Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2017 22:33:52 GMT -8
Now, I really don't agree with that. I can see that some people might be operating on that level, but I don't agree that it's the Principal reason everyone (or even most people) do it. Speaking only for myself, any time I have sought to play a non-standard race, it was because there was some story that I wanted to explore that they would allow. It's like when I write. I don't pick gender or race, or anything for characters. I write about characters and tell their stories and they just happen to be men or women; white, black, polka-dotted. Brag much? "I don't see color." Yeah, I don't believe anyone who says that who isn't medically colorblind (preferably fully blind). You can't write about anyone without knowing their gender and origins. It's part of who they are. Its just as important as the time and place a person occupies in a story. If you write a story about 1920's america in the south, you can't just pretend that racism and segregation aren't a thing. It would be just a dishonest as pretending prohibition wasn't a thing. Even without getting into the plethora of genders that people now think exist (I'm in the camp of not caring beyond your medical gender, because anything else is personal preferance, which I'm fine with, but don't need 60 terms for), women have many different experiances from most men. I know a lot of women who worry about walking alone at night (even though I live in a good are). Most men aren't worried about it, or are worried for a different reason. Before you are anything, you are born a certain way. Your every experiance that follows will flow from and in response to that. Would you not distinguish between someone who grew up rich vs poor? Than why would you try to ignore other important factors of a persons life?
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on May 26, 2017 23:22:43 GMT -8
Now, I really don't agree with that. I can see that some people might be operating on that level, but I don't agree that it's the Principal reason everyone (or even most people) do it. Speaking only for myself, any time I have sought to play a non-standard race, it was because there was some story that I wanted to explore that they would allow. It's like when I write. I don't pick gender or race, or anything for characters. I write about characters and tell their stories and they just happen to be men or women; white, black, polka-dotted. Brag much? "I don't see color." Yeah, I don't believe anyone who says that who isn't medically colorblind (preferably fully blind). You can't write about anyone without knowing their gender and origins. It's part of who they are. Its just as important as the time and place a person occupies in a story. If you write a story about 1920's america in the south, you can't just pretend that racism and segregation aren't a thing. It would be just a dishonest as pretending prohibition wasn't a thing. Even without getting into the plethora of genders that people now think exist (I'm in the camp of not caring beyond your medical gender, because anything else is personal preferance, which I'm fine with, but don't need 60 terms for), women have many different experiances from most men. I know a lot of women who worry about walking alone at night (even though I live in a good are). Most men aren't worried about it, or are worried for a different reason. Before you are anything, you are born a certain way. Your every experiance that follows will flow from and in response to that. Would you not distinguish between someone who grew up rich vs poor? Than why would you try to ignore other important factors of a persons life? Again, you're missing the point. I never said that those things didn't help define and inform the character. I said that I don't choose those qualities as part of an outside process. I don't write about a woman because I feel the need to have more female characters, but because the character whose story I am telling happens to be a woman. The story I am writing at the moment features a Muslim character. It's not because I want more Muslim characters, or I want to show that Muslims aren't... whatever, but because the character IS Muslim. Of course it informs the character and shapes him. But that's not why I write him that way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2017 2:39:40 GMT -8
Brag much? "I don't see color." Yeah, I don't believe anyone who says that who isn't medically colorblind (preferably fully blind). You can't write about anyone without knowing their gender and origins. It's part of who they are. Its just as important as the time and place a person occupies in a story. If you write a story about 1920's america in the south, you can't just pretend that racism and segregation aren't a thing. It would be just a dishonest as pretending prohibition wasn't a thing. Even without getting into the plethora of genders that people now think exist (I'm in the camp of not caring beyond your medical gender, because anything else is personal preferance, which I'm fine with, but don't need 60 terms for), women have many different experiances from most men. I know a lot of women who worry about walking alone at night (even though I live in a good are). Most men aren't worried about it, or are worried for a different reason. Before you are anything, you are born a certain way. Your every experiance that follows will flow from and in response to that. Would you not distinguish between someone who grew up rich vs poor? Than why would you try to ignore other important factors of a persons life? Again, you're missing the point. I never said that those things didn't help define and inform the character. I said that I don't choose those qualities as part of an outside process. I don't write about a woman because I feel the need to have more female characters, but because the character whose story I am telling happens to be a woman. The story I am writing at the moment features a Muslim character. It's not because I want more Muslim characters, or I want to show that Muslims aren't... whatever, but because the character IS Muslim. Of course it informs the character and shapes him. But that's not why I write him that way. So, since you don't choose, what do you do? Is there a wheel of religions and races? I mean, I feel like you are saying nonsense. You make the choice of what characters to write. The character can't choose for themself, it all comes from you. You are the one who makes the whole thing, if a character is Muslim it is because that was a choice you made. Be multicultural and all, just don't tell me it is some kind of accident. You might as well blame it on the dog if you are going to go that route.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on May 27, 2017 3:31:40 GMT -8
I write what the characters and the story tell me to write. I'm sorry that you don't grok what that means, but it's the truth.
Although, I have long joked that writers are just schizophrenics who have managed to channel their hallucinations. ^.^
|
|
|
Post by ilina on May 27, 2017 4:08:08 GMT -8
some D&D Players just like thier Pathfinder kin would pick a race over having a mere +2 to thier primary attribute or in the case of the human and half elf, an extra feat or extra skill proficiencies. In any game where race is tied to in game statistics or abilities, you will always have people picking their race based on stats, rather than concept. What it sounds like to me, though, is people hating Tieflings nad Dragonborn for the opposite reason: they've had bad experiences with players who choose them based on concept. Which I can understand. Whenever I hear someone who wants to tell me about their Malkavian concept, I immediately inwardly cringe (and usually then outwardly cringe). i don't have an issue with Tieflings, Drow. Gnomes, and Dragonborn as player races or Paladins as a class. i dislike those things being used as excuses for the player in question to grief their companions. in fact, i had more issues with disruptive paladins than any other class. but i still wouldn't turn down a paladin, i would still work with the paladin to establish a code they can follow that won't screw their companions over and at the same time won't require them to run off and pick mushrooms every time a torture scene happens.
|
|
|
Post by ilina on May 27, 2017 4:28:04 GMT -8
what Ayslyn means is he or she builds a character in three dimensions based on what the story demands, unlike myself, who plays characters of one primary aesthetic archetype and try to shoehorn skillsets into that aesthetic by coming up with complex character builds involving reskins and minor utility class feature or damage type swaps like taking a spell or few a member of that class couldn't normally take, but is within the level range of the character to fill the characters concept, like taking and preparing healing spells on an evoker to represent a world of warcraft style shaman or blatantly ignoring the school restrictions on an arcane trickster's spells to pick up other roguelike spells that weren't illusion or enchantment based but would be useful to a rogue.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on May 27, 2017 7:54:41 GMT -8
In any game where race is tied to in game statistics or abilities, you will always have people picking their race based on stats, rather than concept. What it sounds like to me, though, is people hating Tieflings nad Dragonborn for the opposite reason: they've had bad experiences with players who choose them based on concept. Which I can understand. Whenever I hear someone who wants to tell me about their Malkavian concept, I immediately inwardly cringe (and usually then outwardly cringe). i don't have an issue with Tieflings, Drow. Gnomes, and Dragonborn as player races or Paladins as a class. i dislike those things being used as excuses for the player in question to grief their companions. in fact, i had more issues with disruptive paladins than any other class. but i still wouldn't turn down a paladin, i would still work with the paladin to establish a code they can follow that won't screw their companions over and at the same time won't require them to run off and pick mushrooms every time a torture scene happens. A Paladin should be hard to work with - they are the paragons of their faith. You have all that 'power' added to your group, it's gotta cost and the cost is that the group behaves in a manner expected of companions of a Paladin. Imagine if the Pope had to team up with The Dirty Dozen - would he have them become part of his official inner council afterwards? .... he might be more tolerant of them or try to further their redemption but there always be the issue that he's the mutherfuckin Pope and probably not even that if he ignored their failure to abide by his moral principles. If the Paladin is a pain in the arse by expecting the party to live up to the Paladins moral standards then that Paladin is being played properly Aaron PS I still hate DragonBorn - they're a syphillitic pox and a blight and I just think they're a dumb idea; it's a shit or get off the pot thing: you want to play a dragon, play a dragon don't tiddle fuck around with this dragon-lite race. In fact I'll invoke an Aussie expression to explain it - they're The Claytons of the Dragon World (Claytons is a vile liquid sold in Aussie pubs as the 'Drink you can have when you're not having a Drink', it tastes like rancid panther piss bottled in a cellar at midnight and doesn't even get you pissed, cooking sherry will at least do that)
|
|
|
Post by ilina on May 27, 2017 8:22:45 GMT -8
thing is, 5e tries too hard to balance the races and created a Dragons-Lite race because because some people whined that dragons weren't playable, and unlike prior editions, intangible concepts like behavioral restrictions or prejudice aren't thinly veiled attempts. in fact, i'm glad 5e removed the alignment restrictions from paladins, which were only a truly superior class in 2e and before.
in 5e, paladins are not intended to be any more powerful or special than any other class and are not intended to be a pain in the ass to work with, due to the removal of the alignment restriction and removal of the code of conduct. the reason they made dragonborn playable was because it would be totally unfair to the other players if one player got to play a high level monster from the third most overpowered creature type, surpassed by outsiders which are only surpassed by fey.
any full dragon as a player race would have been dragon light. though i would rather that page space be given to playable half-nymphs or feytouched than a race that emulates the most powerful monster of the third strongest monster type in the game.
|
|
|
Post by The Northman on May 27, 2017 8:39:14 GMT -8
I still disagree. They are, by basic concept, zealots in most cases. It's kind of the whole point.
Every one of them has tenets that don't fit with every group all the time, and a paladin being played correctly should be digging their heels in when that happens.
|
|
sbloyd
Supporter
WHAT! A human in a Precursor service vehicle?!
Posts: 2,762
Preferred Game Systems: Storyteller; Dresden; Mage
Favorite Species of Monkey: Goddamnit, Curious George is a CHIMP not a monkey! Stop teaching my daughter improper classification!
|
Post by sbloyd on May 27, 2017 9:00:24 GMT -8
I used to think of Paladins as stick-up-the-ass zealots, until I read the Dresden Files. Michael Carpenter is my new default.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on May 27, 2017 11:05:42 GMT -8
thing is, 5e tries too hard to balance the races and created a Dragons-Lite race because because some people whined that dragons weren't playable, and unlike prior editions, intangible concepts like behavioral restrictions or prejudice aren't thinly veiled attempts. in fact, i'm glad 5e removed the alignment restrictions from paladins, which were only a truly superior class in 2e and before. in 5e, paladins are not intended to be any more powerful or special than any other class and are not intended to be a pain in the ass to work with, due to the removal of the alignment restriction and removal of the code of conduct. the reason they made dragonborn playable was because it would be totally unfair to the other players if one player got to play a high level monster from the third most overpowered creature type, surpassed by outsiders which are only surpassed by fey. any full dragon as a player race would have been dragon light. though i would rather that page space be given to playable half-nymphs or feytouched than a race that emulates the most powerful monster of the third strongest monster type in the game. Fey touched? Half-nymph PC's? Now you're just trolling me surely!!!. I'd spit my old man dentures in outrage if someone bought that to a (specifically) DnD game. In another system with different basic world assumptions (i.e. Genre flavour) I'd have no problem. But DnD 'did' have a certain preference for a certain type of swords and sorcery epic, which was less LotR and more Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser. Less Chronicles of Narnia and more Elric of Melnibone (noting that Elric was the exception of his all but extinct race: weak, imperfect and in the first few books enamoured of the vigour and vitality of the Men of the New Kingdoms. So much so he leads them in slaughtering his own decadent race.). A good example of this was the 4e re-release of the Village of Hommlet. It was shockingly poor menagerie of cartoon races cohabiting with no real internal consistency or logic AND it totally missed what made the original adventure such a classic. Suddenly we had sleepy backwater village populated like a cosmopolitan metropolis - the original inhabitants of Hommlet were simple folk, yokels (except they weren't as, like the movie 'Blue Velvet', the PC's discover the wheels within wheels of intrigue that underlie the wholesome fascade ) What are the first and second most powerful monster type? Bearing in mind Bahumat and Tiamat are still Dragons and the Tarrasque is supposed to be a 'fuck it I'm done with this world, let's burn the campaign in glorious wash of blood and fire' type encounter ( a bit like Cthulhu, should he rise it's 'game over man' as he auto consumes 1d6 investigators every round) Aaron
|
|
|
Post by The Northman on May 27, 2017 11:11:07 GMT -8
I used to think of Paladins as stick-up-the-ass zealots, until I read the Dresden Files. Michael Carpenter is my new default. For sure! But there's still a good case that Harry's 'party' decisions get squashed somewhat regularly by Michael's code.
|
|
sbloyd
Supporter
WHAT! A human in a Precursor service vehicle?!
Posts: 2,762
Preferred Game Systems: Storyteller; Dresden; Mage
Favorite Species of Monkey: Goddamnit, Curious George is a CHIMP not a monkey! Stop teaching my daughter improper classification!
|
Post by sbloyd on May 27, 2017 11:16:19 GMT -8
Offset by having a Knight of the Cross around when you really, really need one.
|
|
|
Post by ilina on May 27, 2017 13:22:08 GMT -8
thing is, 5e tries too hard to balance the races and created a Dragons-Lite race because because some people whined that dragons weren't playable, and unlike prior editions, intangible concepts like behavioral restrictions or prejudice aren't thinly veiled attempts. in fact, i'm glad 5e removed the alignment restrictions from paladins, which were only a truly superior class in 2e and before. in 5e, paladins are not intended to be any more powerful or special than any other class and are not intended to be a pain in the ass to work with, due to the removal of the alignment restriction and removal of the code of conduct. the reason they made dragonborn playable was because it would be totally unfair to the other players if one player got to play a high level monster from the third most overpowered creature type, surpassed by outsiders which are only surpassed by fey. any full dragon as a player race would have been dragon light. though i would rather that page space be given to playable half-nymphs or feytouched than a race that emulates the most powerful monster of the third strongest monster type in the game. Fey touched? Half-nymph PC's? Now you're just trolling me surely!!!. I'd spit my old man dentures in outrage if someone bought that to a (specifically) DnD game. In another system with different basic world assumptions (i.e. Genre flavour) I'd have no problem. But DnD 'did' have a certain preference for a certain type of swords and sorcery epic, which was less LotR and more Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser. Less Chronicles of Narnia and more Elric of Melnibone (noting that Elric was the exception of his all but extinct race: weak, imperfect and in the first few books enamoured of the vigour and vitality of the Men of the New Kingdoms. So much so he leads them in slaughtering his own decadent race.). A good example of this was the 4e re-release of the Village of Hommlet. It was shockingly poor menagerie of cartoon races cohabiting with no real internal consistency or logic AND it totally missed what made the original adventure such a classic. Suddenly we had sleepy backwater village populated like a cosmopolitan metropolis - the original inhabitants of Hommlet were simple folk, yokels (except they weren't as, like the movie 'Blue Velvet', the PC's discover the wheels within wheels of intrigue that underlie the wholesome fascade ) What are the first and second most powerful monster type? Bearing in mind Bahumat and Tiamat are still Dragons and the Tarrasque is supposed to be a 'fuck it I'm done with this world, let's burn the campaign in glorious wash of blood and fire' type encounter ( a bit like Cthulhu, should he rise it's 'game over man' as he auto consumes 1d6 investigators every round) Aaron feytouched and half-nymphs aren't any more exotic or uncommon than elves or half elves. dragons are the third most challenging monster relative to thier challenge rating, outsiders second and fey first. there aren't a lot of high challenge rating fey out there, but fey are the monster type most likely to heavily exhaust a level appropriate party's resources. the reason being the shifty and crazy dishonorable things a fey does every day that are easier for them to do than other monsters of thier level range. a fey is the most taxing resource tax appropriate to groups of equal level to its challenge rating. and if you look at the terrasque, regeneration doesn't save it from damage inflicted by starvation or suffocation. it still needs to eat and still needs to breathe. so if you find a way to suffocate it while it sleeps. you can murder it. modern D&D isn't the same game or world it was 40 years ago. they added a bunch of races, most of which are shoehorned, but D&D always sold Extra Race options in separate books as early as the beginning. feytouched are probably less silly than dragonborn due to having mythological precedent as well as being an older race.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on May 27, 2017 14:45:40 GMT -8
Fey touched? Half-nymph PC's? Now you're just trolling me surely!!!. I'd spit my old man dentures in outrage if someone bought that to a (specifically) DnD game. In another system with different basic world assumptions (i.e. Genre flavour) I'd have no problem. But DnD 'did' have a certain preference for a certain type of swords and sorcery epic, which was less LotR and more Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser. Less Chronicles of Narnia and more Elric of Melnibone (noting that Elric was the exception of his all but extinct race: weak, imperfect and in the first few books enamoured of the vigour and vitality of the Men of the New Kingdoms. So much so he leads them in slaughtering his own decadent race.). A good example of this was the 4e re-release of the Village of Hommlet. It was shockingly poor menagerie of cartoon races cohabiting with no real internal consistency or logic AND it totally missed what made the original adventure such a classic. Suddenly we had sleepy backwater village populated like a cosmopolitan metropolis - the original inhabitants of Hommlet were simple folk, yokels (except they weren't as, like the movie 'Blue Velvet', the PC's discover the wheels within wheels of intrigue that underlie the wholesome fascade ) What are the first and second most powerful monster type? Bearing in mind Bahumat and Tiamat are still Dragons and the Tarrasque is supposed to be a 'fuck it I'm done with this world, let's burn the campaign in glorious wash of blood and fire' type encounter ( a bit like Cthulhu, should he rise it's 'game over man' as he auto consumes 1d6 investigators every round) Aaron feytouched and half-nymphs aren't any more exotic or uncommon than elves or half elves. dragons are the third most challenging monster relative to thier challenge rating, outsiders second and fey first. there aren't a lot of high challenge rating fey out there, but fey are the monster type most likely to heavily exhaust a level appropriate party's resources. the reason being the shifty and crazy dishonorable things a fey does every day that are easier for them to do than other monsters of thier level range. a fey is the most taxing resource tax appropriate to groups of equal level to its challenge rating. and if you look at the terrasque, regeneration doesn't save it from damage inflicted by starvation or suffocation. it still needs to eat and still needs to breathe. so if you find a way to suffocate it while it sleeps. you can murder it. modern D&D isn't the same game or world it was 40 years ago. they added a bunch of races, most of which are shoehorned, but D&D always sold Extra Race options in separate books as early as the beginning. feytouched are probably less silly than dragonborn due to having mythological precedent as well as being an older race. The tarrasque is STILL the game ender - that's even in 5th, shall I link to the YouTube discussions on it? BTW It doesn't eat as such, it hibernates and when it rises it eats which is sort of when the world ends. You do know the Tarraseque is basically the Norse World Serpent with a slim chance (the world serpent upon whose back middle earth rests and when the world serpent wakes the earth shall be shattered.) From a mythology stand point fucking half nymphs and god damned Fey touched are a very recent trend compared to, oh, the several centuries of mythological tradition in Elves* .... news flash Tolkiens elves were sourced from north European mythology. The game may be 40yrs old but there is a limit - the Porsche 911 is a 911 because, for over 50yrs, the 911 still resembles the core body design principles of a 911, Jesus the modern mechanics of 911 now include water cooled engines but they still have a rear mid mounted engine and those distinctive doors (fun fact the 911 door design has remained unchanged throughout its cycle as it has been declared iconic of the marque). Changing certain assumptions about DnD and it stops being DnD - it becomes something else that people who play DnD don't like. Oh shit, that already happened - it was called 4th edition. You know the actual game of 4e wasn't *that* bad - it just wasn't DnD because it swerved too far from the marque. Which is probably why 5th set about returning to roots. Actually, that's exactly why 5th went in the direction it did. Which means no nonsense like Fey touched PC's and half nymphs .... you got the likes of Grey Elves be happy with that or play a game based on the idea of loads of Fey touched and half nymphs running around the world. So you're saying Tiamat and Bahmut have lower CR's than Outsiders and Fey? Tiamat? Less challenging than a fucking fairy? Really, seriously ... Tiamat!!!! Aaron * note that Elves ARE the Fey in the local mythology of the UK (Sidhe in Ireland).
|
|