No, you're misunderstanding. It was stated that a dwarf that was invested in his community would never adventure. I gave a dozen reasons why a community invested dwarf might adventure and I admitted that some of them were cliches, but it was something I tossed in a few moments so those are going to be the first things that pop into my head.
I expanded the Curse/Pariah/Disease idea because it presented an interesting internal conflict and was less cliched. It also demonstrated one example of a story that has more meaning precisely because of dwarf traits.
I really can't help here. If you are tired of seeing dwarves in the game, don't play a dwarf or remove them or reflavor them. All of those are valid options. But being race-weary of dwarves is not solved by playing an atypical dwarf. Its solved by not playing a dwarf.
In all of what I've said, I think one thing that is misunderstood is that I am not neccessarily endorsing the given fluff of the PHB. Every group is free to flavor the game to taste. My main point is that if the fluff exists, it is preferable to use it rather than fight it. And that a character that ignores the fluff, whatever fluff it is, is not automatically more interesting or better roleplayed than a character that incorporates it; but whether it is or not, it can have a detrimental effect on the flavor of the game and strain verisimilitude. This is particularly true when every player does it.
Ultimately, my question is: why bother playing a race whose fluff you don't want to use? You might just as well play anything else.
I dont play dwarves but sometimes playing a member of a race thats not typical is also fun especially if you have an interesting concept. Frankly all the ideas you had are worn out. Id rather see a dwarf who wants to explore, or is a treasure seeker. Dwarves in my world are often merchants and traders. Very few of them live in mountains most live in hills and live above and below ground. They are also likely to be artists creating things for the beuty of it.
This is a fair point to some extent, but I don't agree that having common traits automatically removes depth of personality. As an example, consider the characters of General Chang (Star Trek IV), Lt. Worf (TNG/DS9), General Martok (DS9), and Chancellor Gowron (TNG/DS9). Each of them was a proud warrior and put some stock in honor, but there was no mistaking one for the other. Each was a pretty well developed, well rounded character.
Just to quibble, but a large part of what made Worf a vastly more interesting character than 90% of Klingons was the fact that he was raised by humans and joined Starfleet, and was consequentially caught between worlds- he definitely had his own sense of what Klingon honor meant, but there were many times when that didn't square away with what it meant for most Klingons, and Worf often took pains to reassert his connection to his Klingon heritage despite a very human upbringing. It makes for an interesting character because it is considerably more deep and nuanced than "Klingons talk about honor and fight a lot". He is, one could argue, the 'exception' that proves the rule, to use that term accurately for once.
I would also point out that there is no reason to assume that other races are, or should be, as varied as humans are. The fact of the matter is that other races may, by their nature, be much less varied than humans are. In D&D, this is an especially strong possibility because humans are specifically described as varied and adaptable. The inclusion of this trait implies that it is somewhat unique to humans. This isn't a major point, and I only mention it in passing.
Aside from that, there is also the possibility that we will someday come into contact with other intelligent species and will discover that, in fact, we humans don't have as much variation as we think we do. There may be some uniquely human stereotypes, perhaps brashness or expansive imaginations. We don't notice these things because, as members of the human race, we see the variation more than the similarities.
But, human variation aside, I am not saying that other races will not have as much variety, nor am I saying that every race won't have its individualists and its aberrations. What I am saying is that these characters may not automatically make the best dramatic characters for a fantasy roleplaying game. Imagine the Lord of the Rings movies if Gimli were an atypical, unusual, nontypical dwarf. We, the audience, would never know it. He's the dwarf with all the screen time. He is the baseline dwarf. Even if other characters kept saying that Gimli was oddly non-dwarvish, it still would not have a great impact because we wouldn't see it. And if other dwarves showed up in the story that behaved differently from Gimli, it would dilute what dwarvishness means and reduce the impact of Gimli's non-dwarf nature.
Truth be told? The movies turned him into a walking talking cliche, and consequentially, I would never use the LotR movies' treatment of Gimli as a prime example of how to do fantasy races. The books actually gave him depth and personality distinct from generic "other dwarves", which did, in fact, act and behave differently, just as Tolkien took great pains to distinguish the each of twelve that Bilbo travelled with from each other (except for the two that were twins). The books made Gimli something other than comic relief and dwarf stereotypes, and used the interaction of Gimli and Legolas throughout to tell a story of friendship, understanding, and camraderie overcoming prejudice, something which both the movies and D&D distilled out of that story.
Heck, the hobbits that went on the quests were each distinctly called out as "unsual" amongst hobbits, as well, due to their fearlessness and willingness to adventure; did this erode the meaning of "hobbit" in this story, or emphasize the fact that the heroes were special individuals? Was Aragorn an ordinary man, or was he an "unusual one", a Numenorian, who remembered the old ways, long-lived, and so on, much more like an elf than a normal human?
Really, LotR is not a good source on which to rest your argument, here.
The Races and Classes fluff for the Halflings was awesome and full of win.
The phb fluff is a severely edited/deleted version....
R&C for the win here.
Never saw any of that info. I might try and remedy that.
williamhm75 wrote:
Frankly all the ideas you had are worn out. Id rather see a dwarf who wants to explore, or is a treasure seeker. Dwarves in my world are often merchants and traders. Very few of them live in mountains most live in hills and live above and below ground. They are also likely to be artists creating things for the beuty of it.
Not to rain on anyone's parade, but none of that is particularly out of character for dwarves. It's not entirely typical (although treasure seeking, trading and creating art are usually valued well enough among dwarves), but certainly not something that'd make other dwarves think you were short 1d4 marbles.
Garic's City - A 3.5 D&D PbP (play-by-post) roleplaying game with a decade of tradition. Enter and enjoy the city of Garic and explore the surrounding, unchartered lands. A city in the middle of nowhere is always in need of heroes...
I dont play dwarves but sometimes playing a member of a race thats not typical is also fun especially if you have an interesting concept. Frankly all the ideas you had are worn out. Id rather see a dwarf who wants to explore, or is a treasure seeker. Dwarves in my world are often merchants and traders. Very few of them live in mountains most live in hills and live above and below ground. They are also likely to be artists creating things for the beuty of it.
Is this still about arguing the value of incorporating vs. discounting fluff or is this now a contest of whose fluff is better. I really don't want to get into the latter because that's a debate not worth having.
I'm sorry if my dozen or so one-or-two-word seeds all seem tired and cliched to you, but I think most people would be hard pressed to distill an idea down to two words and not have it seem tired and cliched. I doubt either of us believes that a two-word summary of a motivation is the same as developing a character. You asked for reasons why a community-loving character would adventure. I threw a dozen quick words your way to show it was possible.
I think the trouble is that some of my opinions seem be getting lost in the shuffle. I'd like to try and clarify a little.
I feel that discounting the fluff of a race when creating your character has an inherent cost to the game. It makes your character a little less believable. Not because your concept is bad or wrong, but because it runs counter to what the other players expect. That is, your character will be surprising. After all, that is kind of the point of playing it.
But your dwarf is going to have the most screen time of any other dwarf in the campaign world (barring a second dwarf in the party). In a sense, you are the ambassador of dwarfship in the story. D&D is unique when compared to novels and even most movies and television shows in this respect. The only thing on the screen is what the PCs are doing. There are no B-plots, no cutaways to other characters, no scenes of the antagonists being evil.
Because of this, there is a value in the word 'dwarf' having as much meaning as possible. When the PCs have to interact with a dwarves or visit a dwarf community, the DM has a limited amount of time to give the NPCs or community any real depth.
If the PCs walk into a community of blarghsclithes, they have absolutely no idea what they are walking into because I just invented that race. As a DM, I have to spend some time on painting a picture of blarghsclithes, convey what they are like, how they interact, and so on. I have to do this (a) to make them seem alive and (b) so that the PCs can formulate meaningful plans and make useful decisions in their interactions.
Now, I've only got five hours per session. That's valuable time - time the players don't want to spend learning about blarghsclithes. So, it is extremely valuable to have preconceived notions. I can spend less time on something without losing the semblance of life and without taking away the meaningful decisions and forcing the players to act randomly.
Of course, the game can afford a few nonstandard dwarves running around without ruining the essential meaning of dwarvishness. The definition is not going to collapse because of one PC in the party that decides to be the selfish, savage, lazy dwarf. But it certainly isn't going to help that the most screen time goes to the selfish, savage, lazy dwarf.
The fact that PC is a dwarf that doesn't act dwarf-like is actually only important in comparison to other dwarves anyway. When that PC is not standing next to other dwarves, it quickly becomes unimportant. Their personality just kind of stands alone.
So, given all of this, I do not outright refuse to allow nonstandard dwarves or elves or eladrin, but I do ask that player making the request show me that it adds something to the game, something to counterbalance the costs to the story. I don't think that is unfair. Every player, just like the DM, is acting not just for their own fun but for the fun of everyone. And that requires some compromise
Some campaigns certainly won't care. But I pride myself on the details and the immersion. It is the reason why my players come back - it is also the reason why some players have never come back.
The trouble arises, as I said, when a player assumes their character is interesting, unique, and original simply because it is a nonstandard dwarf. That is, that any nonstandard character is automatically more interesting than any standard dwarf. The fact is, they aren't. Well-written, in depth characters are possible without disregarding the racial traits and flat, poorly written characters are possible even when you disregard the racial traits.
However, standard representatives of a race get some help that nonstandard characters do not. They automatically seem a little more real because they get the benefit of all of the preconceived notions of dwarfdom. I may never play up the hard-working quality of my dwarf, but people will assume it is there. And then, the one time when the plot calls for us to dig a tunnel to rescue a child from a well and my dwarf refused to give up despite the healing surge cost of every Endurance check... well, people are going to say I played my character well because I am a hard-working dwarf. Of course, that doesn't automatically make me a good roleplayer, but it does cover for poor roleplaying.
A good roleplayer can play anything. I firmly believe that. But the real challenge of roleplaying comes in playing something that you didn't write completely on your own. That is, if some of your roleplaying choices are dictated to you by the world around you.
The trouble is that people hear this and think I am saying you have to be a walking cliche of dwarfdom. That is why I use the phrase 'playing against type' instead of nonstandard. Dwarves have a reputation for piety. Well, I don't require every dwarf to be a zealous crusader. Some dwarves really don't think about the gods that much or have a live-and-let-live philosophy. That's not 'playing against type.' 'Playing against type' is when someone wants to play a dwarven atheist.
Finally, I am going to say this: as a DM who frequently refluffs and reflavors (almost always with input from the players who have a lot of say in the flavor of the races they play), I find the idea of disregarding the fluff of a race and just playing whatever you want in a dwarf-suit a little selfish and a little obnoxious. It has a little tone of 'to heck with fitting into the world, I'm doing whatever I want.' Yeah, I admit that's a little unreasonable and I shouldn't personalize (so please don't argue with this point because I admit its only weakly defenisble), but it is still a little telling about their attitude toward what is essentially a community game.
The Angry DM: D&D 4th Edition Advice with Attitude http://angrydm.com
Follow me on Twitter @TheAngryDM
"D&D is a world where you are a great champion, and the creator of the universe is frequently disorganized, highly distractable, and alarmingly vague on the rules of the universe he’s trying to run." -Shamus Young, Twenty Sided Tale (DM of the Rings)
Never saw any of that info. I might try and remedy that.
Not to rain on anyone's parade, but none of that is particularly out of character for dwarves. It's not entirely typical (although treasure seeking, trading and creating art are usually valued well enough among dwarves), but certainly not something that'd make other dwarves think you were short 1d4 marbles.
It is certainly worth the read. When I get the chance I might pick up a copy of R&C for myself. (I read a friend's)
The Races and Classes halflings are actually how I did my world's halflings because it gave them a definable niche rather than just being "the little folk". Which is a vast improvement over where it was in my humble opinion. I was disappointed when I read the Phb's version I was wondering where the good fluff had went for them.
http://guild.medialoungeca.com/index.php?action=forum The Guild I'm apart of. We're in WOW, STO, Rift and soon Star Wars feel free to register and hang out. http://sparkster11.deviantart.com/ my deviantart Wheelman of the House of Trolls, "I love it when you watch" Carrier of Section 2, 3 and 6 cargo. Resident Driver Stud God of Transportation and Lust.
It is certainly worth the read. When I get the chance I might pick up a copy of R&C for myself.
Might be something WotC could make available for free as well in.pdf form. It's not like they're going to be making any more money off of it.
Garic's City - A 3.5 D&D PbP (play-by-post) roleplaying game with a decade of tradition. Enter and enjoy the city of Garic and explore the surrounding, unchartered lands. A city in the middle of nowhere is always in need of heroes...
Just to quibble, but a large part of what made Worf a vastly more interesting character than 90% of Klingons was the fact that he was raised by humans and joined Starfleet, and was consequentially caught between worlds- he definitely had his own sense of what Klingon honor meant, but there were many times when that didn't square away with what it meant for most Klingons, and Worf often took pains to reassert his connection to his Klingon heritage despite a very human upbringing. It makes for an interesting character because it is considerably more deep and nuanced than "Klingons talk about honor and fight a lot". He is, one could argue, the 'exception' that proves the rule, to use that term accurately for once..
I actually think this shows my point. Worf did prize honor highly, a very klingon trait, and he was trying to reconcile his klingon traits despite his surroundings. Worf wasn't actually 'played against type', but he was an interesting and nuanced character because his environment and his personal limitations were at odds with his klingon traits.
yrogerg wrote:
Truth be told? The movies turned him into a walking talking cliche, and consequentially, I would never use the LotR movies' treatment of Gimli as a prime example of how to do fantasy races. The books actually gave him depth and personality distinct from generic "other dwarves", which did, in fact, act and behave differently, just as Tolkien took great pains to distinguish the each of twelve that Bilbo travelled with from each other (except for the two that were twins). The books made Gimli something other than comic relief and dwarf stereotypes, and used the interaction of Gimli and Legolas throughout to tell a story of friendship, understanding, and camraderie overcoming prejudice, something which both the movies and D&D distilled out of that story.
I agree that you can pull off a nonstandard character much better in a novel than in a movie, but I'm going to say that D&D has many of the same limitations that movies do and, even more. I touched on them in my big, long post just before this one. But, in a nutshell, you don't have unlimited time for exposition and you don't have whatever word count you want. D&D operates under a heavy time constraint. Beyond that, in D&D, the only action on the screen is that directly involving the protagonists. DMs can't spend time establishing secondary characters in scenes that don't involve the PCs and most DMs can spend only limited time on one character having a scene without the rest around.
But, you are right in that Gimli is a poor example of a developed character. I am sorry I chose him as an example.
The Angry DM: D&D 4th Edition Advice with Attitude http://angrydm.com
Follow me on Twitter @TheAngryDM
"D&D is a world where you are a great champion, and the creator of the universe is frequently disorganized, highly distractable, and alarmingly vague on the rules of the universe he’s trying to run." -Shamus Young, Twenty Sided Tale (DM of the Rings)
I actually think this shows my point. Worf did prize honor highly, a very klingon trait, and he was trying to reconcile his klingon traits despite his surroundings. Worf wasn't actually 'played against type', but he was an interesting and nuanced character because his environment and his personal limitations were at odds with his klingon traits.
I agree that you can pull off a nonstandard character much better in a novel than in a movie, but I'm going to say that D&D has many of the same limitations that movies do and, even more. I touched on them in my big, long post just before this one. But, in a nutshell, you don't have unlimited time for exposition and you don't have whatever word count you want. D&D operates under a heavy time constraint. Beyond that, in D&D, the only action on the screen is that directly involving the protagonists. DMs can't spend time establishing secondary characters in scenes that don't involve the PCs and most DMs can spend only limited time on one character having a scene without the rest around.
But, you are right in that Gimli is a poor example of a developed character. I am sorry I chose him as an example.
Believe it or not, protagonists in virtually every story are not normal examples of people, or of members of their individual races. It is this exception that makes them interesting enough to be the central figures of a story, and D&D characters are no exception to this. There is always a hook, and sometimes (oftentimes, especially in D&D) it involves a character playing against the normal cliches of their race. Whether it's Drizzt, the good-natured elf in a race of chaotic evil monsters or Worf, the Starfleet-raised klingon, the characters of stories are never as simple as everyone else of their kind.
That said, D&D really doesn't have any of the limitations you speak of. A playgroup that wishes to delve deeply into backstory will probably spend days doing just that, while a playgroup that doesn't won't. D&D is only time-constrained in the sense that players are... and if the players have all the time in the world, then the game does as well.
I dont see why player characters should have to incorporate all the fluff of their race. Id say by thier nature that pcs would go against the mold. Heros are rare for any species. And the motivations of each character should be highly individual. Each player character should be an individual not just a charicture, or stereo type.
Pangur my world is still in development dwarves are the race im having the hardest time placing. I want to do something unique with them but im having a hard time with it.
Pangur my world is still in development dwarves are the race im having the hardest time placing. I want to do something unique with them but im having a hard time with it.
So are you looking for an original dwarf race, or for original characters that belong to if not stereotypical, then an at least more traditional kind of dwarf race?
Off the top of my head: stargazers (astronomy, astrology, the works), bird raisers (birds of prey for hunting, fishing birds, songbirds, ...), amazons (matriarchal society), proselityzing communists, teetotalling vegans or all of the above?
Garic's City - A 3.5 D&D PbP (play-by-post) roleplaying game with a decade of tradition. Enter and enjoy the city of Garic and explore the surrounding, unchartered lands. A city in the middle of nowhere is always in need of heroes...
