"That's not a realistic elf!"

[Lurks-no-More]

What? I'm just being flighty and frivolous, and elven, and ... hey the Noldor - the HIGH ELVES - behave like that.

Actually, that'd be Sindar, or grey elves; the majority of Rivendell's population was them.

 

[Barastrondo]

This is why "verisimilitude" has gained so much ground as a word to accurately talk about why or why not something may "feel right" to players even if it isn't an attempt to simulate something in reality. It's still the same matter of suspension of disbelief, it's just that you're arguing within the context of a fictional reality instead of our own.

That makes me wonder - Has 10th edition D&D been sued out of existance in the Shadowrun Universe for racial hatemongering? Class-Action lawsuit by all the Orcs and Trolls who have been lynched and persecuted by overzealous fantasy fans...

I seem to recall that orc and troll communities had some nasty things to say about the works of Tolkien, actually. Never saw D&D mentioned, though.

 

[Wik]

I think playing an elf is a lot more like "being Batman." Batman isn't real, but we ascribe certain traits to him. Elvese aren't real. But we expect certain things about them.

QFT. That being said, if someone wanted to play a gnome with an attitude problem that thought he was an orc, or an elf that was allergic to trees, I'd have no problem with it. Because the player obviously wants to play against type, and that's always fun.

I mean, geez. We have so many people in our world that "Play against type", going against cultural norms. I can see an adventuring party (which tends to attract the strange ones; I mean, who in their right mind would want to fight barrow wights at 4th level, when they've already made enough money the first three levels to retire wealthy at 24?) having all sorts of cultural misfits.

Or, maybe that's just my group.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Realism and consistency are two different words.

 

[Wyrmshadows]

I'm firmly in the internal consistancy/versimilitude camp.

There is no way to realistically play an elf save in such a way that is in accordance with the standards of the setting in question. However, having said that, playing too close to form leads to cliche. One of my players loved playing elves and they were always longing for their homeland, drinking elven wine, trumpeting their superiority over "lesser" races, etc.

Eventually I told him..."No more elves."

I know I am heartless but curiously enough, though he had a bit of an obsession with elves, he was far better at playing humans and eventually preferred them over all others.



Wyrmshadows

 

[Lord Xtheth]

No, you can't call it "unrealistic", but I think those kinds of characters - that run counter to the stereotype in every way the player can think of - are beyond lame and show a complete lack of creativity. It's like having a petulant teenager in the party...

Why did the name "Drizzt" just pop into my head?

 

[LoneWolf23]

I mean, if this person plays their elf as interested only in mining, wields an axe, hates trees, drinks ale and who lusts after bearded women... would you say that was "realistic"? Or would you say that they were playing a dwarf in elf's stats?

In an issue of the Gold Digger comic, we got introduced to an Elf who was raised by Dwarves.. While she looked as good as any other elven maiden, she was also as gruff, rowdy and ale-loving as any dwarf.

Of course, what made it work was the backstory, where they explained she was raised as a dwarf, and not as an elf.

 

[Byronic]

I think that such an Elf might be bizarre and perhaps (in the eyes of its race) inflicted with some curse or mental disorder but, not unrealistic. As long as there's a plausible story behind it it's ok

However

Aiming for "realism" in a fantasy game is still hotly debated, as a design objective for this genre, it'is often counterproductive.

Many players don't complain about realism when they're willing to accept the idea of clean, healthy people in a preindustrial society without running water or knowledge of immunology and similar topics. Or the odd fact that many dungeons don't have lavatories. Where do all those orcs and dragons to the bathroom? Combat is debatably the most abstract, least realistic part of the game. Add magic and supernatural powers into the mix and debating realism gets even more shaky.

If my players complain about realism, I give them an encumbrance audit and start tracking rations and water religiously. Not because I'm trying to be a jerk, but because it's a realistic thing within the rules and players usually like to gloss over it.

You mean that your players have never been in danger of dying from thirst or hunger? They never found themselves unable to carry anymore?

Your Goblin lairs don't have rooms encrusted with faeces and dank with urine? Your peasants don't smell?

My dear sir, what odd DnD games you play in.

 

[WayneLigon]

In another, now unfortunately closed, thread on gender, someone brought up the point that you can't really accuse someone of role-playing an elf in an unrealistic manner.

But can't you?

You can play one in an unrealistic manner only by knowing the GM's definition of what elves are in his world. If I get a sheet from my GM that describes elves in a certain way, then playing an elf against type could be just 'playing against type' or it could be playing them unrealistically as elves are defined in that reality.

 

[mmu1]

I don't know, I think that having someone that deliberately plays against type is no more or less creative than those who adhere strictly to an archetype. If you choose to define your character by doing the exact opposite of the assumed standard, you're still using that standard as a yardstick to define your charcter.

Sure, but people who adhere strictly to an archetype are hardly the norm.

Most people just approach the archetype casually and let other aspects of the character - class, personality, NPC contacts, goals, whatever - define that character in a variety of ways.

On the other hand, the person who plays almost exclusively against the archetype too often defines their character in a very shallow way simply based on how that character is different from the stereotype that few others are defined by.

Someone working much too hard on a "rebel" image and doing idiotic things with leather, piercings, tatoos and hair dye is not the direct opposite of your average guy in jeans and a t-shirt, either... he's the direct opposite of some other caricature.

That's been my experience at least.