by properly mythic.  A 10th level fighter isn't just a really good guy with a sword, he's superhuman.  He can do all those mythic things that those guys do - like resist magic that no one else can resist, hold his breath longer than anyone else, be superhumanly strong, take punishment and keep on going with no long term debilitation - that sort of thing.

Personally, I like the idea of the mundane classes being mythic.  Legendary warriors shouldn't be regular guys with a sword, IMO.  They should be, well, legendary.


----------



## Lanefan (Nov 21, 2010)

Hussar said:


> See, as was said, a 10th level party of all clerics (or possibly 3 clerics and a druid) is probably the strongest mechanical party you can make.  Swap out a cleric for a wizard and it's still pretty much going to stomp on anything.
> 
> A 10th level party of all fighters is monster kibble.



Note for reference that the above are somewhat edition-dependent statements.

For 3e they are true.

For 1e they are not necessarily true at all.  A band of 10th-level Fighters in 1e, assuming they each have an enchanted weapon (a reasonable assumption), could do very well.

For 4e I don't know.


> Personally, I like the idea of the mundane classes being mythic.  Legendary warriors shouldn't be regular guys with a sword, IMO.  They should be, well, legendary.



Why can't they start out as mundane, progress through fantastic, and eventually arrive at legendary - all through deeds done and honours well earned?

Lanefan


----------



## Hussar (Nov 21, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> Note for reference that the above are somewhat edition-dependent statements.
> 
> For 3e they are true.
> 
> For 1e they are not necessarily true at all.  A band of 10th-level Fighters in 1e, assuming they each have an enchanted weapon (a reasonable assumption), could do very well.




Well, until they take any damage.  Given the healing rates in 1e, Fighters are absolutely dependent on clerics to function for any length of time.



> For 4e I don't know.
> Why can't they start out as mundane, progress through fantastic, and eventually arrive at legendary - all through deeds done and honours well earned?
> 
> Lanefan




How long though?  By 5th level, the wizard is flying and throwing fireballs.  The cleric is getting into some serious magic power as well.  By 6th the druid is shapechanging.

Meanwhile, the 6th level fighter is still getting his one attack per round in 1e.  The one thing that actually makes the fighter superhuman - percentile strength - he gets at 1st level, if at all.


----------



## AllisterH (Nov 21, 2010)

I'm with Lanefan....

For 3e, by 8th level I'd say, an all-wizard party can handle anything you might typically find in an adventure (Only thing I can think of screwing them over would be a total anti-magic zone over the ENTIRE adventure).

Druids and clerics can do this by 6th...

This though isn't true in 1e/2e, Remember, wizards had more or less totally random method of both spell and item acquisition (the actual spell and magic item creation rules were very stringent).

Clerics and druids simply didn't get enough good combat spells back then either so that they could replace a fighter. 

Sure, by 18th level, an all-wizard party could handle anything in 1e/2e but again, I might add that I don't think 18th level was ever intended to be used in an actual game

(again...if queen of the demonweb pits is what you'd expect from a high levle adventure and it is for 10 to 14th  level, what the hell were you supposed to be doing at 18th level? You were killing goddess/demon lords 5-8 levels ago...)


----------



## billd91 (Nov 21, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> (again...if queen of the demonweb pits is what you'd expect from a high levle adventure and it is for 10 to 14th  level, what the hell were you supposed to be doing at 18th level? You were killing goddess/demon lords 5-8 levels ago...)




Let's put this in context. You were going through an adventure designed for 10th to 14th level that culminated in a fight against a fairly weak demon lord/goddess with an excellent AC but really weak hit points. Most of the challenges in that module weren't all that powerful and not necessarily what you'd expect taking on a more power demon lord like Orcus or Demogorgon.


----------



## MoxieFu (Nov 22, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> I'm with Lanefan....
> 
> For 3e, by 8th level I'd say, an all-wizard party can handle anything you might typically find in an adventure (Only thing I can think of screwing them over would be a total anti-magic zone over the ENTIRE adventure).




[snip]

Or just one REALLY nasty room. One worthy of Tomb of Horrors.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 22, 2010)

Actually, I do agree with Lanefan.  I'm just not sure how to implement the idea that your character goes from Competent Guy with a Lumpy Metal Thing to Legendary Guy!  

Or, at least I'm not sure how to do it without adding something like 4e powers.  In 1e and 2e, the difference between a 1st level fighter and a 10th level fighter was basically hit points.  Being able to take bigger hits is a good start for a legendary warrior, but, it's a bit thin IMO.  I want some ZAP! POW! KAFWING!  

The 3e Book of 9 Swords went too far, again IMO.  Too many special effects.  There were abilities that had your fighter bursting into flames, running down field, leaving a wall of fire behind you.  Yeah, very cool, but a bit over the top for what I wanted.  Some of the schools were less flashy, but, it still was a difficult line to walk.

Honestly, from what I've seen, 4e does a nice job here, at least at heroic levels.  The fighters and fighter types don't get a lot of Special Effects happy abilities.  Most of them are explainable (or at least close to explainable if you don't look too closely and perhaps cross your eyes) most of the time.  

Granted, I haven't played 4e above heroic and honestly, we haven't played that much 4e at all, so I could be way off base.  I'm just going by my impressions.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 22, 2010)

MoxieFu said:


> [snip]
> 
> Or just one REALLY nasty room. One worthy of Tomb of Horrors.




Yes, because an all fighter party would do so much better in Tomb of Horrors than an all caster party.


----------



## AllisterH (Nov 22, 2010)

billd91 said:


> Let's put this in context. You were going through an adventure designed for 10th to 14th level that culminated in a fight against a fairly weak demon lord/goddess with an excellent AC but really weak hit points. Most of the challenges in that module weren't all that powerful and not necessarily what you'd expect taking on a more power demon lord like Orcus or Demogorgon.




Yet the GDQ series is much more highly regarded than the other high level 1e adventure I can think (one that actually did involve Orcus) - the H-series, bloodstone pass.

If given a poll, i wouldn't be surprised to see Queen of demonweb pits outpoll the bloodstone wars in erms of what an iconic high level adventure should resemble.


----------



## Bluenose (Nov 22, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Actually, I do agree with Lanefan.  I'm just not sure how to implement the idea that your character goes from Competent Guy with a Lumpy Metal Thing to Legendary Guy!
> 
> Or, at least I'm not sure how to do it without adding something like 4e powers.  In 1e and 2e, the difference between a 1st level fighter and a 10th level fighter was basically hit points.  Being able to take bigger hits is a good start for a legendary warrior, but, it's a bit thin IMO.  I want some ZAP! POW! KAFWING!




Note also; massively better saves, one of very few classes that could attack more than 1/round, most monsters have lower hit points, not noticeably outclassed in NWPs gained, etc. 



> The 3e Book of 9 Swords went too far, again IMO.  Too many special effects.  There were abilities that had your fighter bursting into flames, running down field, leaving a wall of fire behind you.  Yeah, very cool, but a bit over the top for what I wanted.  Some of the schools were less flashy, but, it still was a difficult line to walk..




Problem is, if you want fighters that contribute at high level, they need to be doing some amazing stuff. On bursting into flames, have you ever read the Ulster saga, and seen Cuchullain? Being thrown into a cauldron of water and bursting it when the water boils away, because his rage is so hot.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Nov 22, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> Here's one: the big dumb warrior who's only good for his fighting and physical skills.




I disagree.  I believe what needs to die is that the fighter or barbarian _must_ be the big dumb warrior rather than that the fighter can be.  Big dumb warriors can be fun to play.



MoxieFu said:


> What I am saying is that Yes, magic is powerful. But that's the way I LIKE it in my games. IMHO YMMV TT&LNI. But even if magic IS powerful, it does have limitations. It is up to the DM to enforce those limitations. If they don't, then characters using magic can run amuck.




The trouble is it's a lot more than "enforce those limitations" that's needed in 3.X (AD&D it's not so clear).  What's needed is to impose further limits like anti-magic fields. 



> If a DM wanted to, he could really screwover the spell casters.




If a DM wants he can screw over any character in the game, no questions asked.  That you actually need to do so for balance and fairness is evidence that the game was badly designed.



> But at the same time the players shouldn't assume that they will always have all the time and money and opportunity to do what they plan. And If a DM lets them do that, then he is asking for trouble.




A wand of Cure Light Wounds takes 1 day and 375gp to make, and changes campaigns.  You seem to be indicating that a DM who ever gives the PCs a day to rest and repair or gives them enough money to be able to buy non-magical plate armour is asking for trouble.  At that point it's a system failing.  Now me, I don't see anything wrong with the odd week or month off to help prevent PTSD in the characters.  (There isn't much time when the rubber meets the road, granted.  But there is time between apocalyptic threats).



Lanefan said:


> Sorry, but no they won't.
> 
> Most spells in 3e have an effective casting time of 0, in that the casting both starts and resolves on the caster's initiative with extremely limited opportunity to interrupt.




By that argument full round attacks take no time at all either.  You're confusing the map with the territory here.  Spells in 3e normally have a casting time of 1 standard action.  If we make it 10 standard actions (5 would do) then things get interesting.  The wizard can have all except one standard action of the casting of _one_ spell performed, and gets this spell in the opening round to set the battle.  And after that it's cold steel that controls the outcome of the fight (give or take people taken down by the wizard).  Yet this way wizard spells can still be extremely powerful (as e.g. MoxieFu wants) without making the fighters irrelevant.



Hussar said:


> Actually, I do agree with Lanefan. I'm just not sure how to implement the idea that your character goes from Competent Guy with a Lumpy Metal Thing to Legendary Guy!




4e Essentials Knight and Slayer seem to keep up without being more than guys with lumpy metal things.



> The 3e Book of 9 Swords went too far, again IMO. Too many special effects. There were abilities that had your fighter bursting into flames, running down field, leaving a wall of fire behind you. Yeah, very cool, but a bit over the top for what I wanted. Some of the schools were less flashy, but, it still was a difficult line to walk.




IIRC, a warblade with Tiger Claw, Iron Heart, and White Raven schools would be fine (if you took the pogo stick away from Tiger Claw).  Most of the absurd schools were the property of the Swordsage - and part of his shtick was that sort of nonsense.  (The other absurd school was, of course, the Crusader's "I'm a paladin who actually works" Devoted Spirit school).



> Honestly, from what I've seen, 4e does a nice job here, at least at heroic levels. The fighters and fighter types don't get a lot of Special Effects happy abilities. Most of them are explainable (or at least close to explainable if you don't look too closely and perhaps cross your eyes) most of the time.




The bad one here is Come And Get It.  Which is always brought up and for a reason...  But I seriously see no reason why you can't port the Essentials fighter backward.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 22, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> Yet the GDQ series is much more highly regarded than the other high level 1e adventure I can think (one that actually did involve Orcus) - the H-series, bloodstone pass.
> 
> If given a poll, i wouldn't be surprised to see Queen of demonweb pits outpoll the bloodstone wars in erms of what an iconic high level adventure should resemble.




And the point of that is? Q1 wasn't designed for 18th level characters, probably rates higher than one that was, and we're to infer what from that exactly? That TSR didn't think the game was intended to be played at 18th level? That's a bit of a stretch.

Q1 is simply the culmination of a particular plot line with a fight against a weak goddess. That part of the module was not really a big deal. What people found cool were two things - open-ended worlds that could be reached off the Demonweb's highest level, and rules for adventuring in another hostile plane. Certainly the latter could be put into service for high level adventuring by any DM in their own campaign where planar travel is likely to be more common (and thanks to high level spells like astral projection, under the control of the PCs).


----------



## Harlekin (Nov 22, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> For 1e they are not necessarily true at all.  A band of 10th-level Fighters in 1e, assuming they each have an enchanted weapon (a reasonable assumption), could do very well.
> 
> 
> Lanefan




Actually, they need the whole enchilada of magical items; Ring of protection, magic armor and magic shields as well as magic weapons, otherwise the first monster that can do status effects will destroy them. Moreover they need magic bows otherwise anything that flies and has a ranged attack will kite them to death. At that level, the utility of a fighter in AD&D only depends on his magical gear.

And they still can't heal.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 22, 2010)

Harlekin said:


> Actually, they need the whole enchilada of magical items; Ring of protection, magic armor and magic shields as well as magic weapons, otherwise the first monster that can do status effects will destroy them. Moreover they need magic bows otherwise anything that flies and has a ranged attack will kite them to death. At that level, the utility of a fighter in AD&D only depends on his magical gear.
> 
> And they still can't heal.




Not really true in 1e. Magic armor is nice, but non-magical armor plus a good Dex can get them into the first steps of negative ACs already. Plus, once you've got magic armor, the ring of protection no longer helps your AC anyway. While still useful for saves, fighter saves really aren't bad at that level. A magic bow would also be nice for the very few flying creatures that need magic weapons to damage, but few of them really have ranged attacks that can pelt the fighters all day. And then, all they have to do is take off 50-75% of the creature's hit points to ground it, letting them bring magic melee weapons to bear.

While it's true that fighters are more gear-oriented than wizards, let's not overstate the dependence.


----------



## Harlekin (Nov 22, 2010)

billd91 said:


> Not really true in 1e. Magic armor is nice, but non-magical armor plus a good Dex can get them into the first steps of negative ACs already. Plus, once you've got magic armor, the ring of protection no longer helps your AC anyway. While still useful for saves, fighter saves really aren't bad at that level. A magic bow would also be nice for the very few flying creatures that need magic weapons to damage, but few of them really have ranged attacks that can pelt the fighters all day. And then, all they have to do is take off 50-75% of the creature's hit points to ground it, letting them bring magic melee weapons to bear.
> 
> While it's true that fighters are more gear-oriented than wizards, let's not overstate the dependence.




Not in my experience. At 10 HD, monsters have a THACO of ~10, so if you don't have an AC of at least -5, you get hit a lot. With no cleric to heal you, that is not good.

And IIRC, fighter saves are ~10 as well giving you a 50-50 chance on every effect you run into, again with no neutralize poison, remove curse et al. coming to the rescue. So good saves are a must.  

If you play with the numbers, you can actually see that for a fighter after level 9 a +1 sword and a +1 RoP are better than gaining a level. High level fighters are their gear.


----------



## Lanefan (Nov 22, 2010)

billd91 said:


> And the point of that is? Q1 wasn't designed for 18th level characters, probably rates higher than one that was, and we're to infer what from that exactly? That TSR didn't think the game was intended to be played at 18th level? That's a bit of a stretch.



I'm not so sure it's that much of a stretch at all.

Sure, in original design EGG et al might have envisioned the game going into the level-20's and beyond, but going by how little material was subsequently put out for levels 16+ I'd say TSR quickly learned the same thing many of us did: the system kinda broke down* once party levels hit the low teens.

* - some were able to fix it with severe house-ruling.



			
				Harlekin said:
			
		

> Not in my experience. At 10 HD, monsters have a THACO of ~10, so if you don't have an AC of at least -5, you get hit a lot. With no cleric to heal you, that is not good.
> 
> And IIRC, fighter saves are ~10 as well giving you a 50-50 chance on every effect you run into, again with no neutralize poison, remove curse et al. coming to the rescue. So good saves are a must.
> 
> If you play with the numbers, you can actually see that for a fighter after level 9 a +1 sword and a +1 RoP are better than gaining a level. High level fighters are their gear.



All this points out is that the Fighter, much like the opposition, is designed (intentionally or not) to be offense first and defense second.  Nice side effect: no combat grind. 

Also, keep in mind when discussing 1e Fighters that weapon spec. in UA made a big difference for them.

Lanefan


----------



## billd91 (Nov 23, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> I'm not so sure it's that much of a stretch at all.
> 
> Sure, in original design EGG et al might have envisioned the game going into the level-20's and beyond, but going by how little material was subsequently put out for levels 16+ I'd say TSR quickly learned the same thing many of us did: the system kinda broke down* once party levels hit the low teens.
> 
> * - some were able to fix it with severe house-ruling.




I do think it's a stretch to look at the history of published high level adventures and trying to infer that TSR didn't envision people actually playing at that level. Frankly, I would expect it to be harder to write a high-level module for general customers to use in any old campaign than lower level modules. While there was less variation in the build of characters and their abilities, you still have to deal with all of the other things you can expect many high level adventurers to be doing - running castles, administering to their religion's worshippers, and so on.

I ultimately think that the history of high level modules suggests that TSR recognized at least one thing - that the market for high level adventures is smaller than for lower level adventures. Exactly why they recognized that is something only they can answer, but I seriously doubt it was because they recognized a serious flaw in the high level rules. If they did back in the 1e days, you'd figure they would have taken steps to address that back in 2e, but they didn't in any significant way. In fact, when the DM's Options stuff started coming out, there was one specifically on running high level campaigns. I think that's a recognition that the game is *different*, more complex, not to everyone's tastes, not that it's flawed.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 23, 2010)

Bluenose said:


> Note also; massively better saves, one of very few classes that could attack more than 1/round, most monsters have lower hit points, not noticeably outclassed in NWPs gained, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> /snip




Sort of.  Yes, they gain an extra attack every other round at 7th level, and finally get a second attack every round at what, 14th?  Lanefan is right though, the UA specialization rules make an ENORMOUS difference for fighters.  Which is why 2e fighters are considerably more powerful than 1e - specs are built right into the rules, and two weapon fighting is head and shoulders better than any other choice in 2e.

But, let's compare a bit.  

1st level fighter and 1st level caster.  The fighter's doing pretty good here.  Good staying power, decent defenses, and the caster basically has so few spells (or only 1) that he's pretty far behind.

5th level fighter and 5th level caster.  The casters are now throwing fireballs, flying, turning invisible, creating loaves and fishes, curing disease, that sort of thing.  The fighter has 20 more hit points and 4 points better THAC0.  Oh, and his saves got better by one or two in each category.

9th level fighter and 9th level caster.  The casters are now teleporting, summoning massive elementals (albeit very slowly) and raising the dead.  The fighter has 1 more attack every other round, 20 more hit points and 4 points of THAC0.

14th level fighter and 14th level caster.  The druid is now a unique individual - the grand druid or whatever he's called - how's that for legendary?  The cleric is ressurecting people, causing earthquakes and the wizard is capable of traveling through dimensions reliably.  The fighter now attacks twice per round, gets 12 more hit points and 4 points of THAC0.  

Fighter is sucking hind  PDQ in the legendary department.


----------



## Lanefan (Nov 23, 2010)

Hussar said:


> But, let's compare a bit.
> 
> 1st level fighter and 1st level caster.  The fighter's doing pretty good here.  Good staying power, decent defenses, and the caster basically has so few spells (or only 1) that he's pretty far behind.



Yet the fighter has virtually no defense against magic (pathetic saving throws) and the caster has virtually no defense against physical attack (no armour, fights like a shoe).  The caster's job is to help the fighter.


> 5th level fighter and 5th level caster.  The casters are now throwing fireballs, flying, turning invisible, creating loaves and fishes, curing disease, that sort of thing.  The fighter has 20 more hit points and 4 points better THAC0.  Oh, and his saves got better by one or two in each category.



You've lobbed clerics in there - they are their own breed of animal, capable of doing both spellwork and physical combat - though neither as effectively as MUs or fighters.

But to keep comparing - yes the casters are chucking lightning bolts and fireballs around, and flying, etc. - but only once a day to the exclusion of all else at that level.  They can make people invisible - including our erstwhile fighter - which is beyond useful, but hardly game-breaking.  And casters still can't fight, so if anything gets near them they've got a problem. 

This is about the point at which the two best complement each other.


> 9th level fighter and 9th level caster.  The casters are now teleporting, summoning massive elementals (albeit very slowly) and raising the dead.  The fighter has 1 more attack every other round, 20 more hit points and 4 points of THAC0.



By now the fighter's falling behind, but has built up decent saving throws so can withstand some magic.  The caster still can't take two hits from anything, so it has become the fighter's job to help the caster.


> 14th level fighter and 14th level caster.  The druid is now a unique individual - the grand druid or whatever he's called - how's that for legendary?  The cleric is ressurecting people, causing earthquakes and the wizard is capable of traveling through dimensions reliably.  The fighter now attacks twice per round, gets 12 more hit points and 4 points of THAC0.



Minor quibbles: clerics get resurrection at 16th; the Grand Druid is 15th. That said, these characters are long past name level now; the fighter has a castle with lots of henches, the wizard has a tower where she does her research, the cleric has a home temple, and so forth. What are they still doing in the field? 

I've never run a game at this level, but the mechanics suggest fighters are lagging - except in saving throws, at which they are the best of anyone.  It's almost like their role has completely changed: using 4e terms they start out as strikers - it's up to them to give out the hurt - and slowly morph into defenders, where it's their job to protect the artillery casters.

Lanefan


----------



## Hussar (Nov 23, 2010)

I thought clerics got 7th level spells at 13th in 1e.  And Grand Druid is a Unearth Arcana thing.  Going straight 1e, that 14th level druid is pretty singular.  Maybe not one per world like the 15th level guy, but, certainly pretty unique.  The definition was pretty vague as to how many Great Druids there were floating around.

Sure, the fighter is useful to have.  I'm not saying he's useless.  My point is that he's hardly legendary.  He gets to be a better punching bag and that's about it.  It's not about how many times per day someone can do something.  It's about being able to do something at all.

There's a point to remember about saving throws though.  All those rings/cloaks of protection that the party picks up are pretty much useless to the fighter, because he's going to have magic armor most likely.  So, IME, it's the rogue and the wizard who get first shot at those.  A single ring of protection +3 (at higher levels, this is not really unreasonable, particularly if you play modules) puts wizards well ahead on saving throws.  Again, IME, it was the wizards who had the best saves in the group because they got first shot at any of the defensive magic items that they could wear - Bracers, rings/cloaks of protection, that sort of thing.


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 23, 2010)

billd91 said:


> I ultimately think that the history of high level modules suggests that TSR recognized at least one thing - that the market for high level adventures is smaller than for lower level adventures. Exactly why they recognized that is something only they can answer, but I seriously doubt it was because they recognized a serious flaw in the high level rules.




I'm pretty sure they realized what WotC would later verify through market research: that most campaigns never run long enough to reach those high-levels.  Therefore, the market for selling those materials is very small.  If you have a campaign that plays once a week that runs for 6 months and then disbands for some reason (school starts, school ends, friends move, new job, etc.) then the chance of even the most successful party managing to hit the teens is unlikely.  

Combine that with the factors of higher levels of lethality, overall levels of faddish attention and other issues (such as the often not-enforced requirement of having few or only ONE member of a class obtain the higher levels in the entire world) and it's not hard to see why high-level modules rarely saw print.


----------



## Lanefan (Nov 24, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Sure, the fighter is useful to have.  I'm not saying he's useless.  My point is that he's hardly legendary.  He gets to be a better punching bag and that's about it.  It's not about how many times per day someone can do something.  It's about being able to do something at all.



After which, it's about hiring the best Bard you can find to spread tales of your deeds of daring.  THAT is how legends are born! 


> There's a point to remember about saving throws though.  All those rings/cloaks of protection that the party picks up are pretty much useless to the fighter, because he's going to have magic armor most likely.  So, IME, it's the rogue and the wizard who get first shot at those.  A single ring of protection +3 (at higher levels, this is not really unreasonable, particularly if you play modules) puts wizards well ahead on saving throws.  Again, IME, it was the wizards who had the best saves in the group because they got first shot at any of the defensive magic items that they could wear - Bracers, rings/cloaks of protection, that sort of thing.



True.  It also depends on what is allowed to stack with what, not always clear in the item write-ups; so unclear in fact that 15 years ago or so I sat down and made up a chart - filling in my own ideas where there were blanks - of all the various defensive items and how they relate to each other.  Two hours spent, many hours saved. 

Lan-"and I still can't get experience points for killing time"-efan


----------



## AllisterH (Nov 24, 2010)

At what level in 1e/2e did people fight balors and liches?

From everything I've read and IME, most people did this at levels 9-13.

So what non-unique opponents were you supposed to fight after level 13?


----------



## Hussar (Nov 24, 2010)

I guess, at the end of the day, I just want warrior types that are cool.  I want warriors that can run across the surface of a lake.  I want warriors that can leap from the tops of bamboo trees while sword fighting.  I want warriors that can balance on top of a rolling mill wheel, fighting their enemies, while the mill wheel careens down the side of a mountain.

Sure, a lot of this stuff comes from wire-fu and chop socky movies, but, a lot of it is starting to make its way into Hollywood movies as well.  Legolas surfboards the shield down the stairs while putting arrows into orc eyeballs.  That's COOL.  Totally unrealistic.  But, certainly legendary.

That's what I want from my mythic warriors.  Not all the time, and I got no problems with growing into the role.  This isn't about power gaming are Mary Sue style gaming in god mode.  It's about being more than a bag of hit points that stands in front of the wizard while the wizard gets to do all the cool stuff.

Ok, that's hyperbole, but, you get the point.  I want to be the guy who leaps off the battlements, onto the dragon and starts stabbing it repeatedly, a la the animated Beowulf movie.  That was properly mythic.


----------



## MoxieFu (Nov 24, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> At what level in 1e/2e did people fight balors and liches?
> 
> From everything I've read and IME, most people did this at levels 9-13.
> 
> So what non-unique opponents were you supposed to fight after level 13?





That's what level we were when my group tackled those adventures. I really wish Troll Lords would have come out with a Monsters & Treasures II that had all the extraplanar creatures from the 1e and 2e monster books, especially the demon and devil lords. I know that I could just translate them on my own, but for these powerful beings you have to do more than just flip the AC and alter the movement.


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 24, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> At what level in 1e/2e did people fight balors and liches?
> 
> From everything I've read and IME, most people did this at levels 9-13.
> 
> So what non-unique opponents were you supposed to fight after level 13?




There was virtually nothing in the game which could be used unmodified to challenge a typical party beyond the 10th level.  The game just wasn't designed for that.  At 10th level and above, there was an assumption that characters would spend more time 'solo' adventuring (along with perhaps henchmen) or that they'd retire.  

The monster manual(s) classified monsters from I to X.  First level characters were assumed to mostly encounter type I monsters, 2nd level type II's, 3rd level type III's and so forth.  Above 10th level, there wasn't much that could be a challenge.  Typically challenges were built from the following at those levels:

1) NPC's - Opposing high level characters could be made as powerful as you wanted.  Drow seemed to get this treatment all too often.
2) An assortment of high HD or abusable monsters, many of which can be seen being abused in the published module 'Axe of the Dwarven Lords'.  (The 1st edition versions were often more abusable).   One trick was to look for things that ignored AC or had attacks that didn't offer saves or had attacks for which level wasn't a defense.  The 1e Korred was a particularly abusable for example because its laughter attack actually worked best against HIGH charisma.  Off the top of my head that list would be things like: max-headed hydras of all classes, larger giant races, huge ancient dragons, beholders, thessalhydra, largest size remorhaz, grey and death slaad, pit fiends, shambling mound, arcanodaemon, vampires with class levels, liches, golems, black pudding, crimson death, largest size barghest, rakshasa lord.  Mephits could be surprisingly useful as mooks as many had attacks that did damage even if the save was passed or could use autohit spells like magic missile.  And they flied, etc.
3) Take advantage of typos: The best example of this would be 82 HD Jann lords.
4) Make stuff up - Gygax seemed to go with this the most when challenging characters above 10th level, and many DMs followed suit.  Doubling or tripling the HD of ordinary monsters made legendary versions of the same and had some justification from the text (Talos, for examples).  New monsters with extraordinary abilities could always be made up - demiliches and giant ape gods for example.


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 24, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> So what non-unique opponents were you supposed to fight after level 13?



When I was DMing 1e _AD&D_, I used combinations of monsters working together  (the balor rides an ancient red dragon . . .), I changed the environment where the adventurers took place (. . . and you're battling them at 10,000 feet altitude . . . ), and I used non-player character opponents more powerful than the adventurers (. . . over the flying castle of an evil archmage).

Remember, a group of adventurers uses its combined skills and abilities to defeat more powerful foes; there's no reason monsters can't do the same.


----------



## Lanefan (Nov 24, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> [...abusable monsters...] max-headed hydras of all classes ...



My Viking hat just went on...

How about a multi-headed hydra, where each head is (or at least functions as) a different class at level equal to the hydra's HD.  'Course, the Paladin head and the Assassin head would be constantly biting each other off and regrowing; but think of the potential! 

Put it in a position where the PCs can't get at its body and you've got hours of fun...

Lanefan


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 25, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> So what non-unique opponents were you supposed to fight after level 13?



Well, it was the highest level anyone of us ever reached in 1e/2e


----------



## Saeviomagy (Nov 26, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> For all the big talk about how overwhelmingly powerful HP magic is, the reality may well be that much of it works only on other wizards.



Throughout the books there are instances of attack spells simply not working without the need for any obvious counterspell. That MIGHT be explained by everyone simply not vocalizing or gesturing their counterspells, but there are  definately places where they flat-out miss.

But you're totally right: trying to predict how anything in the HP universe works is pretty futile. Everything got rewritten each book to cater to the plot.


----------



## Orius (Nov 26, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> So what non-unique opponents were you supposed to fight after level 13?




Retirement.  



Hussar said:


> I guess, at the end of the day, I just want warrior types that are cool.  I want warriors that can run across the surface of a lake.  I want warriors that can leap from the tops of bamboo trees while sword fighting.  I want warriors that can balance on top of a rolling mill wheel, fighting their enemies, while the mill wheel careens down the side of a mountain.
> 
> Sure, a lot of this stuff comes from wire-fu and chop socky movies, but, a lot of it is starting to make its way into Hollywood movies as well.  Legolas surfboards the shield down the stairs while putting arrows into orc eyeballs.  That's COOL.  Totally unrealistic.  But, certainly legendary.




See, once again D&D is going down the anime/video game path!  

I think it's really a difference between European and Asian folklore and fantasy.  European = grim & gritty; Asian = high powered, high magic.

Although really with D&D, a lot of it is that AD&D largely slowed down past level 10, even though the xp tables just kept going up.  With the development of 3e, a bit more attention was given to the levels from 10-20, but not a lot at first.  I mean the original 3.0 MM kind of tapered off in monsters over CR 10.  Some of this got fixed a bit in 3.5 and 4e certainly seems to have payed more attention to the full level range, but I the game is different when you've got 10 levels and retirement, 20 levels and optional epic, or 30 levels with three different teirs of play.


----------



## SKyOdin (Nov 26, 2010)

Orius said:


> See, once again D&D is going down the anime/video game path!
> 
> I think it's really a difference between European and Asian folklore and fantasy.  European = grim & gritty; Asian = high powered, high magic.




That really isn't an accurate generalization. Actual European folklore is completely loaded with people performing all kinds of over-the-top feats and unbelievable situations. Grim & gritty, with all of its implications of realism, isn't really an applicable term for old folktales and myths. I think someone would be hard-pressed to demonstrate a noticeable difference between old European myths and legends and Asian ones (with the exception that Indian Mythology is gloriously insane and over-the-top).

Any description that European folklore is grim and gritty has to contend with old tales where an old grandmother can decapitate someone with a backhand, an Irish hero can take out an army by tossing stones at them, and Hercules holding the heavens on his shoulders for a few hours.

It would be more fair to say that the generalization would only be true for trends in modern fantasy (within the last 50 years, if that). Even then, it is only a rough generalization with many, many exceptions.

There is also the point that Asian fantasy and folklore is just as legitimate a source of inspiration as anything else. Personally I embrace that path and prefer it over stereotypical Conan-style grim and gritty.


----------



## alms66 (Nov 26, 2010)

All tropes need to die.  Everything should attempt to be as unique as possible at all times and give a big fat finger to "normal" - whatever that's supposed to be...


----------



## Hussar (Nov 26, 2010)

The only thing I could really add to SkyOdin's points is that I've done the "grim and gritty" style of campaign TO DEATH.  I've been gaming as long as anyone else, and I'm pretty much done with the stock 20th century fantasy thing.  I barely read fantasy anymore for exactly the same reason.  Terry Brooks or other authors of that style, which lean very heavily on Tolkien style fantasy, has been beaten into the ground for me.

I want something new.  And, yes, drawing a bit on the chop socky wire-fu stuff is one way to go.  Drawing on older mythology is another.  Painting all that with the "anime" brush seems too glib for me.  It's ignoring a huge treasure trove of inspiration for elements that haven't been hashed, rehashed and rehashed yet again over the past forty years.

Heck, I want heroes like you seen in Michael Moorcock's books for a change.  At least it's different.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 26, 2010)

alms66 said:


> All tropes need to die.  Everything should attempt to be as unique as possible at all times and give a big fat finger to "normal" - whatever that's supposed to be...




Now this I disagree with.  Tropes are useful.  They give an immediate recognizable hook to the observer.  You know what to expect and that can immerse you in the story very quickly.

The problem is when tropes become cliche.  Again, tropes are tools.


----------



## MoxieFu (Nov 26, 2010)

alms66 said:


> All tropes need to die.  Everything should attempt to be as unique as possible at all times and give a big fat finger to "normal" - whatever that's supposed to be...




And herein lies the problem. There's a quote from a book that many people carry with them one day a week and in one place it asks, "Is there nothing new under the sun?" And that book was written THOUSANDS of years ago and attributed to the wisest man who ever lived! 

Clichés and stereotypes have been around as long as people have been around. Some of the most fun I have ever had has been playing out a cliché. Even Shakespeare tended to write stories that had already been told before. The point was HOW he told the stories. What makes our games seem unique is how we blend the common elements together.

If you eliminate all tropes then you eliminate over 90% of the game. And where would we be then? Sitting around a table saying,

"What do you want to do tonight?"

"I don't know, what do you want to do tonight"


----------



## Neonchameleon (Nov 26, 2010)

alms66 said:


> All tropes need to die.  Everything should attempt to be as unique as possible at all times and give a big fat finger to "normal" - whatever that's supposed to be...



If you want to do this, I suggest you read the whole of TV tropes.  Remove every trope mentioned there from your game.  And then tell me what's left.

Disclaimer: I take no responsibility for any outcome resulting from following my suggestion.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 26, 2010)

A new PrCl: Tropey Hunter!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 26, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> If you want to do this, I suggest you read the whole of TV tropes.  Remove every trope mentioned there from your game.  And then tell me what's left.
> 
> Disclaimer: I take no responsibility for any outcome resulting from following my suggestion.




New campaign setting: Sans Tropey!



(puns, love 'em)


----------



## Hussar (Nov 28, 2010)

Actually, thinking about this, although 16 pages into the thread, it's unlikely this is going to go very far, I finally thought of a trope I would like to see die:

Fantasy worlds that are just Europe with a thin veneer of magic.  It does bug me when setting after setting completely ignores very obvious effects that things easily could have.  Ignoring domestication of flying mounts, for example.  Or imagine what you could do with a domesticated giant beetle - all the strength of a horse, that you can feed offal and doesn't constantly get sick.  Or continual light/flame spells.  Never mind lighting your city, imagine what a textile mill owner could do with workers that don't have to knock off when the sun goes down.

The list goes on and on.


----------



## DragonLancer (Nov 28, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Actually, thinking about this, although 16 pages into the thread, it's unlikely this is going to go very far, I finally thought of a trope I would like to see die:
> 
> Fantasy worlds that are just Europe with a thin veneer of magic.  It does bug me when setting after setting completely ignores very obvious effects that things easily could have.  Ignoring domestication of flying mounts, for example.  Or imagine what you could do with a domesticated giant beetle - all the strength of a horse, that you can feed offal and doesn't constantly get sick.  Or continual light/flame spells.  Never mind lighting your city, imagine what a textile mill owner could do with workers that don't have to knock off when the sun goes down.
> 
> The list goes on and on.




I'm glad most settings don't do this. That would make the game too fantastical for me. Although technically the game allows it, keeping the game more medieval with the vaneer of magic is more to my tastes.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 28, 2010)

I don't know, Dragonlancer.  I'm just so tired of stock fantasy worlds that ignore the implications of what's in the world.  After thirty years of Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms and umpteen other settings which aren't really all that different, it would be refreshing to see a setting that is actually built around the presence of fantasy, rather than simply having fantasy added to it.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 28, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I don't know, Dragonlancer.  I'm just so tired of stock fantasy worlds that ignore the implications of what's in the world.  After thirty years of Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms and umpteen other settings which aren't really all that different, it would be refreshing to see a setting that is actually built around the presence of fantasy, rather than simply having fantasy added to it.




The implications of magic depend on the assumptions behind it. Medieval European settings with a veneer of magic aren't ignoring the implications of magic, at least not necessarily, if you assume that magic isn't really something every man on the street can learn to use. It may be available to every PC, but PCs are special. The rest of the people in the setting may not be.

It may be refreshing to see a setting built around the presence of fantasy, but they'd also be built with the assumption that magical elements are common and usable by everybody. *That* would be the point of departure, not the existence of fantasy and magic in the first part.


----------



## Thasmodious (Nov 28, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I don't know, Dragonlancer.  I'm just so tired of stock fantasy worlds that ignore the implications of what's in the world.  After thirty years of Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms and umpteen other settings which aren't really all that different, it would be refreshing to see a setting that is actually built around the presence of fantasy, rather than simply having fantasy added to it.




That's what I liked so much about Eberron.  It was the first basic D&D setting (as opposed to specialized settings like Dark Sun or Planescape) that imagined a world where its fantasy elements were central to its development.


----------



## DragonLancer (Nov 28, 2010)

Thasmodious said:


> That's what I liked so much about Eberron.  It was the first basic D&D setting (as opposed to specialized settings like Dark Sun or Planescape) that imagined a world where its fantasy elements were central to its development.




That was the same reason it turned me off of it. Eberron was just too alien for my palette. I played a short campaign in the setting to give it a chance but I couldn't get into the setting because of it.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 29, 2010)

billd91 said:


> The implications of magic depend on the assumptions behind it. Medieval European settings with a veneer of magic aren't ignoring the implications of magic, at least not necessarily, if you assume that magic isn't really something every man on the street can learn to use. It may be available to every PC, but PCs are special. The rest of the people in the setting may not be.
> 
> It may be refreshing to see a setting built around the presence of fantasy, but they'd also be built with the assumption that magical elements are common and usable by everybody. *That* would be the point of departure, not the existence of fantasy and magic in the first part.




But it's not just that.  Fantasy doesn't just mean magic.  That's why I pointed to the idea of domesticatable flying creatures.  Or giant beetles.  In Basic D&D, giant bees honey could be used as potions of healing.  You're going to tell me that people aren't going to jump on that?

In D&D, there are a bajillion reasons why a fantasy world wouldn't look like Europe with a veneer of magic.  I've yet to see a compelling reason why a D&D world would actually look like that.  The demographics don't fit, the magic system wouldn't work, the sheer numbers of monsters and the like would make it virtually impossible.

Yet, everyone wants D&D worlds to look like Middle Earth.


----------



## AllisterH (Nov 29, 2010)

Depends on which edition of D&D you are using as a baseline.

If you're using 3.x and 4e, then yeah, there probably needs to be a very good reason why most settings don't more resemble Eberron.

If you're using pre 3e, then you CAN get away with the "magic is simply a veneer over your typical European medieval setting".  - no easy spell creation, no easy magic item creation, no easy spell acquisition. - It's quite possible for a player NOT to have specific spells even at 1st level since two of the 3 DMG methods for assigning 1st level spells requires DM input.

re: Younger players

I think there IS a change happening with younger players. Younger players are growing up with NOT Conan, the LotR book trilogy or Fahrd and the Grey Mouser
They're growing up with BLEACH, Legolas from the movies - he of shield surfing fame and the idea of  "bullet-timers".. 

What they expect from a warrior I suspect is going to be much different than what the majority of us grew up with in the 70s/80s.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Nov 29, 2010)

I don't think a truly "magical society" setting exists for one reason:  After a while, at least one epic-leveled anarchist mage or bored deity will come and "turn off" the worlds magic once it becomes too prevalent just to see "what happens next."


----------



## AllisterH (Nov 29, 2010)

Relique du Madde said:


> I don't think a truly "magical society" setting exists for one reason:  After a while, at least one epic-leveled anarchist mage or bored deity will come and "turn off" the worlds magic once it becomes too prevalent just to see "what happens next."




Yeah that pretty much is what the RSE are.

ALWAYS involve magic somehow with the outcome that magic works differently for some reason...

See why illusionists in the realms no longer have their own "brand" of magic, why 10th level magic no longer exists and the change from 3.e magic system to the 4e magic system.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 29, 2010)

Hussar said:


> But it's not just that.  Fantasy doesn't just mean magic.  That's why I pointed to the idea of domesticatable flying creatures.  Or giant beetles.  In Basic D&D, giant bees honey could be used as potions of healing.  You're going to tell me that people aren't going to jump on that?




But how many creatures can truly be domesticated? How many species in history have been domesticated out of a choice of millions? An extremely small handful. Why would we expect a fantasy environment to be that much different? 
Again, it comes down to how common and usable these fantasy elements, whether magic or creatures, are assumed to be.


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 29, 2010)

billd91 said:


> But how many creatures can truly be domesticated? How many species in history have been domesticated out of a choice of millions? An extremely small handful. Why would we expect a fantasy environment to be that much different?
> Again, it comes down to how common and usable these fantasy elements, whether magic or creatures, are assumed to be.



"You must spread some Experience Points around . . . "


----------



## Bluenose (Nov 29, 2010)

Hussar said:


> But it's not just that. Fantasy doesn't just mean magic. That's why I pointed to the idea of domesticatable flying creatures. Or giant beetles. In Basic D&D, giant bees honey could be used as potions of healing. You're going to tell me that people aren't going to jump on that?
> 
> In D&D, there are a bajillion reasons why a fantasy world wouldn't look like Europe with a veneer of magic. I've yet to see a compelling reason why a D&D world would actually look like that. The demographics don't fit, the magic system wouldn't work, the sheer numbers of monsters and the like would make it virtually impossible.
> 
> Yet, everyone wants D&D worlds to look like Middle Earth.




Mythical/magical reasons. "Our god beat up the god of bees back in the dawn age, now we have the secret of taking the magic honey from the bee-people. When our neighbours god tried to do the same, the bee god used his sting, and their weak and foolish god ran away like the coward he is. That's why our neighbours are scared of bees, and have to pay us for their magical honey." That's how it would be explained in Glorantha. 

Of course, Glorantha mostly doesn't look like feudal Europe either. But it could be done that way. Secret groups with strange rituals aren't exactly absent from medieval society. So the Ancient Order of Bee-Wranglers teach their secret methods only to one apprentice, who swears on pain of death to teach it to one apprentice in their turn. If someone betrays that, well, it's time to "Cry havoc, and set loose the bees of war!"


----------



## BryonD (Nov 29, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Yet, everyone wants D&D worlds to look like Middle Earth.



It is called boundary conditions.

And to a lesser extent, it is called "use the rules, don't let the rules use you."

But in the end it is odd to me that you would put a troubled smiley after expressing the idea that individual "wants" do not descend from your logical assessment of how things should be.  To me, if that kind of "logic" trumped individual taste and preference then THAT deserves bewilderment.

On occasion it can require a little work, but the great majority of the time it simply requires accepting the classical stereotypes as the understood boundary conditions for a setting and not spending time going out of your own way to undermine your own fun by dwelling on silly things that never appear on-screen.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Nov 29, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Yet, everyone wants D&D worlds to look like Middle Earth.



Hang on a sec... in that other thread, hasn't the largest portion of votes gone to "Yeah, guns!"...? 

Just for starters. So, who is this "everyone" you speak of?

As for settings making perfect sense, well, have you seen or read much sci-fi lately? Or, yeah, _any_ kind of fantasy _at all_? Myth, legend, folklore? Eesh, many a rendering of 21st Century "real life"...


----------



## DragonLancer (Nov 29, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Yet, everyone wants D&D worlds to look like Middle Earth.




I'm one of those people. Middle Earth is exactly how I see a typical D&D world. 

Magic does exist and it can be powerful but not everyone has the ability to walk around casting spells. A village might have a cleric or druid who can help bless the crops and heal a minor injury, but the locals might go generations without seeing major magics.

Monsters exist but they aren't everywhere. They dwell in the deep forests, far underground, in places where the common folk don't go...etc. No one is going to consider harvesting from giant honey bees, it's too dangerous and just how do you do it when the typical inhabitant of a hive (thousands of bees) is the size of your horse? Risks don't outweigh the benefits.

Basically a D&D world doesn't have to be built upon the notion that magic and monsters are everywhere and part of the daily lives of everyone.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 29, 2010)

Hussar said:


> In D&D, there are a bajillion reasons why a fantasy world wouldn't look like Europe with a veneer of magic.  I've yet to see a compelling reason why a D&D world would actually look like that.




Say rather, in D&D, there are a bajillion reasons why a fantasy world needn't look like Europe with a veneer of magic, and we agree.  I've yet to see a compelling reason why a D&D world must actually look like that.  

However, we have had this discussion before, and what it amounts to is controlling the variables not included in the ruleset to either create the world you want, or to somehow imagine that you are "logically" refuting the world you do not want.  It's a broad ruleset.  There are a lot of variables.  You can "logically" create whatever you like, from Europe with a veneer of magic to something completely gonzo....like Spelljammer, for instance.

The only limitation, one way or another, is your imagination.



> The demographics don't fit, the magic system wouldn't work, the sheer numbers of monsters and the like would make it virtually impossible.




Again, it is only "virtually impossible" if you lack the imagination to make it rationally possible (or, at least as rationally possible as any other fantasy world!   )


RC


----------



## MoxieFu (Nov 29, 2010)

I like for most of my fantasy RPGing to be in a faux-Europe setting like Greyhawk or the Realms. I like that D&D can handle a range of settings from Conan to Lord of the Rings. The thing I like best about Eberron is that magic has been factored in from the ground up and not bolted on. Unfortunately you get a world where magic basically becomes technology and you get the Flintstones Effect where elements common to the setting just emulate objects from our every day world today. I'm thinking primarily of the lightning-rail but there are others.

(Hehe! Flintstones is in the ENworld spell checkre)

One of my favorite non-European settings is Empire of the Petal Throne. In the decades I have owned it and the stuff I have bought since, I have never found even ONE person willing to play in it. Maybe faux-European is popular for a good reason?


----------



## Hussar (Nov 30, 2010)

billd91 said:


> But how many creatures can truly be domesticated? How many species in history have been domesticated out of a choice of millions? An extremely small handful. Why would we expect a fantasy environment to be that much different?
> Again, it comes down to how common and usable these fantasy elements, whether magic or creatures, are assumed to be.




That's a bit false though.  Sure, only a handful of animals have been domesticated.  But, narrow the field down to animals that would actually be helpful to be domesticated (after all, do we really want to domesticate otters?) and suddenly you see that we managed to domesticate a pretty wide selection of species.  Large numbers of useful species anyway.



Bluenose said:


> Mythical/magical reasons. "Our god beat up the god of bees back in the dawn age, now we have the secret of taking the magic honey from the bee-people. When our neighbours god tried to do the same, the bee god used his sting, and their weak and foolish god ran away like the coward he is. That's why our neighbours are scared of bees, and have to pay us for their magical honey." That's how it would be explained in Glorantha.
> 
> Of course, Glorantha mostly doesn't look like feudal Europe either. But it could be done that way. Secret groups with strange rituals aren't exactly absent from medieval society. So the Ancient Order of Bee-Wranglers teach their secret methods only to one apprentice, who swears on pain of death to teach it to one apprentice in their turn. If someone betrays that, well, it's time to "Cry havoc, and set loose the bees of war!"




See, the problem I have with this is it becomes rather silly after a while.  When EVERY option gets whitewashed and hand waved away, I find it far more difficult to believe.

Particularly when species are specifically MENTIONED in the Monster Manual as being domesticatable.  Like Hippogriffs for example.



Aus_Snow said:


> Hang on a sec... in that other thread, hasn't the largest portion of votes gone to "Yeah, guns!"...?
> 
> Just for starters. So, who is this "everyone" you speak of?
> 
> As for settings making perfect sense, well, have you seen or read much sci-fi lately? Or, yeah, _any_ kind of fantasy _at all_? Myth, legend, folklore? Eesh, many a rendering of 21st Century "real life"...




Well, thirty years of Greyhawk, Dragonlance, and Forgotten Realms fans for one Aus Snow.  That might not be everyone, but, the number of Faux European settings in D&D is pretty darn long.

I'm also not saying perfect sense.  I'm saying that it becomes very unbelievable after a while that every attempt at any sort of change away from Faux Europe winds up being hand waved away by, as BryonD says, "simply ... accepting the classical stereotypes as the understood boundary conditions for a setting and not spending time going out of your own way to undermine your own fun by dwelling on silly things that never appear on-screen."

See, to me, this sort of thing should be "On screen".  And, yes, I do find it bizarre.  Any time anyone tries to change the setting, the setting police come out in force.  Heck, I'm being dogpiled here by several posters who are clamoring for shoehorning D&D back into Faux Europe.

So, it's hardly a rare thing to see.  

Meh, to each his own of course.  I just wish there was a little more attention paid to making believable settings.


----------



## Orius (Nov 30, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Yet, everyone wants D&D worlds to look like Middle Earth.




Probably because it's an easy starting point.



MoxieFu said:


> (Hehe! Flintstones is in the ENworld spell checkre)




Yabba-dabba-do!


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 30, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Yet, everyone wants D&D worlds to look like Middle Earth.



Err, not really. Unless I'm playing MERP (or some other Middle Earth RPG) I would not want the setting to resemble Middle Earth - and it's pretty unlikely I would enjoy playing the game even then (unless the DM is _really_ great and not a Tokien fanatic).

Middle Earth at its roots is _the_ vanilla setting because it's what shaped everyone's idea what a fantasy setting 'should look like'. After playing fantasy rpgs for over 25 years now, I cannot stand it anymore. I want 'exotic', unusual settings.


----------



## Bluenose (Nov 30, 2010)

Hussar said:


> That's a bit false though. Sure, only a handful of animals have been domesticated. But, narrow the field down to animals that would actually be helpful to be domesticated (after all, do we really want to domesticate otters?) and suddenly you see that we managed to domesticate a pretty wide selection of species. Large numbers of useful species anyway.




Make sure you're using the terms correctly. A lot of animals have been tamed, without being domesticated. Domesticated animals are rare. Large and useful domesticated animals even rarer. Jared Diamond's _Guns, Germs and Steel _describes the difference. People have been attempting to domesticate some species for decades, without success. Now, magic _may_ make a difference, but in a world where there are deities that like nature in its wild state that would probably come with a risk.



> See, the problem I have with this is it becomes rather silly after a while. When EVERY option gets whitewashed and hand waved away, I find it far more difficult to believe.
> 
> Particularly when species are specifically MENTIONED in the Monster Manual as being domesticatable. Like Hippogriffs for example.




Arguably in a world of active deities, spellcasting mortals capable of destroying significant parts of armies, and strange monsters, things do get really silly if you just slap those things on top of a normal medieval society. Considering how reliable magic is, it either has to be incredibly rare or the effect on the economies is going to be marked. Depending, of course, on what magic is allowed to do.

BTW, I think the term is being misused. I think they're suggesting you can tame a hippogriff, and using the terminology incorrectly. I certainly don't believe in hippogriff farms.


----------



## jmucchiello (Nov 30, 2010)

Snow, the reason settings tend to look like Medieval Europe with magic is because it is an easy baseline to explain to CASUAL players. You want to spend hours reading a 300+ page setting book about Fantasy World 2.0 and you want spend time remembering the ins and outs of such a setting. Most players don't. When you say "temple", they think Gothic church or the Parthenon. When you say "ship", they think triple masted sailing ship. When you say "king", they think of a guy in expensive clothes who sits on a throne in a castle. If you introduce domesticated flying animals would castles look the same?

The further your setting is away from the expectations of the casual player, the harder it is to get them involved.


----------



## Mallus (Nov 30, 2010)

jmucchiello said:


> The further your setting is away from the expectations of the casual player, the harder it is to get them involved.



I wonder if magical medieval Europe really does form the baseline for most casual players these days? Or if it does, wouldn't it be the MME depicted in Peter Jackson's take on Middle Earth, complete with shield-surfing elves?

I could easily see a casual players expectations being shaped by a combination of Avatar: The Last Airbender, Naruto, and World of Warcraft.

note: not necessarily a bad thing.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 1, 2010)

Mallus said:


> I wonder if magical medieval Europe really does form the baseline for most casual players these days? Or if it does, wouldn't it be the MME depicted in Peter Jackson's take on Middle Earth, complete with shield-surfing elves?



There is _one_ shield-surfing elf; the rest fight in familiar formations just like the humans and orcs, they wear familiar if fanciful armor and wield weapons at home on a medieval European battlefield, and they live in trees, caves, chalets, and pavillions.

Other than the big tree houses, not really all that exotic.







Mallus said:


> I could easily see a casual players expectations being shaped by a combination of Avatar: The Last Airbender, Naruto, and World of Warcraft.



I'm more inclined to agree with this.







Mallus said:


> note: not necessarily a bad thing.



No, it's not a bad thing at all, but it makes it more important to be clear from the outset what the inspirations are for a particular campaign.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 1, 2010)

Bluenose said:


> Make sure you're using the terms correctly. A lot of animals have been tamed, without being domesticated. Domesticated animals are rare. Large and useful domesticated animals even rarer. Jared Diamond's _Guns, Germs and Steel _describes the difference. People have been attempting to domesticate some species for decades, without success. Now, magic _may_ make a difference, but in a world where there are deities that like nature in its wild state that would probably come with a risk.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Ok, totally not a natural sciences kind of guy.  To me, tamed and domesticated are pretty much the same thing.  If you can raise it, train it, and then breed it, it's domesticated as far as I'm concerned.

See, these conversations go pretty much exactly the same way.  If people want faux Europe, then fair enough.  They've had their way with D&D for thirty years.  Every baseline setting is Middle Earth with a bit more magic.

I just find it stretches my suspension of disbelief when every attempt to bring in any sort of consequence to the setting based on what's in the rule books is automatically doomed to failure simply because it doesn't fit the archetype.

I'd much rather either change the rules so they DO fit the archetype, or pick a new archetype.  

I mean, look at hippogriffs.  We can take their eggs, they'll hatch without the mothers (since you can sell the eggs, it's pretty obvious they'll hatch), you can train them to do all sorts of things, including carry riders.  But, somehow, they refuse to breed in captivity.  

And this same thing is true of EVERY SINGLE creature in the Monster Manual.  In a setting where you can actually change reality with a WISH, no one in the history of the setting has figured out how to breed creatures.

I just wish there was a setting or two out there that actually took D&D concepts into account.  Eberron goes a long way towards this, although I think they didn't go far enough.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 1, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I just wish there was a setting or two out there that actually took D&D concepts into account.




Gygax described, in the 1e DMG, why most settings do not, and I think that he is correct in his reasoning.  Such a world would simply be too hard to "get" for the casual gamer.  

I think this is why you aren't going to see a published setting that really does what you would like; the risk of low sales is too great.  2e's Spelljammer or PlaneScape may actually come closest.....?  (I'm not a big PlaneScape guy.)

HOWEVER, there is nothing whatsoever preventing anyone from running games in a world that uses the materials in whatever way they like.  And, I think, it would be interesting to see what you come up with, and how the logic of your setting hangs together.  And, of course, what role the PCs have within the setting you create.


RC


----------



## BryonD (Dec 1, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> There is _one_ shield-surfing elf; the rest fight in familiar formations just like the humans and orcs, they wear familiar if fanciful armor and wield weapons at home on a medieval European battlefield, and they live in trees, caves, chalets, and pavillions.



Exactly right.  And, even more importantly, the shield surfacing elf is a quintessential PC.  There is a big difference between the expectations of the PCs and the expectations of the backdrop.


----------



## Bluenose (Dec 1, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Ok, totally not a natural sciences kind of guy. To me, tamed and domesticated are pretty much the same thing. If you can raise it, train it, and then breed it, it's domesticated as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> See, these conversations go pretty much exactly the same way. If people want faux Europe, then fair enough. They've had their way with D&D for thirty years. Every baseline setting is Middle Earth with a bit more magic.
> 
> ...




I am to a very large extent in sympathy with your view. Unfortunately, as others have pointed out, familiar is a lot easier for most players to deal with. Sticking a veneer of magic on top of an otherwise normal medieval-cliche European world has the advantage, at least for Europeans, of not needing much explanation. Simply, they're easy for people to get into.

One thing I noted a couple of years ago, when WotC were talking about their 'three books and you're done' approach for settings, was that it enabled them to try different things. If you commit your company resources to an unusual setting, there's a very good chance it won't do well. So you get company after company turning out generic medieval fantasy settings as their first product, and those that put out unusual settings often find they simply don't sell well enough to keep producing for them. WotC have no intention of providing additional material for something that's rather a sideline anyway, so aren't in the same position.

As for hippogriffs, and breeding, and domestication of animals, there's a lot of science involved which I won't bore people with. I will suggest that while magic obviously would provide capabilities not available on Earth, that could just as well be applied to making domestic animals wild as to make wild animals domestic. Some gods would certainly prefer the second, and I suspect most druids would too.


----------



## jmucchiello (Dec 1, 2010)

Mallus said:


> I wonder if magical medieval Europe really does form the baseline for most casual players these days? Or if it does, wouldn't it be the MME depicted in Peter Jackson's take on Middle Earth, complete with shield-surfing elves?
> 
> I could easily see a casual players expectations being shaped by a combination of Avatar: The Last Airbender, Naruto, and World of Warcraft.
> 
> note: not necessarily a bad thing.




You are misunderstanding me. It's not what the casual gamer considers "normal fantasy" to be. It's what the casual gamer considers "normal" to be. Medieval Europe exists. You learn about it in school if you pay attention.

The casual gamer is told there are knights and kings and castles and dragons and instantly he understands that feudalism existed and that there wasn't much of a mercantile class and all those other "facts" that make up "the past".

The casual gamer can imagine two dirt roads crossing with an inn, a blacksmith, a small temple, and a couple farm houses being called a village. And he also immediately understands that the people in this village rarely visit/communicate with the people in the next village.

This is why in most games dwarves are just stocky, bearded guys who mine and elves are just youthful, lithe humans with pointy ears. It's simple, easy to grok, and doesn't interfere with just playing the game. The casual player doesn't want to remember the proper six step ritual greeting made between a supplicant and a priest of Rada found in Mythology of Radamondo, supplement 7 in a series of 10. 

It's not just what is familiar fantasy but familiar in general.

EDIT [MENTION=49017]Bluenose[/MENTION]: Players not of European ancestory might not see Knights and such as "normal" but the basics of human society don't vary that much compared the potential variance caused by cheap healing at the local temple and other magics. The game goes from "medieval fantasy" to "future fantasy" real fast.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 1, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> There is _one_ shield-surfing elf; the rest fight in familiar formations just like the humans and orcs, they wear familiar if fanciful armor and wield weapons at home on a medieval European battlefield, and they live in trees, caves, chalets, and pavillions.



Yeah... I'm overstating this. 



> No, it's not a bad thing at all, but it makes it more important to be clear from the outset what the inspirations are for a particular campaign.



Absolutely.



jmucchiello said:


> You are misunderstanding me. It's not what the casual gamer considers "normal fantasy" to be. It's what the casual gamer considers "normal" to be. Medieval Europe exists. You learn about it in school if you pay attention.



I'd argue what most people "know" about real historical eras comes from fictional depictions, unless they're antiquity/history buffs or live somewhere the past is more present ie, a place where you can see a 1000 year old structure out your window or down the street.  



> The casual gamer can imagine two dirt roads crossing with an inn, a blacksmith, a small temple, and a couple farm houses being called a village. And he also immediately understands that the people in this village rarely visit/communicate with the people in the next village.






> This is why in most games dwarves are just stocky, bearded guys who mine and elves are just youthful, lithe humans with pointy ears.



What does the 1st quote have to do with the 2nd? The 1st ostensibly describes the real, rural, historical world, the 2nd describes common fantasy fiction tropes (well, they're tropes in folklore, too, but I'm guessing more people are familiar with popular fantasy fiction than folklore). Are you sure you're not talking about what's "normal fantasy"?



> It's not just what is familiar fantasy but familiar in general.



Like I said above, I'm pretty sure what's familiar to most people about the past is effectively fantasy.


----------



## Stoat (Dec 1, 2010)

Mallus said:


> Like I said above, I'm pretty sure what's familiar to most people about the past is effectively fantasy.




I'd certainly say that few campaign settings published by TSR or WotC look much like any historical period I'm familiar with.  Maybe some of those greenbacked splatbooks TSR did in the 90's, but that's about it.

I'd say that settings like Greyhawk and the Forgotten Realms take a "Ren Faire" approach.  They use trappings that are stereotypically associated with medieval Europe but retain an essentially modern mindset and don't quibble a whole lot about historical detail.  Anachronism and inauthenticity are the order of the day.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 1, 2010)

Stoat said:


> Anachronism and inauthenticity are the order of the day.



Just the way Gary Gygax intended it!


----------



## TwinBahamut (Dec 1, 2010)

I'll echo the sentiment that the common image people have of the middle ages is more based on fantasy and fiction than it is any historical truth. There are all kinds of falsehoods, half-truths, and faulty assumptions of day-to-day medieval life that are propagated in fantasy and fiction that many people take as being reflections of actual history. If you have any kind of lengthy conversation on ENWorld about historical accuracy this becomes very, very apparent. The basic assumptions behind fantasy settings always diverge heavily in all manner of important ways from the historical truth, and this goes back as far as the setting of Middle Earth itself.

Generally, people are just less familiar with the actual history of medieval Europe than they are with Arthurian legend, videogames, and Disney movies.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 3, 2010)

Mallus said:


> I'd argue what most people "know" about real historical eras comes from fictional depictions, unless they're antiquity/history buffs or live somewhere the past is more present ie, a place where you can see a 1000 year old structure out your window or down the street.





Stoat said:


> I'd say that settings like Greyhawk and the Forgotten Realms take a "Ren Faire" approach.  They use trappings that are stereotypically associated with medieval Europe but retain an essentially modern mindset and don't quibble a whole lot about historical detail.  Anachronism and inauthenticity are the order of the day.



I agree with both these quotes.

The classic fantasy literature (at least of my RPGing generation) is REH's Conan and Lord of the Rings. Conan is obviously modernist in its themes and style - the (pseudo-)history is just colour. Lord of the Rings is a bit trickier to categorise - I'm one of those who regards it as somewhat reactionary in its themes and perhaps also in its style. But in any event, the world it depicts also has little to do with either the reality or the values of actual pre-modern Europe.

As far as fantasy gameworlds go, the thing that is most striking to me is that nearly all posit more-or-less modern systems of justice and administration, including a police force ("city watch") and a prison system, and posit religious and other authority figures with value systems taken straight from a right-minded 19th century ethics textbook. And I'm sure there are many other anachronisms that those with other specialisations would notice.


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Dec 5, 2010)

Tropes I'd like to die (that I can think of at the moment):

* Morality assigned by biology or type of being.

* Objective morality.

I know _why_ they exist (why people want them, anyway), but feel like I can get all the same fun without them.  I don't really expect anyone to give them up, just wishing.


One that I do want to die is "Humans are the most adaptable/versatile/varied/badass race".  The key word here is "the most": if humans are adaptable/versatile/varied/badass that doesn't bother me, it's only the statement of extremity.  I feel like this restricts possibilities for finding new things, that even if you take it to possibly not be true that the bar's been set just a bit too high to make it worth bothering.  Plus is smacks of "Chosen One" Syndrome: someone is going to be the center of attention for what they are innately, rather than something the accomplished by effort.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 6, 2010)

I can agree with that Silvercatmonpaw2.  But, the objective morality thing would be extremely difficult to remove from D&D.  D&D is a game about murder.  You go out, kill stuff and take their things.  At it's most basic, without objective morality, you'd really need to rewrite how D&D is meant to be played.  

After all, most of the things an average adventuring party does would be considered seriously immoral - looting tombs, descecration of the dead, large scale killing without any justifiable reason - and most adventuring parties would be considered mass murdering psychopaths without objective morality.


----------



## rounser (Dec 6, 2010)

> And this same thing is true of EVERY SINGLE creature in the Monster Manual. In a setting where you can actually change reality with a WISH, no one in the history of the setting has figured out how to breed creatures.
> 
> I just wish there was a setting or two out there that actually took D&D concepts into account. Eberron goes a long way towards this, although I think they didn't go far enough.



I think you're making a classic geek error.

We geeks like D&D and fantasy.  But also -
We geeks like logic, and have a habit of extending logic to it's logical conclusions.

Problem:  Extending fantasy to it's logical conclusion is like applying logic to romance, humour or music: *It doesn't work, and you end up killing the magic that makes the whole thing tick in the first place.*  It takes us geeks a while to work this out, and generally a few girlfriends get annoyed before the penny drops.  Meanwhile you're like Sheldon in Big Bang Theory - a guy who just doesn't get it if it can't be quantified logically.

The Eberron and Praemal settings of WOTC (both of which extend D&Disms that are game artifacts to their logical conclusions which to me is just ?#?@!$? whiskey tango foxtrot territory) was a major clue to me that D&D wasn't in Kansas anymore, Toto.

Luckily there was a backlash to this approach to the game, and we have the OGL, OSR, Pathfinder and Hackmaster to fall back on.  Thank you Peter Adkison, Paizo and Kenzer for saving D&D from being restricted to one set of peoples' vision.


----------



## Jhaelen (Dec 6, 2010)

rounser said:


> The Eberron and Praemal settings of WOTC (both of which extend D&Disms that are game artifacts to their logical conclusions which to me is just ?#?@!$? whiskey tango foxtrot territory) was a major clue to me that D&D wasn't in Kansas anymore, Toto.



What's the Praemal setting? I don't think I've ever heard of it.


rounser said:


> Luckily there was a backlash to this approach to the game, and we have the OGL, OSR, Pathfinder and Hackmaster to fall back on.  Thank you Peter Adkison, Paizo and Kenzer for saving D&D from being restricted to one set of peoples' vision.



Well, lucky for you, I guess. 

Myself I'm pretty tired of settings retreading territory that has already been explored a billion times before. I'd much rather see more settings and rpgs explore new territory. E.g. I really enjoy the 'Ecplise Phase' rpg, though it's of course not a fantasy setting.

'Mouse Guard' also seems intriguing (in both setting and game mechanics), but I've yet to get it, so I'm basing this purely on reviews and game reports, so far.

Finally, there are many ways to deal with a 'realistic' setting involving magic. E.g. I'm a big fan of Ars Magica. It provides convincing reasons why the world still (mostly) resembles the medieval earth we all know, despite there being extremely powerful magic users.


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Dec 6, 2010)

Hussar said:


> But, the objective morality thing would be extremely difficult to remove from D&D.



I'm not talking about just D&D.  I'm talking about tropes wherever they come up, and while D&D is the biggest offender it's not the only one.



Hussar said:


> After all, most of the things an average adventuring party does would be considered seriously immoral - looting tombs, descecration of the dead, large scale killing without any justifiable reason - and most adventuring parties would be considered mass murdering psychopaths without objective morality.



I don't see how that's all that difficult to change: alter adventures so you're not looting tombs and desecrating the dead.  I agree that D&D can't handle altering the amount of killing being reduced without changing its resource-management method.

But I don't see why you need objective morality in order to decide that some opponents just need to be beat-down (I will admit that I don't like the automatically lethality of most systems, realism be damned): some people can still be both dangerous _and_ unreasonable, meaning that a beat-down may be the only course of action.  Plus there are enough people in real life who've done such horrible things that you don't need objective evil to have the scary opponents.

What I object to is _objective_ morality, the idea that there is "one true way" _backed up by the universe_.  I don't care if a setting presents obvious enemies (so long as it's not inherent).

But like I said, I'm not going to expect people to give it up.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 6, 2010)

See, Rounser, I'm not sure why I can't have my cake and eat it too.  I mean, the "traditional" fantasy settings have had it all their way for almost thirty years.  Is it really so much to ask for a couple of settings that don't have their heads firmly planted in fantasy written by dead people?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 6, 2010)

Hussar said:


> See, Rounser, I'm not sure why I can't have my cake and eat it too.  I mean, the "traditional" fantasy settings have had it all their way for almost thirty years.  Is it really so much to ask for a couple of settings that don't have their heads firmly planted in fantasy written by dead people?




Of course it isn't.  Go ahead and get writing!

(Or do you mean, _Is it really so much to ask that others do the work so that I can enjoy it, even if it isn't what they really want/are interested in, or they don't sell all that well?_?  In that case, the answer shifts to "Of course it is."  OTOH, you may wish to consider starting a patronage project to get the esoteric setting you want.)


RC


----------



## Krensky (Dec 6, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Of course it isn't.  Go ahead and get writing!
> 
> (Or do you mean, _Is it really so much to ask that others do the work so that I can enjoy it, even if it isn't what they really want/are interested in, or they don't sell all that well?_?  In that case, the answer shifts to "Of course it is."  OTOH, you may wish to consider starting a patronage project to get the esoteric setting you want.)
> 
> ...




I feel very confident in thinking that there's a lot of world building GMs here who'd like Hussar to pay our living expenses for a few months to write it for him. Some of us even do non-Tolkien worlds.


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Dec 6, 2010)

The BBEG Trope


Mathew_Freeman said:


> One thing that occours to me is to cease the idea that killing the leader of a group automatically destroys the whole group.
> 
> How about an Orc Horde with a group in charge? How about the BBEG has clones ready? Or the organisers of the conspiracy never meet face-to-face, but run events from several different cities. Killing one will only make the others more paranoid, and the internal promotions will throw up a replacement within a day or so. Much more interesting, surely.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 6, 2010)

Krensky said:


> I feel very confident in thinking that there's a lot of world building GMs here who'd like Hussar to pay our living expenses for a few months to write it for him. Some of us even do non-Tolkien worlds.




Hey!  I'll be happy to work on any sort of world, if the price is right!


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Dec 6, 2010)

The "Big Bad Evil Leader" who when you kill ends the threat completely is a trope. But it is followed by a trope that is almost as big. This is the one where the party leaves after killing BBEG thinking their work is done only to have the evil group return under the command of a revived formerly dead leader or under the command of one of his "even more evil and dangerous" subordinates.


----------



## Krensky (Dec 6, 2010)

DocMoriartty said:


> The "Big Bad Evil Leader" who when you kill ends the threat completely is a trope. But it is followed by a trope that is almost as big. This is the one where the party leaves after killing BBEG thinking their work is done only to have the evil group return under the command of a revived formerly dead leader or under the command of one of his "even more evil and dangerous" subordinates.




Or one of his superiors. Or sibling. Or children. Or significant other.

Or some random guy the developers threw in at the last moment who isn't connected to the story or has even appeared elsewhere in the whole damn game.

Sorry, still confused by the end boss of Final Fantasy IX.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Dec 6, 2010)

Krensky said:


> Or one of his superiors. Or sibling. Or children. Or significant other.
> 
> Or some random guy the developers threw in at the last moment who isn't connected to the story or has even appeared elsewhere in the whole damn game.
> 
> Sorry, still confused by the end boss of Final Fantasy IX.





Never got into those games. Way to much compensating going on by the game designers with those silly giant swords.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 6, 2010)

Hussar said:


> See, Rounser, I'm not sure why I can't have my cake and eat it too.  I mean, the "traditional" fantasy settings have had it all their way for almost thirty years.  Is it really so much to ask for a couple of settings that don't have their heads firmly planted in fantasy written by dead people?




They're called "Homebrews."

Seriously, though, there ARE such settings out there.  They're just rare because of marketability.  The ones you'll find are generally tied to authors either with loooooooooong series of books or a key iconic novel.

Some that I can think of:

Thieves' World
Stormbringer (and all other games based on Moorcock's novels)
A Game of Thrones
Dream Park
Shanarra (although I think that one is online only)


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Dec 6, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Shanarra (although I think that one is online only)



Dragon #286 has some Shannara 3.5 material.


----------



## Stoat (Dec 6, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> They're called "Homebrews."
> 
> Seriously, though, there ARE such settings out there.  They're just rare because of marketability.  The ones you'll find are generally tied to authors either with loooooooooong series of books or a key iconic novel.
> 
> ...




DarkSun
Spelljammer
Planescape
Eberron
Dragonstar
Iron Kingdoms


----------



## Schmoe (Dec 6, 2010)

rounser said:


> I think you're making a classic geek error.
> 
> We geeks like D&D and fantasy.  But also -
> We geeks like logic, and have a habit of extending logic to it's logical conclusions.
> ...




I definitely agree with this.  Fantasy, to me, requires a certain degree of suspension of disbelief and a willingness to say "just because".  The whimsical and the fanciful require casting logic aside, but the rewards are worth it.  Slaving yourself to logical consistency will cut you off from a vast realm of possibilities.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 6, 2010)

Stoat said:


> DarkSun
> Spelljammer
> Planescape
> Eberron
> ...




What is Dragonstar?  I don't know that one.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> They're called "Homebrews."
> 
> Seriously, though, there ARE such settings out there.  They're just rare because of marketability.  The ones you'll find are generally tied to authors either with loooooooooong series of books or a key iconic novel.
> 
> ...




That's pretty much true DannyA.  Was it this thread or another that someone talked about how stock fantasy is immedietely recognizable and much, much easier to sell.

I get that.

And, yes, I could write it myself, but, sorry, I'm a piss poor world builder, hate doing it and would much, much rather pay someone else to do it.  I love playing D&D.  I don't like world building as I always do a very bad job of it and find it a frustrating experience.

I just wish we could get a setting like Eberron, one that doesn't revolve around planar hopping or giant space hamsters, but one that takes it a couple of steps further.


----------



## jonesy (Dec 6, 2010)

Hussar said:


> What is Dragonstar?  I don't know that one.



http://stevencreech.com/images/posters/Dragonstar.jpg


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 7, 2010)

Or to put it another way, Dragonstar is D&D..._in SPAAAAAAAACE!!_

Some others:

Dragonmech
Oathbound
Etc.

However, D&D proper has had only those listed unthread...with Speljammer and DarkSun being my faves.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 7, 2010)

> I just wish we could get a setting like Eberron, one that doesn't revolve around planar hopping or giant space hamsters, but one that takes it a couple of steps further.




Well, you could always visit the campaign ideas thread (in my sig)...ORRRR

Start a worldbuilding thread of your own and invite all the combined creativity of ENWorld to help you with the heavy lifting.  _I'd_ pitch in- I dig that stuff.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 7, 2010)

Y'know, I always liked the Dragonmech idea.  That was kinda cool.

I suppose I could always take a couple of steps left and get into Warhammer fantasy.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 7, 2010)

I don't know jack about WH, but there's nothing wrong with yanking stuff from other games- even wholesale!  One of the best campaigns I ever ran was set basically in the world of Space:1889...but I ran it with the HERO system.

The world is built- all you have to do is translate a few foes' stats.


----------

