Tropes that need to die

[Hussar]

You could always feed the corpses to something. Of course, then you might get some sort of excremental undead. That would really stink.

One of the D&D tropes that I would like to see die is the whole "My character is an orphan sprung fully formed without a single attachment anywhere in the world". I know that if I lived in a D&D world and any offspring that I had showed the slightest inclination to becoming an adventurer, I'd take the little bastard out and drown him forthwith. Every family member of a PC is either dead, eaten or kidnapped, sometimes all three and possibly in that order.

 

[invokethehojo]

Nothing's ever stopped me from pursuing goals like these in any game I've played.

This is what I get for posting quickly while at work. I should've explained myself in more detail. In 1st edition (and maybe 2nd, don't really remember) you had a goal of acquiring money to build a stronghold, or rise to the top of the druidic order. Now D&D and Pathfinder at least, assume that all the money you aquire will go directly to magic items because those are things you must have in order to keep up with the monsters that are appropriate to your level. Money has essentially become part of all character classes, and I don't like that, because if I want to run a campaign based around characters being in the military or on a privateer ship (or in any situation where I don't want them to constantly have a lot of money available) I really can't. They have to be adventurers, seeking treasure wherever they go. I don't think adventureres shouldn't exist, I think they should be relegated to one of many choices, however with the current trope that doesn't seem viable... that's what should die.

 

[Mercurius]

It isn't the tropes themselves that get outworn, it is how they are used.

A "trope" is basically analogous to "cliche," which is a kind of superficial variant on an archetype. We don't want to get rid of archetypes but we don't want our cliches/tropes (i.e. specific forms that archetypes take within a given context) to get old.

Another form of trope which I haven't seen mentioned is the "changing an archetype for the sake of novelty or to distance oneself from another's version of said archetype." An example would be Gygaxian elves - you know, the ones that are 5' and basically pointy-eared lesser versions of Tolkien's elves. This is a trope that I'm glad to see dead and gone (at least with later editions of D&D).

Related to this is "the old classic with a twist." This can be good but often it is just...silly. Like sea-faring dwarves or savage halfings or schizophrenic intelligent swords (OK, the last is kind of cool).

In a sense I'm talking about two extremes: The first being the superficial cliche that offers nothing new or fresh and is basically a derivation of derivative material; the second is the cliche of difference-for-difference sake. Somewhere between the two is the archetype: a symbol that has many possible forms, but in order for it to come alive it needs to have a kind of depth and subtlety, and a connection to the universal.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Conan and Fafrd are from what I recall significantly less realistic than most Holywood blockbuster action heroes

I suppose that depends upon what you mean by "Conan". When I say "Conan", I refer to nothing apart from the stories written by Robert E. Howard....as written by Robert E. Howard (as opposed to pastiches and poor, but perhaps well-meaning, edits after his death).

(others have given specifics).

Can you point those out to me, please?



RC

 

[Stalker0]

Selection bias - modules don't tend to detail that which isn't tactically interesting or plot-related. Tell me how many outhouses do you see in modules that don't have treasure or an otyugh or other monster in the muck?

While I agree with the point, aren't Troupes by their definition a creation of selection bias?

 

[Thasmodious]

Money has essentially become part of all character classes, and I don't like that, because if I want to run a campaign based around characters being in the military or on a privateer ship (or in any situation where I don't want them to constantly have a lot of money available) I really can't.

Of course you can. That's why it's called Dungeon Master.

The information isn't presented as a requirement, the math is just exposed. You're told what the baseline is and are free to adjust as you see fit. When a party of x level is balanced to face a monster of y level, it is based on certain assumptions about the power levels of the PCs (so was 1e/2e, the difference is in access to those assumptions). If that power level is different, adjustments can be made. But to say "you can't do that" is absurd.

 

[invokethehojo]

Of course you can. That's why it's called Dungeon Master.

The information isn't presented as a requirement, the math is just exposed. You're told what the baseline is and are free to adjust as you see fit. When a party of x level is balanced to face a monster of y level, it is based on certain assumptions about the power levels of the PCs (so was 1e/2e, the difference is in access to those assumptions). If that power level is different, adjustments can be made. But to say "you can't do that" is absurd.

Excuse me, I can do that, but considering that I already have a lot to do as the DM, I would prefer the guys who get paid to design games did the work of rewriting rules for me, so I don't have to, but this is getting off topic so lets just drop it.

 

[Thasmodious]

Excuse me, I can do that, but considering that I already have a lot to do as the DM, I would prefer the guys who get paid to design games did the work of rewriting rules for me, so I don't have to, but this is getting off topic so lets just drop it.

The point is that the math behind the system is shown to you in the later editions. It was there in the earlier editions as well. Module writers and designers used a set of assumptions on PC power and party makeup. With the information, you can run your game to suit your needs with predictable, balanced results. Information is a good thing.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I suppose that depends upon what you mean by "Conan". When I say "Conan", I refer to nothing apart from the stories written by Robert E. Howard....as written by Robert E. Howard (as opposed to pastiches and poor, but perhaps well-meaning, edits after his death).

I'm not sure which I've read is actual REH.

Can you point those out to me, please?

Fafhrd is so mundane he grabbed a lit rocket under either arm and made a rocket-propelled ski jump over an immense crevasse while his beard was still coming in. And was a god once or twice, if only for a little bit. I'm also glad to see that "not magically empowered" doesn't mean "mundane" myself these days; a lot of those early fantasy swordsmen who got by on strength and cunning had rather a lot more of it than was entirely feasible.

 

[Harlekin]

This is what I get for posting quickly while at work. I should've explained myself in more detail. In 1st edition (and maybe 2nd, don't really remember) you had a goal of acquiring money to build a stronghold, or rise to the top of the druidic order. Now D&D and Pathfinder at least, assume that all the money you aquire will go directly to magic items because those are things you must have in order to keep up with the monsters that are appropriate to your level. Money has essentially become part of all character classes, and I don't like that, because if I want to run a campaign based around characters being in the military or on a privateer ship (or in any situation where I don't want them to constantly have a lot of money available) I really can't. They have to be adventurers, seeking treasure wherever they go. I don't think adventureres shouldn't exist, I think they should be relegated to one of many choices, however with the current trope that doesn't seem viable... that's what should die.

Play 4th and use inherent boni? Suddenly you can do without any magic items and hand out as much money as you want.