Too many ingredients make the soup flavorless?
- Thread starter Li Shenron
- Start date
Arrgh! Mark!
First Post
I definately side with the more options = less flavour.
My players think the opposite. And then they wonder why when they all play Australians (But not those Tasmanians, can't stand them) in a Godlike game, their characters are different and interesting. They actually care about their teammates and stay the hell out of dangerous situations.
(It probably helps that despite superpowers, two rolled tens from a rifle can kill instantly.)
And when they play a half-dragon cleric/wizard, an Aasimar paladin, and some form of spiked demon thing, their interactions towards one another are rather boring and trite. The paladin goes out of his way to sacrifice himself for a cause, the half-dragon can't be beat and wanders off by himself. Despite a plot they all agree is cool and interesting, their own lack of interest in their characters is what dooms the campaign. Then they come back as humans and enjoy themselves.
I think options are interesting. But I think they actively work against character interest. Now, I enjoy a lack of class restriction in 3e. That is good. And it's quite interesting.
Hmm. I think every campaign should be restricted, simply because it creates characters and not half-hearted humanised archetypes with extra bits.
To go back to my Godlike game, as an example. We all played Aussies, which was good. Every character had his thing and a nice bit of story to share with the others. Letters from home and stuff were good.
Now, a few characters died. This is fair enough. But the main problem was the fact I allowed other allied Talents in. We then had a few brits. Oddly, they were all tea-drinking accented types. I couldn't distinguish between their personality. Players didn't make a british character, they made a british soldier archetype. I had three of exactly the same archetype.
With that in mind, the Australian characters became more archetypical. More "Crikey", "G'Day", and so on were to be seen.
even from the limp wristed sydney radioman who would never have said "Crikey" in his life.
So anyway, IMHO, restriction breeds roleplaying more than options, which tend to polarise what characters you have and turn everything into an archetype.
My players think the opposite. And then they wonder why when they all play Australians (But not those Tasmanians, can't stand them) in a Godlike game, their characters are different and interesting. They actually care about their teammates and stay the hell out of dangerous situations.
(It probably helps that despite superpowers, two rolled tens from a rifle can kill instantly.)
And when they play a half-dragon cleric/wizard, an Aasimar paladin, and some form of spiked demon thing, their interactions towards one another are rather boring and trite. The paladin goes out of his way to sacrifice himself for a cause, the half-dragon can't be beat and wanders off by himself. Despite a plot they all agree is cool and interesting, their own lack of interest in their characters is what dooms the campaign. Then they come back as humans and enjoy themselves.
I think options are interesting. But I think they actively work against character interest. Now, I enjoy a lack of class restriction in 3e. That is good. And it's quite interesting.
Hmm. I think every campaign should be restricted, simply because it creates characters and not half-hearted humanised archetypes with extra bits.
To go back to my Godlike game, as an example. We all played Aussies, which was good. Every character had his thing and a nice bit of story to share with the others. Letters from home and stuff were good.
Now, a few characters died. This is fair enough. But the main problem was the fact I allowed other allied Talents in. We then had a few brits. Oddly, they were all tea-drinking accented types. I couldn't distinguish between their personality. Players didn't make a british character, they made a british soldier archetype. I had three of exactly the same archetype.
With that in mind, the Australian characters became more archetypical. More "Crikey", "G'Day", and so on were to be seen.
even from the limp wristed sydney radioman who would never have said "Crikey" in his life.
So anyway, IMHO, restriction breeds roleplaying more than options, which tend to polarise what characters you have and turn everything into an archetype.
Zappo
Explorer
I agree that too much stuff ruins the flavor. But the only thing DMs need to do is to put their foot down about what can be used and why. In my Warcraft campaign, I only allow stuff from the Warcraft and core books by default. No initiates of the sevenfold veil, no fists of raziel, no hobgoblins, no half-dragons. Anything that isn't in the Warcraft or core books will only be allowed if it is exceptionally coherent with the setting.
You point to the problem that elves aren't much more than humans with +2 dex and -2 con. They have much the same class distribution and roles as humans. I think that this is a problem for the DM to solve. Make your elven society highly magical, give their armies thousands of archers and few heavy troops, create elven nations where most people have one or two levels of Wizard.
But don't complain if PCs don't follow the archetypes. Some players like archetypes, but many don't, and even if all of your elves had wizard levels and the elf PC was a straight warrior - even then, there would be nothing wrong with the player, the PC, the rules or the game. PCs are exceptional individuals by definition. They don't have to follow the dominant flavor. That's the DM's job.
You point to the problem that elves aren't much more than humans with +2 dex and -2 con. They have much the same class distribution and roles as humans. I think that this is a problem for the DM to solve. Make your elven society highly magical, give their armies thousands of archers and few heavy troops, create elven nations where most people have one or two levels of Wizard.
But don't complain if PCs don't follow the archetypes. Some players like archetypes, but many don't, and even if all of your elves had wizard levels and the elf PC was a straight warrior - even then, there would be nothing wrong with the player, the PC, the rules or the game. PCs are exceptional individuals by definition. They don't have to follow the dominant flavor. That's the DM's job.
I'm not going to give any consideration at all to the namby-pamby "Let's All Agree That There Are Many Ways To Play" perspective. Baloney. That sort of all-inclusive attitude has diluted any sense of fantasy race (and class); we've forgotten who our PCs are and where they come from.
I agree with the original post here that we've created a new cliche by trying to act against what we believed were old cliches, the so-called "racial archetype." Instead of turning out backs on the richness that is an "elf," for example, or "bard" concept, we should have been embracing those traditional backgrounds!
And anyone who says otherwise is a stinkin' liberal.
I agree with the original post here that we've created a new cliche by trying to act against what we believed were old cliches, the so-called "racial archetype." Instead of turning out backs on the richness that is an "elf," for example, or "bard" concept, we should have been embracing those traditional backgrounds!
And anyone who says otherwise is a stinkin' liberal.
Kanegrundar
Explorer
Thanks, Driddle. You gave me my first really good laugh today!
Kane
Kane
Dr. Strangemonkey
First Post
Personally I'm a huge huge fan of 'tossed salad' genres and play styles. Samurai Champloo, for instance, has really grabbed my attention recently. I love having monks, druids, gun mages, and sha'ir's all running around the same campaign.
So I came into this thread thinking that I was going to be in the opposition.
But I'm not certain that I can't empathize with the original poster's complaint.
I suppose for me the distinction is one between diluting a soup with too many ingredients, which I tend to think that done right can't really be done, and diluting the actual ingredients themselves. Cause while I personally would elves running around with everything else under the sun I would still want them to be elves.
So I came into this thread thinking that I was going to be in the opposition.
But I'm not certain that I can't empathize with the original poster's complaint.
I suppose for me the distinction is one between diluting a soup with too many ingredients, which I tend to think that done right can't really be done, and diluting the actual ingredients themselves. Cause while I personally would elves running around with everything else under the sun I would still want them to be elves.
