Edena_of_Neith
First Post
(more slowly, musing)
Pardons all, but sometimes you mull on something, and you can't figure out a good answer, and it frustrates. When I was young, I would never have thought on this. I would have just played. But now ... well, I'm taking the time to mull it over.
Think of chess. You know that game's got rules, tight and set, right? Now, think of Knightmare Chess. It is quite a wild variant on chess, and I doubt most chess players would ever call it chess, but it has it's own rules too. Wild rules, but still rules.
Now imagine that we sat down to play chess, but you could move any piece in any way you wanted, period (such as: I take your king with my king on the first move. Checkmate. End of game. Let's do that again, and I move first again!) That would be boring and pointless, at least to me. I think others would agree.
If D&D has no rules, then it has that lack of meaning I just described above.
I think of roleplaying as really fun, but I need a rulesset to base it on. Even mindgaming, as loosely based on rules as it is, is still based on rules.
Now, we have 3.5, plus errata, as our standard set of rules. Plus the optional 3.5 rules. And the 3rd party 3.5 rules.
We also have core 3.0, optional 3.0, and 3rd party 3.0.
We have core 2nd edition and optional 2nd edition.
We have core 1st edition and optional 2nd edition.
We have OD&D, with all the cumulative supplements up to the Rules Cyclopedia.
Everyone has their own preference for what rulesset they will use. Officially, core 3.5 and the errata are used, but in home games anything goes. As it should be, right?
In my case, I prefer the core 3.0, optional 3.0, and 3rd party 3.0, plus a lot of 3.5 retroactively translated to 3.0, and a lot of 1st and 2nd edition brought forward to 3.0. That is my 'best' version of D&D (although I would never sic that on my players. Not fair to them, unless they know it all as well.)
Now. elves are my favorite race. Really. Sincerely, they are. What I call an elf, probably doesn't match what you call an elf, but they are close enough to have ... similarities.
So why am I dissing elves?
When I look at elves, through the prizm of OD&D, or 1st edition, 2nd edition, 3.0, 3.5, optional rules, 3rd party rules (even the dreaded 2nd edition Complete Book of Elves
) I see them fall short. I see them fail. I do not see them as I envision them.
Then I read the novels, and of course elves - in their nobility, their occasionally utter stupidity and arrogance, their tragedy, their heroism, their folly - fall short and collapse. Heh. That is the Writer's Prerogative, to do exactly as he or she wishes with his or her conceptions! But I wish my favorite race could do better nonetheless.
And here are all these rules (you call them spells) and now the open architecture of 3.0 and 3.5, and all these options (optional rules, 3rd party rules) and all this neat stuff from previous editions (3.0, 2nd, 1st, OD&D) and I think: I can make elves work.
I can make elves flighty and frivolous, wasters of time, living in trees, eating berries, and otherwise doing nothing that a race 'should' be doing to win in a competitive environment, and still make them come out on top. They can still be King and Queen of the Hill. Which is where *my* favorite race should be!
Then, after working out the framework within the rules, I run into problems involving Fluff (elven psychology, background, and so on.) And that has stumped me.
I mean, you just can't have a bunch of Merry Killers. Chaotic Good guys can't butcher whole populations and destroy entire regions, and still be Chaotic Good. Or can they? Beats me ... never found an answer.
The game designers come up with these horrific opponents, such as the phaerimm. Or have a look at Upper Krust's Epic Bestiary. (A fine product, if ever there was one. Cheers, Upper Krust! ) And I think: how do my poor elves beat those guys?
So I come to you. On ENWorld are some of the best and most creative people in the hobby.
I present the problem (badly, I suppose, and I am trying to clarify it now.)
I just wonder what thoughts you've given to the matter.
Why would you give thoughts on the matter? Because most of you are DMs, and you've had to create your own campaign world, and it's a lot of work! And somewhere along the line, you've had to find a place (or maybe not) for the elves in your setting.
So yeah, I welcome your thoughts.
I still think the answer lies within the giant mess of all those rules (even though many contradict each other) from all 5 versions of the game and the optional material. That's the way I work ... if some dastardly rule exists (such as Agnakoks) then use it, I say! (heh ... if one can Castle in Chess, use that rule too! I'm a lousy chess player, though ...)
Thus you hear of Lifeproof, Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion, Regenerate, Nymph's Aura, and other such stuff.
Again, it's a matter of meaning. If it's in the rules at least somewhere, it has meaning. If I make it up out of the blue, it does not have meaning to me ... unless I can tie it in closely with a rule (such as, the elves of Haldendrea laying a Mythal that affected them, instead of their surroundings.)
I see the classic portrayals of elves, I like some of those portrayals, I look up elves and how they work in the game, and the two do not match. (as you would expect.)
But I think I can make them match. And then, I can play elves with a greater sense of satisfaction.
What goes for elves, extends to dwarves and gnomes and halflings and others. It alters the campaign world. And that's ok. It's no longer Canon, but it's ok.
In Canon Athas (Dark Sun), Rajak crushed the elves. But perhaps if the elves had a logical way, within the rules, of matching him in strength, they could have crushed him.
In a book, we accept what we read (sometimes we do, at least!) Rivendell is Rivendell. If Glorfindel can ride out to face the Nine, so be it. Films are usually the same (although I'm guessing a lot of you doubt Arwen could have riden out to face the Nine ...)
However, as a DM, I always ask for the Why of things. And the rules are the only thing to use to gain any answers to that question (for, after all, the rules are - as said - the basic skeletal framework for it all.) Start with the rules, then build up from there. Or start with the rules that you think are appropriate for your setting (be it OD&D or 3.5) and build from there.
Pardons all, but sometimes you mull on something, and you can't figure out a good answer, and it frustrates. When I was young, I would never have thought on this. I would have just played. But now ... well, I'm taking the time to mull it over.
Think of chess. You know that game's got rules, tight and set, right? Now, think of Knightmare Chess. It is quite a wild variant on chess, and I doubt most chess players would ever call it chess, but it has it's own rules too. Wild rules, but still rules.
Now imagine that we sat down to play chess, but you could move any piece in any way you wanted, period (such as: I take your king with my king on the first move. Checkmate. End of game. Let's do that again, and I move first again!) That would be boring and pointless, at least to me. I think others would agree.
If D&D has no rules, then it has that lack of meaning I just described above.
I think of roleplaying as really fun, but I need a rulesset to base it on. Even mindgaming, as loosely based on rules as it is, is still based on rules.
Now, we have 3.5, plus errata, as our standard set of rules. Plus the optional 3.5 rules. And the 3rd party 3.5 rules.
We also have core 3.0, optional 3.0, and 3rd party 3.0.
We have core 2nd edition and optional 2nd edition.
We have core 1st edition and optional 2nd edition.
We have OD&D, with all the cumulative supplements up to the Rules Cyclopedia.
Everyone has their own preference for what rulesset they will use. Officially, core 3.5 and the errata are used, but in home games anything goes. As it should be, right?
In my case, I prefer the core 3.0, optional 3.0, and 3rd party 3.0, plus a lot of 3.5 retroactively translated to 3.0, and a lot of 1st and 2nd edition brought forward to 3.0. That is my 'best' version of D&D (although I would never sic that on my players. Not fair to them, unless they know it all as well.)
Now. elves are my favorite race. Really. Sincerely, they are. What I call an elf, probably doesn't match what you call an elf, but they are close enough to have ... similarities.
So why am I dissing elves?
When I look at elves, through the prizm of OD&D, or 1st edition, 2nd edition, 3.0, 3.5, optional rules, 3rd party rules (even the dreaded 2nd edition Complete Book of Elves
) I see them fall short. I see them fail. I do not see them as I envision them.Then I read the novels, and of course elves - in their nobility, their occasionally utter stupidity and arrogance, their tragedy, their heroism, their folly - fall short and collapse. Heh. That is the Writer's Prerogative, to do exactly as he or she wishes with his or her conceptions! But I wish my favorite race could do better nonetheless.
And here are all these rules (you call them spells) and now the open architecture of 3.0 and 3.5, and all these options (optional rules, 3rd party rules) and all this neat stuff from previous editions (3.0, 2nd, 1st, OD&D) and I think: I can make elves work.
I can make elves flighty and frivolous, wasters of time, living in trees, eating berries, and otherwise doing nothing that a race 'should' be doing to win in a competitive environment, and still make them come out on top. They can still be King and Queen of the Hill. Which is where *my* favorite race should be!
Then, after working out the framework within the rules, I run into problems involving Fluff (elven psychology, background, and so on.) And that has stumped me.
I mean, you just can't have a bunch of Merry Killers. Chaotic Good guys can't butcher whole populations and destroy entire regions, and still be Chaotic Good. Or can they? Beats me ... never found an answer.
The game designers come up with these horrific opponents, such as the phaerimm. Or have a look at Upper Krust's Epic Bestiary. (A fine product, if ever there was one. Cheers, Upper Krust!
) And I think: how do my poor elves beat those guys?So I come to you. On ENWorld are some of the best and most creative people in the hobby.
I present the problem (badly, I suppose, and I am trying to clarify it now.)
I just wonder what thoughts you've given to the matter.
Why would you give thoughts on the matter? Because most of you are DMs, and you've had to create your own campaign world, and it's a lot of work! And somewhere along the line, you've had to find a place (or maybe not) for the elves in your setting.
So yeah, I welcome your thoughts.
I still think the answer lies within the giant mess of all those rules (even though many contradict each other) from all 5 versions of the game and the optional material. That's the way I work ... if some dastardly rule exists (such as Agnakoks) then use it, I say! (heh ... if one can Castle in Chess, use that rule too! I'm a lousy chess player, though ...)
Thus you hear of Lifeproof, Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion, Regenerate, Nymph's Aura, and other such stuff.
Again, it's a matter of meaning. If it's in the rules at least somewhere, it has meaning. If I make it up out of the blue, it does not have meaning to me ... unless I can tie it in closely with a rule (such as, the elves of Haldendrea laying a Mythal that affected them, instead of their surroundings.)
I see the classic portrayals of elves, I like some of those portrayals, I look up elves and how they work in the game, and the two do not match. (as you would expect.)
But I think I can make them match. And then, I can play elves with a greater sense of satisfaction.
What goes for elves, extends to dwarves and gnomes and halflings and others. It alters the campaign world. And that's ok. It's no longer Canon, but it's ok.
In Canon Athas (Dark Sun), Rajak crushed the elves. But perhaps if the elves had a logical way, within the rules, of matching him in strength, they could have crushed him.
In a book, we accept what we read (sometimes we do, at least!) Rivendell is Rivendell. If Glorfindel can ride out to face the Nine, so be it. Films are usually the same (although I'm guessing a lot of you doubt Arwen could have riden out to face the Nine ...)
However, as a DM, I always ask for the Why of things. And the rules are the only thing to use to gain any answers to that question (for, after all, the rules are - as said - the basic skeletal framework for it all.) Start with the rules, then build up from there. Or start with the rules that you think are appropriate for your setting (be it OD&D or 3.5) and build from there.
