"You're a half elf? Really?" From the P.A. Podcasts

[Blair Goatsblood]

I'm asking for thirty seconds of effort once in a while to establish an obvious, visible fact about your character.

I don't think it's standard in D&D to regularly describe what your character looks like. The only time I ever notice it with any frequency is when there's a new player in the group and the DM prods the regulars to do so.

 

[lutecius]

Meh, again, I was simply pointing to this as an example. […] But, again, for the umpteenth bloody time, IT WAS AN EXAMPLE.

A bad example, apparently
No one seems to agree that a half-elf couldn't act like a human.

Apparently people seem to think that there is absolutely no differences between genders or ethnicity or race and we're all pretty much just exact carbon copies of each other.

I would point to a whole slew of media and writing that says that you're wrong. That there really are actual differences between, say, men and women. I know it might not be politically correct to say so, but, there really are differences there.

Statistical differences don't mean every black or female has to act according to type or that these differences would automatically come up in a game.

Of course we're not all carbon copies of each other but in many regards, variations between individuals are greater than variations between sexes or races. I find the former more interesting to explore.

Whether fantasy races should come hardwired with behavioural or even cultural baggage is a matter of preference, not good or bad roleplaying.

I've stated that ignoring choices actually hurts the fun at the table because it robs the rest of the players of the chance to role play as well.

I don't think it's true, though. When the difference is chiefly biological (like race or gender), the way it's perceived by others is at least as relevant as your actual behaviour.

I think in most games, a brief description is given when new characters are introduced. At the very least, race and gender are mentioned. If some detail matters to other characters or in the game world in general, I'd say it's up to the DM and other players' to pay attention and roleplay accordingly.

Drow NPCs shouldn't wait for a PC to hug a tree or do something elvish to shout "surface scum!!!". If a player wants his paladin to act chivalrous, he shouldn't need the party's wizard to mention her bbs.

So, if your choice makes zero difference to how you will play this character, why did you make the choice?

Because that's how you like to envision this character. Gender or race could be an important part of his/her personality or about as relevant as hair colour. Every small detail can enhance the experience, not all need to be roleplayed.

Whether in books or rpgs, many details can contribute to fleshing out the characters without being mentioned again after their first appearance. It's not bad writing or bad roleplaying. It's the reader's/players' fault if they miss or forget something.

Race and gender expectations may also cast a different light on a character's actions without defining them. Playing against type actually says something about a character: "with an axe? how un-elvish of him", "wow, she's hitting on the tavern wench".

Then in D&D you also pick a race for the abilities. It's not necessarily power gaming. Sometimes you want to play a character who can see in the dark for the same reason you pick a class… because you like the flavour these abilities add to your character. That doesn't mean you also want to play into the stereotypes associated with said race or class. Of course some come as part of a package (paladins follow a code, drows are distrusted by all, dragonborns look stupid…)

 

[Hussar]

Drow NPCs shouldn't wait for a PC to hug a tree or do something elvish to shout "surface scum!!!". If a player wants his paladin to act chivalrous, he shouldn't need the party's wizard to mention her bbs.

But, if the party's wizard doesn't ever mention that the character is female, how can my chivalrous paladin act chivalrous. If the player was male and never mentioned that the character is female and has a wonky fantasy name that is pretty much gender neutral, why would I even think to ask? There's no reason for me to ask.

Like Bastarondo says, many of the choices we make about a character are aesthetic. There's nothing wrong with that. But, if you fail to communicate that aesthetic, then it only exists in your head. Yeah, it mightn't hurt for other players to ask once in a while, but, it's YOUR character. Role playing your character should include a bit of conveying basic facts to the audience shouldn't it?

Bringing something up once during chargen and then never referencing it again is not exactly stellar role play.

Let's take an innocuous example for a second. My character has a beard. In my mind, when I picture my character he has a beard. It's not important, it certainly has no bearing on any mechanics, it's a purely aesthetic choice. However, if I don't convey the fact that I have a beard, then no one at the table is likely to assume that I have one, and, honestly, they're pretty unlikely to ask either.

So, my image of my character differs from that of the other players. So, a couple of times, perhaps when I'm being pensive, I mention that my character is stroking his beard while deep in thought. Maybe I make some stroking hand gestures as well. A smidgeon of acting at the table.

Now, everyone at the table has a clearer picture of my character. Or at least a mental picture that is more in line with what I am envisioning.

Isn't that a good thing?

So, going back to B's example of a black character. Mention it. Bring it up as an aside from time to time. Not quite sure how in this case to be honest. Pictures work. Presuming that the campaign is bog standard Faux-Euro fantasy, I would imagine that your black character is likely from somewhere else. Bring that up. He's from a desert country, for example.

Now, if the other players don't pick up on things, that's not your fault. All I'm asking for here is the effort. If you bring it up and everyone blows it off, maybe try a second time and if that still doesn't get it across, well, ok, you made the effort, good enough.

But, you certainly lose nothing by making the effort.

 

[Theroc]

Let's take an innocuous example for a second. My character has a beard. In my mind, when I picture my character he has a beard. It's not important, it certainly has no bearing on any mechanics, it's a purely aesthetic choice. However, if I don't convey the fact that I have a beard, then no one at the table is likely to assume that I have one, and, honestly, they're pretty unlikely to ask either.

I would if you said you were a Dwarf. Heck, even Dwarven WOMEN are supposed to have beards, at least according to one Icewind Dale PC game. So, if you say Dwarf, I think beard. So, your example character is probably something besides a Dwarf, I'd say.

But, you certainly lose nothing by making the effort.

Except the time and effort, and quite possibly the frustrations of your effort being wasted on those who ignore it.

I've lurked in the discussion for awhile now, and I sorta agree with Hussar that it's weird that no one noticed, but I also know that I personally dislike having my characters have a great deal of baggage pregenerated. Usually it makes my characters two dimensional because I feel restricted and locked in a straightjacket by the stereotypes or trying to figure out how my character 'should logically act given the various events in their past' adding, 'and their racial problems' as well, could become tedious.

Though, generally I *DO* make the mention in the biography.

But personally, I think this thread has basically run it's course.

Happy gaming all.

 

[MrMyth]

But, you certainly lose nothing by making the effort.

You keep saying this, and keep being wrong. Time spent 'doing what Hussar enjoys' comes at the expense of time spent 'doing what that player enjoys'. Because keep in mind - 30 seconds might be enough to give one small tidbit of info, but it could grow into much larger amounts of time when other people ask for clarification, and gets multiplied by all the tiny elements you feel the player should make known - and gets further multiplied by each player at the table providing their own similar descriptions.

They could instead spend that time roleplaying about the plot, or engaging in discussions that focus on the more important elements of their characters, or any number of other activities. They key is, they should spend that time - however brief - doing what they enjoy, not what you enjoy.

I mean, I think you have good intentions at heart, here - you feel that if more people played this way, it would improve the quality of their game. What I can't understand is how you refuse to accept that other people might disagree, and might have good reasons to want to spend their time focusing on other elements of the game, or other aspects of their character.

Here's an example. My friend is running a game in which I'm playing a character who was an Eladrin, who left the Feywild to help share his culture with the developing human civilization. He ran an academy in the human capital, offering courses in the arts, studies of history and arcana, and similar.

But the game, from Day 1, pretty much cast the party directly into the wilderness and had them vanquishing evil in the wild. Because of that, there hasn't been as many opportunities to focus on certain aspects of his character. I'm sure the rest of the group has an impression of him as a cultured individual, and he has certain habits that reinforce that point (always trying to talk enemies into surrender, waxing eloquent about his many former experiences across the planes, etc).

But there are also many, many background elements that have never come up. Things I wrote up in my character background, thought were cool touches for him, but have never had reason to mention in play. By your argument, this is an issue - why should I come up with such things if they never see the light of the day?

The thing is, I'm certainly still aware of them - they still inform how my character behaves and acts. And while I'm sure I could have found reason to bring them up, there are many times when it would have actively hurt the game for me to do so - in the middle of a session, I could certainly take advantage of a momentary pause while the party rested to start a conversation with the bard about music and the arts. And the two of us might banter back and forth for some time, roleplaying to our hearts content - while the rest of the group had little to contribute and the game session slowed to a crawl. Because we could also be spending that time doing something we all could enjoy or participate in, or advancing the plot, or whatever.

I've seen plenty of RPGA games where a player comes in and has come up with all sorts of background for his character... and runs rampant over the rest of the group as he tries to bring up all these intricate details, and ends up monopolizing much of the roleplaying and character interaction. I've been that player, and realized that there are times when you can be perfectly content knowing your character background and being satisfied with it on your own.

Look, I don't have an issue with you preferring this style of play and feeling more people should try it. My problem is that you genuinely seem to feel it is the only acceptable way to play, and that not doing so automatically means a group is missing out on roleplaying. Can you truly not accept that some people might feel that time is better spent focusing on more important aspects of their character, or roleplaying about the world around them or the plot, rather than about character details that are not important to them?

 

[DracoSuave]

Okay, how -exactly- do you 'roleplay' half-elfiness?

I mean, other than 'My mom had a thing for elves/humans.' If you're raised by elves, you play an elf, if you're raised by humans, you play a human, if you're ostracized, you play a pariah, if you're embraced, you play a well-adjusted individual.

There's no real stereotype you can 'latch on to.' Not to mention 'half-elf' isn't exactly as ingrained in our culture as the fantasy tropes of elf/dwarf/hobbit, so you can't exactly say 'Half-elf' and have an icon of it appear.

So the fact that the guy playing D&D for the first time didn't latch on to a stereotype that doesn't exist in the game or outside of it in the general culture is somehow a marr against roleplaying chops?

Seriously. Think this stuff through, please, as a general rule for life. Last thing we need in this world is more 'you suck' coming from people who assume that everyone should have exactly the same feelings and desires as they do.

 

[Barastrondo]

But, if the party's wizard doesn't ever mention that the character is female, how can my chivalrous paladin act chivalrous. If the player was male and never mentioned that the character is female and has a wonky fantasy name that is pretty much gender neutral, why would I even think to ask? There's no reason for me to ask.

Well, that also says something about the observer. If you tend to assume, unless instructed otherwise, that a character resembles its player in any way save the ways said player specifically says it doesn't, that's your own assumptions at play. And depending on the observer, it can be hard to overcome that initial assumption; lots of people came away from A Wizard of Earthsea thinking of Ged as white.

Like Bastarondo says, many of the choices we make about a character are aesthetic. There's nothing wrong with that. But, if you fail to communicate that aesthetic, then it only exists in your head. Yeah, it mightn't hurt for other players to ask once in a while, but, it's YOUR character. Role playing your character should include a bit of conveying basic facts to the audience shouldn't it?

In theory, yes. However, I don't think people are wrong for doing it otherwise, even if it's not my style, because they might not be into roleplaying in a way that involves the concept of "I have an audience." There are gamers out there who don't particularly care if anybody else at the table thinks it's cool that they're playing an elf: they think it's cool to play an elf, and therefore they do so.

Where my hackles raise is when the word "should" comes into play. Do I think people should give me some sort of description of their character if I ask? Yes. Do I think they should make repeated efforts to get descriptive details across even if nobody else at the table is expressing interest and they're not particularly interested in the process of getting descriptive? Nope. If there is no demand, either on your fellow players' part or your own, I don't think people should be held to that.

Now, everyone at the table has a clearer picture of my character. Or at least a mental picture that is more in line with what I am envisioning.

Isn't that a good thing?

Sure, particularly for specific groups. If there's no demand from your fellow players for description, you can still persevere at it and maybe bring them around to wanting more description if they have a positive experience.

But here's the thing: if you want more details about your fellow characters' appearances, the number-one best way to encourage them to provide them is to ask. Not to tell them how much more fun everyone else would be having if they kept on nudging elements of their character description into conversation: just ask. It is the absolute surest way to make sure that they know there is an audience for that sort of thing. Because if nobody else at their table is asking, there might not be an audience for that sort of thing. And if there isn't — and if a player isn't at the game with the intent of portraying a character for an audience — there's no moral impetus for trying to change things.

Again, I'm basically playing devil's advocate here. I like descriptions. I try to get them out of all my players. But I always ask for descriptions if I don't have the picture straight in my head. If it turns out that somebody's been a half-elf for two sessions and I never noticed, it's at least 50% on me for not inquiring in the first place, or bothering to remember if it did come up.

 

[Hussar]

Mr. Myth - honestly, I think we agree more than we disagree. Sure, if the player is running rampant over the rest of the party, that's a bad thing. Of course and nothing I've said would contradict this. Again, I'm looking for 30 seconds of effort. If you start conversations with the bard and monopolize forty or fifty minutes of game time, that's a problem. But, again, that's totally not what I'm talking about. That's a far extreme.

Keep it to what I'm actually asking about - 30 seconds of effort. Mention small tidbits, from time to time, that give the rest of the group something to hang a mental picture off of.

Now, Barastrondo, you mention the player that simply doesn't care. He doesn't care if anyone else at the table has a mental picture of his character. Would you call him a good role player? If he makes no effort to portray his character in any way other than simply the mechanics ((I am Fytor, I use a sword +2)), would you characterize him as a good role player?

I certainly wouldn't.

 

[DracoSuave]

If he makes no effort to portray his character in any way other than simply the mechanics ((I am Fytor, I use a sword +2)), would you characterize him as a good role player?

I certainly wouldn't.

But is 'good roleplayer' essential for the enjoyment of D&D? Some people are in it for the tactical exercise. Other people are in it for catharsis of one sort or another.

I've had -more- games ruined by obnoxious variants of that guy who gets bent out of shape because another player doesn't have fun in an exacting specific way than I've -ever- had games ruined by someone who decided they didn't want to go into a deep background for their character.

Heck, some players (Including myself on occasion) shun detailed backgrounds because they want the game and their character's reactions to be based on what happens during the -game- shared with other people rather than what happened in your head. Playing a Tabula Rasa in that regard is -not- bad roleplaying at all. It's simply putting your motivation in a more immediate sense, and making the gameplay -itself- the guiding background for your characters.

Some players find they can play more dynamic characters that way, rather than the bad-animesque "I had a traumatic experience in childhood and now I can only ever act in a singular predetermined fashion" that you often see from 'background'-saavy players.

 

[Blair Goatsblood]

Heck, some players (Including myself on occasion) shun detailed backgrounds because they want the game and their character's reactions to be based on what happens during the -game- shared with other people rather than what happened in your head. ......and making the gameplay -itself- the guiding background for your characters.

Bingo, the Game comes before the Story, which itself is a pleasant bonus on top of the primary goal of having fun.