That's the thing I never got. I'd understand why people liked tinker gnomes. But we haven't GOT tinker gnomes. There's no mechanical support for tinkering. So it seems like gnome fans must like something else, right? What is it?
So that's why you like it
- Thread starter Rechan
- Start date
My theory is that, regardless of the mechanics, it still endeared gnomes to people. The mad scientist/absent-minded professor quality colored the view of all gnomes, not just gnomes who have access to tinker tech.
blargney the second
blargney the minute's son
Great idea for a thread, Rechan!
Can someone please explain to me why some people like to view vampires as romantic? To me they're as sexy as mosquitoes.
-blarg
Can someone please explain to me why some people like to view vampires as romantic? To me they're as sexy as mosquitoes.
-blarg
fanboy2000
Adventurer
Lovecraft Kitsch
To me, there are two kinds: serious use of Lovecraftian themes/gods and kitschy use of Cthullu. The first, I think, has been well explained above. But the second takes some thinking. Having sold this, I think it's the funny juxtaposition of primordial evil and children's plush toy/nick-knack. Many gamers have odd senses of humor and I think that Cthullu kitsch pushes a "funny" button in many people.
Gnomes
Good old fashion Gnomes gave players a chance to play a race that was small and had a "none of the above" feel. Halflings are closely tied to Hobbits and rogues. With a gnome, a player could play a small character and define the race themselves. In 3.x, they were a fun, playful race that gave players a chance to be silly with going the annoying "Kender" route.
In a way, Gnomes were defined by what they're not, not by what they are. When I play a gnome, it's because I want to be silly without going overboard. My last pre-4e Gnome was a bard who told jokes instead of play music. I don't feel that this concept was possible with elves or halflings.
Here's what I don't get: the setting for Shadowrun. I understand the premise, and I like some of it, but what I don't get is the dystopian oppression. The setting seems to lead to an excessive amount a caution that, in the Shadowrun 4e game I played, led to whole game sessions where we simply planed what we were going to do. No actual game playing seemed to happen. Is this normal?
To me, there are two kinds: serious use of Lovecraftian themes/gods and kitschy use of Cthullu. The first, I think, has been well explained above. But the second takes some thinking. Having sold this, I think it's the funny juxtaposition of primordial evil and children's plush toy/nick-knack. Many gamers have odd senses of humor and I think that Cthullu kitsch pushes a "funny" button in many people.
Gnomes
Good old fashion Gnomes gave players a chance to play a race that was small and had a "none of the above" feel. Halflings are closely tied to Hobbits and rogues. With a gnome, a player could play a small character and define the race themselves. In 3.x, they were a fun, playful race that gave players a chance to be silly with going the annoying "Kender" route.
In a way, Gnomes were defined by what they're not, not by what they are. When I play a gnome, it's because I want to be silly without going overboard. My last pre-4e Gnome was a bard who told jokes instead of play music. I don't feel that this concept was possible with elves or halflings.
Here's what I don't get: the setting for Shadowrun. I understand the premise, and I like some of it, but what I don't get is the dystopian oppression. The setting seems to lead to an excessive amount a caution that, in the Shadowrun 4e game I played, led to whole game sessions where we simply planed what we were going to do. No actual game playing seemed to happen. Is this normal?
Fallen Seraph
First Post
Vampires as Romantic:
I would say a large part of it is the idea of mystery, running away from a old life and being "young" for all eternity. It is the idea that one could as a vampire be with someone forever, and never grow old. Also the concept of being swept off your feet by some exotic stranger.
In a more sexual manner, there is two sides the initial seductive side of the vampire. Then the carnal, primal side: feeding. It certainly isn't coincidence that the neck is a iconic place for the bite.
Personally I am all about the monster-esque vampire.
Shadowrun:
Dystopian is part and parcel of lots of cyberpunk. It is you vs. the machine, the idea that the majority of the population is run down and the upper class in-control of technology is ruling over them. So you are sticking it to the corporations, it is very anarchistic. Generally speaking cyberpunk is out of date, it is a child of the 80's. You may be more interested in looking into Post-Cyberpunk.
As for the planning, it tends to play a strong role in a fair amount of Shadowrun. Shadowrun has a nasty death spiral so it is good to plan around it. Plus the concept of a "run" is based around having a plan, trying to do the plan and then the real fun kicks in when it screws up and you got to improvise. It is quite similar to joy of watching say Ocean 11 film.
Pondering: I am trying to think of my own one to ask but coming up short. Plenty of things I don't like, but I still get why people like it. *grumbles*
I would say a large part of it is the idea of mystery, running away from a old life and being "young" for all eternity. It is the idea that one could as a vampire be with someone forever, and never grow old. Also the concept of being swept off your feet by some exotic stranger.
In a more sexual manner, there is two sides the initial seductive side of the vampire. Then the carnal, primal side: feeding. It certainly isn't coincidence that the neck is a iconic place for the bite.
Personally I am all about the monster-esque vampire.
Shadowrun:
Dystopian is part and parcel of lots of cyberpunk. It is you vs. the machine, the idea that the majority of the population is run down and the upper class in-control of technology is ruling over them. So you are sticking it to the corporations, it is very anarchistic. Generally speaking cyberpunk is out of date, it is a child of the 80's. You may be more interested in looking into Post-Cyberpunk.
As for the planning, it tends to play a strong role in a fair amount of Shadowrun. Shadowrun has a nasty death spiral so it is good to plan around it. Plus the concept of a "run" is based around having a plan, trying to do the plan and then the real fun kicks in when it screws up and you got to improvise. It is quite similar to joy of watching say Ocean 11 film.
Pondering: I am trying to think of my own one to ask but coming up short. Plenty of things I don't like, but I still get why people like it. *grumbles*
Last edited:
fanboy2000
Adventurer
I know what you mean, Shadowrun was the best I could come-up with. Thanks for the explanation. My group seemed to love the planning more than the playing.Pondering: I am trying to think of my own one to ask but coming up short. Plenty of things I don't like, but I still get why people like it. *grumbles*
[aside]My group was looking for someone/some group to blame the run on. The plan involved lots of explosives and I suggested Art students at NYU. Why? Well, you've heard of an installation piece, right? This was a deinstallation piece.[/aside]
Descriptive Critical Misses
Two reasons: 1) Realism. Without descriptive critical misses, I can't imagine that anyone would ever unintentionally drop a weapon or seriously injure themselves under the rule set. 2) It's funny to some people. Remember that odd sense of humor I talked about a with Cthullu kitsch? This is similar.
Now, I'm about to contradict myself: what's up with chaotic neutral? I've seen some people use it as an excuse for getting around a DM imposed "no evil alignments" restriction, so that I understand. But what do people who aren't using it as a loophole like about the alignment?
I can see three possible ones:
1) True Chaos. The "I go with my gut instinct" or "I do stuff at random". See: Crazy bugger. Maybe today they're sweet, maybe tomorrow they're a real ass.
2) Opportunistic. The character is concerned only for his well being. When they see something that can benefit them, they take it - that might be robbing a drunken noble, purely because he's in the wrong place at the wrong time. And when something doesn't benefit them personally, they're not for it. It might be, "Hey, this is the perfect time to flee; you guys are fighting the monster, I can get away just fine."
Another example of the above: Someone with no morals whatsoever. "So, the orphanage is being ransacked by cultists who are going to sacrifice them to Demogorgon." "Yes?" "What're you paying me to stop them?"
3) Someone who's not Evil, but who doesn't balk at evil. The "ends justify the means" type. They'll negotiate/form alliances with LE or NE types. They could be a necromancer (who uses undead, which are evil, to do good things). The "Good? Evil? I'm the guy with the gun" type.
So, what's up with Rolemaster? I understand reading all the funny charts. But having to roll versus six or seven different charts to resolve one action really, really loses me. Where's the attraction, considering the amount of time it takes?
chronoplasm
First Post
Anne Rice.
Okay, there's this saying I like:
"The word monster shares more than just its root with the word demonstrate; monsters represent."
Monsters are symbolic, right?
Well, in the case of Interview with a Vampire and such, vampirism is symbolic of homosexuality.
OK, so here's what I don't get;
Orcs that have nothing to do with Tolkien's orcs.
I seem to remember these guys being industrialized, miltaristic, and created from tortured elves or mud. Apparently they were based on the Germans from WWI or something.
Why do people turn them into noble savage Klingons/Native Americans/Africans?
1) Tolkien's orcs are irredeemable evil monsters. Baby orcs? Evil. You take an orc, give him a bath, take him into civilization, give him a job and a home - and he'll eat your face and play with your innards. So whenever you see orcs you slaughter them, no questions asked.
Some people do not like to play in a game with irredeemable evil and moral absolutism*. Evil humanoids are so due to nurture (culture, environment, personal choice, etc), not nature. But, orcs are still "The bad guy". Or at least, orcs are still "to be fought". In order for orcs to be fought, but not be Pure Evil, then they're given cultures that are warlike (Klingons, Apachi, etc), but are not evil and have depth.
This way, when the PCs kill all the orc warriors and find the women and children, they don't instantly slaughter every last one.
2) Some people like playing orcs. Half-Orcs were in the game in 1e, and in 3e, so they needed something as far as a cultural heritage. An entire race of rape products is boring to some.
3) When you've been playing D&D for the last 20 years, fightin' the same old orcs gets boring. So, the same old orcs get a makeover.
4) Warhammer/Warcraft.
5) Got a better candidate for a Klingon/Noble Savage race, pre-4e?
*Moral absolutism and irredeemable evil in humanoids or more "natural" monsters. Everyone I've seen who doesn't like irredeemable races have nothing wrong with, say, demons/devils being always evil, or saying ghouls are evil, etc.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
