Decline Character creation screen starts with race selection or worse

[rusty_shackleford]

feel like a lot of you would have a heart attack making a character in menzoberranzan

 

[Kliwer]

Your average oldschool D&D party:

Eric the Fighter, son of a minor noble, learned how to fight cause he's a knight. Goes adventuring for the gold.
Cuthbert the Cleric, servant of a benign deity, goes adventuring to thwart evil.
Robert the Ranger, grew up as a woodsman, goes adventuring cause he likes adventure.
Anastasia the Sorceress, studied magic at the academy, goes adventuring because she seeks knowledge.

Your average modern D&D party:
Gul'kurra'varthul the half-tiefling half-orc fighter, got bullied by his tribe for having purple eyes and a black horn on his forehead, became an adventurer to prove that not all of his race are evil!!
Minara bal'Pharra the tiefling sorceress, she has super sharp black claws and her hair is purple, she goes adventuring to prove how awesome she is!!
Pholoros the gnoll ranger, he's a gnoll because the player is a furry, goes adventuring to roll seduction on any beast race the party encounters.
Sojussus the preachy paladin, goes adventuring to stop racism and sexism, doesn't use detect evil spells because he doesn't believe in the concept of naturally evil races.

Painful truth.

This post comprehensively explains why modern fantasy is crap. And why it never gets better.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Actually, creating an Orc scholar would be interesting in terms of playing with a massive disadvantage.

Come to think of it, why would a moderate or low INT be a disadvantage for a scholar? Have you seen academia? It's not filled with our best and brightest. That seems like a perfectly fitting statistic to me.

Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach. -- George Bernard Shaw

Affirmative action for Orcs in Wizard Academies? Wouldn't surprise me if it's gonna be a thing soon enough in some future RPG.

 

[Reinhardt]

Let me go, 'umiez! I'm esteemed scholar!

 

[Serus]

racial restriction is ok and support worldbuulding

we just have to make human have half the maximum level of elves and dwarves in any class because they are short lived and thus has less time to get mastery than elves and dwarves

That assumes that elf and dwarf minds are developing and functioning exactly like human ones do. In other words that elves and dwarfs are just humans without beards or with bigger beards. And longer life spans.

Sorry, you made a joke and i answered seriously. Oh well, not the firs time.

 

[Darth Canoli]

Your average oldschool D&D party:

Eric the Fighter, son of a minor noble, learned how to fight cause he's a knight. Goes adventuring for the gold.
Cuthbert the Cleric, servant of a benign deity, goes adventuring to thwart evil.
Robert the Ranger, grew up as a woodsman, goes adventuring cause he likes adventure.
Anastasia the Sorceress, studied magic at the academy, goes adventuring because she seeks knowledge.

First party is extremely boring

More like you have been peer pressured into thinking anything that is normal is quaint and boring, because moderns can't understand depth, so they seek meaning and sophistication in breath instead.

Rather than digging deeper into the form and archetype to tap into a more profound and meaningful essence of said form or archetype, moderns think to be "intelligent" is to break the form into a self-defeating quest to be freed of the confines of the relative within the relative itself.

This is the root cause of modern art and this relativization of classes and races in modern RPGs is yet another application of the same mindset, albeit in a more childish form.

Dude, you're confusing generic with deep.
Also, as far as I know, video games are supposed to be entertaining, not to suit your generic tastes.

As for P&P, I've always tried, when possible, to add some spice to my characters, a weakness, a phobia, an antagonist.
If it's childish, so be it, but it's certainly fun.

Samegoes for your background/story, if you can't come up with something interesting, just don't write anything, i prefer an empty background you'd fill as sessions go rather than a generic one.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

being a special snowflake isn't "spice", it's a way to make your character unique without actually doing anything important to stand out

 

[JarlFrank]

I specifically picked some of the most ridiculous character concepts commonly made up by teenagers who wanna be edgy or cool, and yet we still get people in this thread claiming that would be a more "interesting" party than the classic oldschool one lul.

Idk what's interesting about a half-tiefling half-orc with purple eyes who got bullied for being different, or a sorceress with purple hair who feels special for having purple hair.
Those characters wouldn't feel out of place in a fanfic parody like My Immortal.

 

[InSight]

There are two types of RPGs: Dungeons & Dragons and games derived from Dungeons & Dragons.

By the meaning/description the words in "Role Playing Game" implies/describe; children's games of Kings & Knights, Cowboys & Indians, Cops & Thief's, Doctors & Nurses and even these of girls playing/mimicking ladies in a tea party, are all RPG's. They mimic/emulate/simulate roles of human characters.
These predate(since paper was not available constantly to use in games at these time) and thus not derived from Dungeons & Dragons and even the famous fiction books(such as Conan, Lord of the Rings) who's module/framework are most/often/commonly simulated in present RPG's.

Even according to a post in the forum, RPG was copied/taken from Psychology which was used as a treatment method.

 

[DJOGamer PT]

the Absolute demands a level of inherent universal hierarchy to shine through all aspects of Beauty in art, hence we see clearly that Tolkienesque fantasy is superior as it is Art in the sense of celebration of beauty and Truth. It is not about a "setting"(there is no setting) justifying it any more than lies justifying truth or mathematics justifying that 5+6 = 17, it is not possible and it should not be attempted, the setting itself is the meta setting of the context of fantasy adventures and their place within the universally shared human soul-experience that calls for a celebration of the aristocratic and a rejection of the forced equality coming from corrosive forces of capeshit production - which are art as means of material acquisition by the materialists and is therefore not connected to the true underlying experience of the fantastical in aspirational sense of Beauty and transcendence

I can't tell if this is parody or opinion, and that's very concerning

 

[Darth Canoli]

I specifically picked some of the most ridiculous character concepts commonly made up by teenagers who wanna be edgy or cool, and yet we still get people in this thread claiming that would be a more "interesting" party than the classic oldschool one lul.

Idk what's interesting about a half-tiefling half-orc with purple eyes who got bullied for being different, or a sorceress with purple hair who feels special for having purple hair.
Those characters wouldn't feel out of place in a fanfic parody like My Immortal.

I never said I liked those, maybe the gnoll a bit.
You went overboard on purpose, wrath level with the second party though.

I would rather go Gargoyle Barbarian, if some obscure optional rule (or the GM) allows it than Generic fighter #667

 

[JarlFrank]

I would rather go Gargoyle Barbarian, if some obscure optional rule (or the GM) allows it than Generic fighter #667

Eh. I usually play human characters and make them interesting through their backstory and motivation.

The character in my longest-running D&D campaign is a human male fighter who was born into a minor noble house, wasn't the firstborn so not in line for inheritance, had a Romeo and Juliet style secret affair with a woman from a rival house, but was forced to stop it due to the family rivalry. Decided to become a wandering knight to escape the rigid diplomacy of his house, seek fame and fortune elsewhere so he can found his own independent dynasty. He values knightly honor but shows distaste towards petty politics, putting ideals before practical considerations.

Another character is a human female swashbuckler from Zakhara with an arrogant slant and a hunger for gold and glory. She doesn't really care about morals and is willing to engage in some illicit schemes as long as the pay is right. Died in the first session because her greed made her act carelessly in an ancient wizard's tomb: she opened the sarcophagus because there has to be something valuable in there, right? Then got flattened by the angry lich emerging from the grave. RIP

My next character was a human male illusionist using his magic for lowly scam artistry, but he got involved in adventures when his closest friend was killed by evil forces and he decided to use his magic for revenge. Even then, he couldn't quite shake his scam artistry habit and tried to sell some "totally authentic elven artifacts" to the half-elf in the party, who was young and naive and wanted to know more about her elven heritage. That guy was really fun to play.

Human characters have enough potential for interesting variations, you don't need to get weird with beast races to get a character whom the entire group will have fun with.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Dude, you're confusing generic with deep.

No. You are confusing non-generic with deep, which is precisely what i said.

You can only think in terms of "breath" rather than "depth", or at least the moderns do, which is why they cannot see the levels of profoundity inherent in the concept of the medieval "hero" for instance, or that of the "knight" in general, and many other things besides that pertain to traditional cultures that have ended up becoming staples in the "fantasy" genre (this genre bourne out of the nostalgia for the traditional world in the first place).

The knight in shining armor (to continue with this example) is not "generic". It is, at best (or worst), only poorly treated, which doesn't mean you can simply throw the baby with the bathwater, something the moderns just seem to be enhamored in doing. In most cultures, the "ideal" of the knight actually involves some very deep spirituality. To wit, Zen Buddhism, which is a "knightly" branch of this tradition. Or the Baghavad Gita, a book intended for the warrior caste in India.

Meanwhile, there is neither depth nor spirituality in the African-Dwarven teansgender female disabled paladin, unless we are talking about the inverted spirituality of the anti-Christ.

In case anybody is wondering how we ended up with this, it all started with people complaining the traditional roles were "boring":

 

[Harthwain]

I specifically picked some of the most ridiculous character concepts commonly made up by teenagers who wanna be edgy or cool, and yet we still get people in this thread claiming that would be a more "interesting" party than the classic oldschool one lul.

The classic oldschool one is just "Tried & Tired" at this point. I prefer making the classic party with a twist.

 

[DJOGamer PT]

this genre bourne out of the nostalgia for the traditional world in the first place

There is no evindence to suggest that the fantasy genre originated from this basis

Early on most fantasy works where made with children in mind and those stories, like all good fairy tales, were more interested in transmitting a sense of wonder and a good moral lesson than they were with romanticizing "traditional" societies (which many didn't at all)
Outside of that in the adult oriented works, what fantasy authors sought was to deliver riveting tales set in their own fantastical worlds/styles and even perhaps use them to explore X ideas

In fact, I think before the 70's there wasn't yet the clear separation we have today between fantasy and sci-fi. Instead they were both lumped together into one "genre", simply called fiction
Which is why it's so common to find mixture of both elements in the literature of those times, as the authors weren't concerned with the genre's distinctions and intent, only with making good stories...

Besides nostalgia is by definition a sense of longing for a past experience - so it's impossible to be nostalgic for something which you never experienced

 

[Serus]

Wrong. You can be nostalgic about the past even if you didn't experience it personally. Nostalgia usually refers to personal past, yes. It can however be also used to describe one feelings towards imagined past. At least so claim several sources on the internet.
See here for example:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hide-and-seek/201411/the-meaning-nostalgia

Nostalgia is sentimentality for the past, typically for a particular period or place with positive associations, but sometimes also for the past in general, ‘the good old days of yore’.

 

[Maxwell's Demon]

Early on most fantasy works where made with children in mind and those stories, like all good fairy tales, were more interested in transmitting a sense of wonder and a good moral lesson than they were with romanticizing "traditional" societies (which many didn't at all)

Early fairy tales, like those from the brothers Grimm, were anything but moral or child friendly. The form of early fantasy was that of urban legends. If you want to get a sense of how fantasy started, read stuff from the SCP Foundation. In time, the stories with promise were preserved, and they became more refined through repeated telling.

 

[dacencora]

Don’t read SCP stuff unless you’re into Redditor capeshit style SciFi suspense. It had potential when it was first starting but it’s not very good nowadays.

 

[KateMicucci]

The earliest fantasy works are mythology, not children's fairy tales.


If we still lived in a time where children were expected to read the classics in school this wouldn't even be a question. And we'd have fewer wheelchair trans-tieflings.

 

[Maxwell's Demon]

The earliest fantasy works are mythology, not children's fairy tales.

Mythology can't be classified as fantasy, because mythology is intended as an account of the real world. This also applies to many urban legends.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

By the meaning/description the words in "Role Playing Game" implies/describe; children's games of Kings & Knights, Cowboys & Indians, Cops & Thief's, Doctors & Nurses and even these of girls playing/mimicking ladies in a tea party, are all RPG's. They mimic/emulate/simulate roles of human characters.
These predate(since paper was not available constantly to use in games at these time) and thus not derived from Dungeons & Dragons and even the famous fiction books(such as Conan, Lord of the Rings) who's module/framework are most/often/commonly simulated in present RPG's.

Even according to a post in the forum, RPG was copied/taken from Psychology which was used as a treatment method.

As specified in the original Dungeons & Dragons booklets, each player creates a player-character with the role of fighting-man, magic-user, or cleric (or possibly elf, dwarf, or hobbit halfling). Gary Gygax unfortunately then decided to adopt the term "Role-Playing Game", for describing D&D to people from the wargaming community, although the term "role-playing" already had an existence in psychology (and a separate existence in sexual matters) that had nothing to do with D&D. Sadly, a number of people can't seem to grasp the concept that a game genre might be defined by mechanics that are not explicitly described in the genre's name; I suppose these boors also insist that the adventure game genre includes any game with an adventure in it, that the fighting game genre includes any game with fighting in it, or that shoot-'em-ups, shooting games, and shooters are all one genre. Although character-related aspects do form one pillar of RPG mechanics, they are only one of three fundamental aspects, matched by combat and exploration, and even there the term "role-playing" in itself fails to capture the character progression aspect (or even necessarily the character customization, equipment, and inventory elements).

 

[Ismaul]

The earliest fantasy works are mythology, not children's fairy tales.

Mythology can't be classified as fantasy, because mythology is intended as an account of the real world. This also applies to many urban legends.

I agree on your view of mythology being an account of the real world.

But fantasy also works best when it is, well, maybe not trying to explain the world in its entirety or systematically, but at least a certain aspect of what is real. It is, in a way, a derivative of mythology, a diluted version one could say. It's a way to play with the myth in a less serious manner, a step removed from it. That is why fantasy has meaning and holds our interests, because it is tied to the real, to our roots / foundations / origins, to something that is universal in human nature and human experience. Good fantasy is closer to the mythic and the archetypical, bad fantasy lost its connexion to it.

 

[Dorateen]

Tolkien's works from their conception were always meant to be a national mythology for England.

 

[Serus]

Tolkien's works from their conception were always meant to be a national mythology for England.

They certainly weren't meant to by the author. If you make such claim as the one above one you need something more than your honest face to make people to take it seriously.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Tolkien's works from their conception were always meant to be a national mythology for England.

They certainly weren't meant to by the author. If you make such claim as the one above one you need something more than your honest face to make people to take it seriously.

??

I had a mind to make a body of more or less connected legend, ranging from the large and cosmogonic, to the level of romantic fairy-story – the larger founded on the lesser in contact with the earth, the lesser drawing splendour from the vast backcloths – which I could dedicate simply to: to England; to my country.