Tropes that need to die

[Raven Crowking]

I have to agree with ProfessorCirno: death to the trope that fighters and their ilk should be non-magical and non-fantastic. It may model Peregrin Took, but it's crap at Fafhrd or Orlando or Jason.

Thanks for the added information.

I think that there is nothing wrong with having a system that can model Pippen, Jason, Conan, and Fafhrd. Conversely, I would rather not play in a system that fails on the Pippen and Conan front. YMMV, and that's okay....that's one of the reasons why there are different games.



RC

 

[Neonchameleon]

Thanks for the added information.

I think that there is nothing wrong with having a system that can model Pippen, Jason, Conan, and Fafhrd. Conversely, I would rather not play in a system that fails on the Pippen and Conan front. YMMV, and that's okay....that's one of the reasons why there are different games.



RC

The thing is that Pippin's easy. He's just low level and other than 4e and falling rules I think there's no edition that can't handle him. It's Conan that's damn hard. Getting someone who can hang with seriously powerful mages because he's Just That Good. And not having it be seen as over the top. Where does Conan end and Fafhrd begin? (High level fighters in just about any edition of D&D are into Fafhrd territory with the oodles of hit points they get - it's just they get there a lot faster in newer ones. And if anything I'd say that pre-3e L1 characters often weren't even in Pippin territory).

(And I should have done my research better before mentioning the story).

 

[Barastrondo]

I think that there is nothing wrong with having a system that can model Pippen, Jason, Conan, and Fafhrd. Conversely, I would rather not play in a system that fails on the Pippen and Conan front. YMMV, and that's okay....that's one of the reasons why there are different games.

I think a system that models Fafhrd can model Conan just fine; Howard certainly wanted Conan to have limitations, but ultimately he was describing a kind of alpha male, top of his class in physical and mental ability.

That said, "modeling" is probably something given to selection bias: you have to specifically go after a subsection of a genre and have a lot of metagaming rules to simulate in-game what ultimately boils down to a lot of authorial fiat on the original writer's part. Without it, we tend to go after what we remember or like most of all. If you have a bad-ass pulp hero in a grim and very mortal setting, it's pretty clear that the author is writing about a setting in which the hero is a clear exception. Some people like to model the setting by making all the PCs in-line with the setting, and assuming heroes of the author's ilk are exceptions even among PCs. Others figure that the point is to play someone like the hero, so every PC is "the exception" within the world, but by default you're assigned the same kind of play experience.

 

[Raven Crowking]

So, one has to wonder, if there is no problem with a system that models Fafhrd, Conan, and Pippen, whysoever should that trope have to die?

It's rather like the discussion about graveyards; if the trope is only nonsensical from a certain point of view, why must it die if you are not using that point of view?

 

[Celebrim]

It's rather like the discussion about graveyards; if the trope is only nonsensical from a certain point of view, why must it die if you are not using that point of view?

This exactly. Whenever something appears to be nonsense, you need to consider closely whether it is you or the one you accuse of nonsense that isn't thinking deeply enough about the matter. In the case of a fantasy graveyard, it might well be that the writer hasn't considered the question, "Why bury things in a graveyard if you have certain knowledge that undead exist?", but it may be that the writer has considered that and you just haven't considered the answer.

The truth of the matter is that since this is a fantasy, the answer to almost any question depends strongly on the assumptions you make about how the fantasy universe and undead work. Graveyards may or may not be in context nonsensical, but without some knowledge of the universe we can't really say one way or the other. However, the upshot of this is that in anything but the most well described universe, its always pretty easy to post-hoc rationalize anything in a fantasy setting simply by inventing the rules.

 

[Barastrondo]

So, one has to wonder, if there is no problem with a system that models Fafhrd, Conan, and Pippen, whysoever should that trope have to die?

"Only magical characters can be truly fantastic, but you can play a non-magical character" isn't the same thing as "a system that models Fafhrd, Conan and Pippin." A system that models all three of the above allows non-magical characters to be fantastic. For example, if using HERO System, Pippin might be about a 50-150 point character, and Conan or Fafhrd about 125-250, maybe more, depending on when you picked up on their careers. The trope that's being criticized is not the existence of the HERO System itself. It would be the equivalent of saying "you can't buy your attacks over 5 DC if you don't have the special effect of being magical," or putting a 150-point point cap on non-magical characters while levying no cap on magical characters.

The trope under fire is one that promotes non-magical heroes as part of the source of inspiration but relegates them to a "mundane" role in a game. It's a game that tells you "Why yes, you can do something like the Hyborean or Newhon stories" but then mechanically sorts things out so that the sorcerers trump the swords. If magicians and magical weapons are the real power in a setting, that's fine: but act like Ars Magica or Stormbringer, and announce it up front. Don't pretend that you're inspired by Howard and Leiber.

(Edit: Okay, that last sentence is probably unfair, but that is really more going back to the idea that you can be inspired by a work in which the hero is an exceptional being in two very different ways: by assuming that all the PCs are exceptional, like the hero, or by assuming that the PCs are typical of the world, and they aren't intended to be emulating the hero's prowess. Playing a mook in Hyborea can be fun, but the GM should be very up-front about the fact that you aren't going to be having the Conan experience.)

 

[WizarDru]

Personally, I think the trend to try and classify EVERYTHING as a trope is what needs to die. I loathe TV Tropes, which tries to shoehorn every single concept every thought of by man as a 'trope', no matter how much effort it takes to force it in there.

I recognize that D&D has plenty of tropes, recurring themes and the like. Individual mileage will obviously vary, but I like most of them, when handled well. It's only when folks aren't having fun that I think they need to be disposed of.

 

[Raven Crowking]

"Only magical characters can be truly fantastic, but you can play a non-magical character" isn't the same thing as "a system that models Fafhrd, Conan and Pippin."

I think that you are conflating more than one meaning of "fantastic" here.

For the sake of discussion, I think we might consider coming up with some common definitions. "Mundane", as I am using it, means "not coming from a supernatural source". "Magical" means "coming from a supernatural source". I think we could add a working definition of "Fantastic" (in this context) as "Not considered likely or possible in the real world; that which would tend to confound belief if claimed for the real world".

By these definitions, this thread has already demonstrated (IMHO) that elements which some might find unlikely or impossible in the real world have, indeed, been part and parcel of the real world.

When I was a child, it was gospel that we would never find soft tissue from a dinosaur, never be able to detect extra-solar planets from our solar system, and never know what colour any part of a dinosaur was. Yet, all of these things have now come to pass, within a relatively short span of time.

So, what qualifies as "Fantastic" is, of course, based both upon the individual and the perspective of society at the time. I would agree that a system that models all three of the above must allow non-magical characters to be fantastic, if (and only if) one is prepared to also accept that the real world has contained (and likely contains right now) "Fantastic" people and events.

The trope under fire is

For you, perhaps, but I jumped into this part of the debate in response to some pretty black-and-white statements about what can, and what cannot, be done in a game.

What you go on to describe isn't a trope, but bad game design (i.e., game design that fails to live up to its goals). I am not going to comment on whether or not any particular game fails in the way you suggest, except to say that I think the claim (in general) exceeds the actual failure, IMHO and IME.

AFAICT, and IMHO, "I dislike games that promise X, but then fail to deliver on that promise" isn't a contentious statement, regardless of what X is. That hardly needs a rebuttal!

Personally, I think the trend to try and classify EVERYTHING as a trope is what needs to die.

Hear, hear!



RC

 

[Hussar]

Meh, this is a trend that's existed for pretty much as long as we've been able to communicate. Classifying and categorizing is a basic reaction to any complex system. The problem is thinking that classifying will always be a perfect fit and that all things must fit within a given classification and thus cannot be in two different classes at the same time.

There's nothing wrong with a trope in and of itself. And I don't think anyone is claiming that there is.

The problem comes when the tropes become so cliche or restrictive that they harm the experience. Thus the trope of "All non magical characters cannot be fantastic" is one that people do have problems with. People want non magical characters that are fantastic.

And then, you have the debate on what actually constitutes fantastic. If someone is crucified, hung out to dry for a day or two, then cut down roughly and stuck on a horse to hard gallop for several hours and suffers no permanent damage, is that fantastic or not? Is being able to handle the One Ring without temptation for months or even years fantastic or not? On and on.

And it does get hard to tell the difference sometimes.

 

[lin_fusan]

I think the real problem comes from when a trope is adopted into a story or campaign without realizing its context or origins.

Using the OP's example of the haunted graveyard, I think the trope is being seen in the wrong way. The graveyard is a fixture of life, nearly universal if different in other cultures, and is assumed to be part of a town or village. Then the idea of the walking dead or gravediggers or the like comes around, and now it sounds like a spooky, gothic adventure.

But after nearly 20 years of D&D, it has become such a staple, astute players and GMs start to deconstruct the idea and wonder, like OP has done, why anyone would want to have a graveyard when it is the main source of undead.

So the solution is not to blindly take a trope, but to see how it fits in your campaign world. The OP has decided to choose the make the trope so ubiquitous, that even the NPCs are aware of it and adjust their culture accordingly by eliminating graveyards.

Other people have suggested that it's not graveyards that are the problem, but it's the lack of consecration. So now you can keep your graveyards, but people or clerics now know a ritual that prevent undead from rising.

By examining the origins or context of the trope, it gives you a place to add detail to fix what you might see as a plot hole, and the result is that you end up adding depth to your setting.

So I say that a trope's fine, it's blindly adopting a trope that's the problem.