Could not agree more. The Kara Tur boxed set from second edition was the worst offender I ever saw - literally every country they gave had a direct real world analogue. It was like they wanted to make a game set in Asia and add monsters, but they thought it wouldn't sell so they slapped a Forgotten Realms label on it and shipped it.
I think that orginally Kara-Tur setting was introduced in first Oriental Adventures by Gary Gygax and later glued to Forgotten Realms.
One important factor in favor of Kara-Tur for me is that it mixes the same nations from different periods next to each other allowing for moving between them which would not be possible in real world. Wa and Kozakura, Shou Lung and Tu Lung...
|
It was like they wanted to make a game set in Asia and add monsters, but they thought it wouldn't sell so they slapped a Forgotten Realms label on it and shipped it.
As Drejk above said; Kara-Tur was introduced as the setting for the 1st edition Oriental Adventures book by Gary Gygax back in 1985. After the Forgotten Realms was released in 1987, TSR retrofitted several products that when originally released were never a part of the Forgotten Realms (so it wasn't just Kara-Tur that got slapped with a "Forgotten Realms" label)...
If I recall correctly, one of the things they had to do to fit Kara-Tur onto Toril was to basically shrink the map by cutting all distances down to 10% of what they were in the Oriental Adventures book.
I'm not a big fan of xorn and other creatures that can borrow through solid rock at the speed of a man walking (sometimes much faster). For that matter, I don't like passwall spells or magic that allows one to swim through rock as if it was water. I like to portray dirt and stone as efficient barriers against intruders, and use this as a reason for people to built underground fortresses.
I also don't like creatures that seem to come directly out of a horror/sci-fi movie. I enjoy the Norwegian ogres and troll weirdness, I actually like the greco-roman griffons, sphinxes and other let's-take-a-bit-of-this-creature-and-slap-it-on-top-of-that-creature, and don't mind the ancient giant lizards that breath fire and spit acid. I don't even mind your typical balrog-looking demon and gargoyle-ish devil, but don't care much for elemental denizen and underdark weirdness. Yogoloth (or deamons) and Cthulhu-esque are cool, but not for my fantasy game.
Things I don't like in my Fantasy RPGs:
1.- Psionics.
2.- Crystal-powered Technology. Seriously. Had enough with the Exodar.
3.- Dinosaurs.
|
Midnight is a setting that can be used with PF rules quite easily (in fact races are boosted up when comparing to 3.5 and come closer to PF). It is also completely different setting than Golarion - the closest description to it would be what was the Middle-Earth feel if the Sauron won and submitted the world to own order.
I've seen people talk about Midnight a few times, but I never see a link to anything, and no search I ever make turns up anything that looks like what people are talking about. Who makes this setting, and is it actually available anymore?
Midnight is a setting that can be used with PF rules quite easily (in fact races are boosted up when comparing to 3.5 and come closer to PF). It is also completely different setting than Golarion - the closest description to it would be what was the Middle-Earth feel if the Sauron won and submitted the world to own order.I've seen people talk about Midnight a few times, but I never see a link to anything, and no search I ever make turns up anything that looks like what people are talking about. Who makes this setting, and is it actually available anymore?
Fantasy Flight Games made that setting (they released corebook plus around a dozen of accessories) but the sole thing on their sight I found currently is the part about the low-budged movie they made Midnight Chronicles. It has very bad special effects but some of acting is decent. The inquisitor legate character (legates are priest of evil god) and his assassin henchman are quite good.
It seems that FFG does not support the system any more, since they planned to make 4th edition version while the GSL still forbade multi-system settings but later focused on other games.
Here's Drive Through link to the core book and here's fan site.
And back to fantasy dislike list:
(this is a thing that is dislike everywhere possible, with Babylon 5 getting the sole plus for getting it right):
Time Travels - this is overused and so badly done that when I hear that designer resorts to time travel I am negatively biased against it from the start.
players dissapering so there characters are not exactly known what to do with the plot.
Amen to the spoiler Drejk!
I can understand that too doctor wu!
I don't care much for GMs who don't know what is going on in their own campaign (but I can forgive the noobs. You gotta start somewhere).
Another thing I don't like is when the fighter vs wizard disparity gets 'fixed' by making fighters unassailable antimagic juggernauts that no spellcaster could ever hope to overcome.
On a lesser level, stuff like warblades being able to ignore any effect as a free action. Any effect. It's still debated whether this includes such things as gravity and time. Mind you, I don't like it when casters get the ability to ignore entire schools of magic or abilities either, such as freedom of movement and death ward.
That was a joke.
I also dislike time travel in fantasy rpg. Also ultra powerful good guys that get saved by their goddess and sleeps with anything remotely female. Now ultra powerful bad guys I don't mind since the heroes will need someone to keep them in check. Besides that I don't mind guns, psionics and any other things that come up as long as it is in a coherent campaign world.
Oh, one more thing. This is more meta, but...
People claiming their world (or most fantasy RPG settings) to be "medieval" when the setting bears little resemblance to Medieval Europe. (In most fantasy RPGs, the tech level, literacy rate and standard of living is higher for starters, the class system usually includes a firmly established middle class... and for brevity I am not going to go on.)
(Yes, there ARE medieval-like RPG settings, like that of Chivalry and Sorcery but they tend to be the exception to the rule)
Further, I don't like in my fantasy RPGs, the excuse, for "but it's medieval" to be a dick to someone.
Oh, one more thing. This is more meta, but...
People claiming their world (or most fantasy RPG settings) to be "medieval" when the setting bears little resemblance to Medieval Europe. (In most fantasy RPGs, the tech level, literacy rate and standard of living is higher for starters, the class system usually includes a firmly established middle class... and for brevity I am not going to go on.)
Ooo, so much this!
I've always considered the game to be fantasy, in which case the setting only fits any given human time period loosely, if at all. I've not bothered to concern myself with how historically accurate any particular aspect of the game is, so long as I (or my players) are sufficiently entertained.
But one thing that drives me crazy is when a player interrupts the game to point out how realistic or unrealistic any given moment of gameplay or rule happens to be. In my experience, whenever that happens it's due to someone wanting to show off their knowledge under the assumption that the rest of the group isn't as intelligent as they are. In the process, all they really accomplish is looking like an arrogant jackass.
|
But one thing that drives me crazy is when a player interrupts the game to point out how realistic or unrealistic any given moment of gameplay or rule happens to be. In my experience, whenever that happens it's due to someone wanting to show off their knowledge under the assumption that the rest of the group isn't as intelligent as they are. In the process, all they really accomplish is looking like an arrogant jackass.
Complaining about a woman leading a band of bandits is one recent example.
Which goes back to DQ's note just above:
Further, I don't like in my fantasy RPGs, the excuse, for "but it's medieval" to be a dick to someone.
Applies equally to "why are these homosexuals out in the open?", "why are there black people?", "why is someone doing martial arts?!", "why are there races available other than human, elf, hobbit, and dorf?", and so on and so forth.
People claiming their world (or most fantasy RPG settings) to be "medieval" when the setting bears little resemblance to Medieval Europe. (In most fantasy RPGs, the tech level, literacy rate and standard of living is higher for starters, the class system usually includes a firmly established middle class... and for brevity I am not going to go on.)I always thought that the game's setting was more like the late Middle Ages to early Renaissance myself. Rapiers, plate armor, and many of the sailing ships have no place in a medieval time period.
It's not even that. Most fantasy settings, Golarion especially from what I know if it, are a big ol' clusterf!@# of historical influences from mythic age to industrial, with a big sprinkling of fairy dust on top.
I've always considered the game to be fantasy, in which case the setting only fits any given human time period loosely, if at all. I've not bothered to concern myself with how historically accurate any particular aspect of the game is, so long as I (or my players) are sufficiently entertained.I actually agree with this. I want the world to be consistent within itself but the mere fact that the world is FANTASY, with magic and dragons and whatnot, means it cannot match our own history exactly. It's our own mythlore informed by our own very contemporary viewpoints which makes it impossible to be "realistic" so may as well just make the world work within itself and not worry about the rest.
But one thing that drives me crazy is when a player interrupts the game to point out how realistic or unrealistic any given moment of gameplay or rule happens to be. In my experience, whenever that happens it's due to someone wanting to show off their knowledge under the assumption that the rest of the group isn't as intelligent as they are. In the process, all they really accomplish is looking like an arrogant jackass.
Once upon a time, one of DQ's players picked a 30 minute long argument over the physics of door hinges to an unimaginably complex level of detail... in relation to a 20 foot high door that was supposed to be made of a nonexistent metal and supported by magic... that he still lives is a miracle.
Once upon a time, one of DQ's players picked a 30 minute long argument over the physics of door hinges to an unimaginably complex level of detail... in relation to a 20 foot high door that was supposed to be made of a nonexistent metal and supported by magic... that he still lives is a miracle.
Yeah, that's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. If I were DM in that situation I'd have started handing out damage after ten minutes. Oh, random damage in the middle of an OOC rant doesn't fit the game? Neither does your tirade, you moron.
Hopefully with the door!
I killed a character with a door once.
Best game ever.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But did you kill his character?
No, I don't punish PCs for player issues. (As amusing as it would be in this case. :) ) I think I did threaten that the 20 foot high adamantine door could start to fall on his head, though... and he started to get the idea... but otherwise we just had a nice boring talk after session about not getting fixated on certain things so the GM can run the game in peace. I believe one of my other players also had a talk with him as well (he listens to his friend better than he listens to me sometimes).
Also, I established that in my world from that point forward, all doors were sliding doors. :)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Complaining about a woman leading a band of bandits is one recent example.
Which goes back to DQ's note just above:
Further, I don't like in my fantasy RPGs, the excuse, for "but it's medieval" to be a dick to someone.Applies equally to "why are these homosexuals out in the open?", "why are there black people?", "why is someone doing martial arts?!", "why are there races available other than human, elf, hobbit, and dorf?", and so on and so forth.
I have some mixed feelings on this and what I am about to post will probably piss some people off (immunity: Fire)...
--
I am ok with the whole age of enlightenment style campaigns: multi-racial, gender equality, tolerance for differences in orientation, culture, etc...if there is a proper PREMISE and REASON for this in the game world, as in how did this world get to this modern way of thinking? Was it always this way? Where did these modern rights and views originate from in the campaign worlds history?
Or is this being hand waved so players are not offended or to make people feel empowered in when running their fantasy game?
--
I tend to run things a little more on the realistic side(as much as you can with fantasy) and as such human nature has a huge impact on the fantasy setting. Foreigners are usually not tolerated well (depending on community/history), most commoners are peasants, magic is rare, and property is held by landed lords and an emerging middle class (merchants/craftsman).
That being said - women can lead bandit groups - if they are more badass and ruthless then the men in their group (and have "overcome" the view that they are not). Open homosexuality is tolerated (to a degree) - if you are someone with pull and power, otherwise like any other difference it could range from ridicule to murder (depending on the society). Same goes with foreigners - you have money, trade influence, etc - you may get left alone while working within the local community or you may get scapegoated once things go bad. As a matter of fact, everyone can get scapegoated based upon their core "difference" once things go bad - even adventurers for being adventurers and stirring things up.
I have powerful female NPC leaders in my game but they are cut from rare cloth and can have extra issues they need to contend with because of their gender (again, varies from society and races). But in most cases traditional gender roles (for a quasi...I state quasi, late-medieval society) are closer to what they were historically. My players would not be surprised by a female bandit leader - their assumption would be the same as mine - she can hold her own, if not be more brutal then the men in her gang. It wouldn't be a common or expected thing in that game world though. I wouldn’t limit a female character in her stats, nor would I prevent a player from making a "black" human character. There would be some back story and there probably would be some issues that they would content with. All of which would be laid out in front of them at char gen and all surmountable during the course of play.
So I guess what I DON'T like in MY games is unrealistic societies and human behavior catering to modern sensibilities when there is no stated reason for it in the campaign world besides "I say so". I think humans are harsh and brutal, and I think humans in a world where violence is an everyday solution would be worse, and there would be less cause or reason to be enlightened. Especially in a world where different often equals - fear/danger/death. I also think (unless a factor was a cause to change it) that there would be castes and gender roles similar to what we have now or in our distant past.
Not trying to offend with this post, and I'm sorry if anyone was offended.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right, a setting that acknowledges adversity and leaves some obstacles in place sets the stage for you to recreate the actions of real life heroes. Not because realism is necessary, but because real heroism is the most appealing.
A setting where those battles have already been fought and won robs you of the chance to make that statement.
It's not for everyone, but it's for me. I'd rather play a freedom fighter in a world where slavery was the norm than play a policeman of the politically correct establishment. Matter of preference.
I've had a few chances to explain it over the past few years. Gets easier every time.
And if there are any developers lurking let me say that this is my single favorite thing about Golarion vs. all other campaign settings I know about (haven't checked out midnight yet...)
All dwarves have beards. That's just common sense.
;D
Thank you Kobold Cleaver, I always love your posts, and I was trying to formulate my own for the female dwarf beard problem !
Although I do like female dwarves with beards...it does feel a little overdone at times.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have some mixed feelings on this and what I am about to post will probably piss some people off (immunity: Fire)...--
I am ok with the whole age of enlightenment style campaigns: multi-racial, gender equality, tolerance for differences in orientation, culture, etc...if there is a proper PREMISE and REASON for this in the game world, as in how did this world get to this modern way of thinking? Was it always this way? Where did these modern rights and views originate from in the campaign worlds history?
Or is this being hand waved so players are not offended or to make people feel empowered in when running their fantasy game? (snip for length)
I agree with Evil Lincoln's statement below on the matter.
I think one thing why it is important not to get too obsessed with enforcing what we think are "medieval" restrictions on social structures in a fantasy world is because the worlds themselves are different--they have entirely different races, the standard of living is better (often) because of magic.
Often, for example, the oppression of women tends to go hand in hand with high child mortality rates and low standard of living. The worse those things are, the more women are going to be expected/forced to stay at home, barefoot in the kitchen, and have babies.
The better the standard of living and lower the child mortality rates, women start going, "Why the heck are we sitting around the kitchen and having babies? There's other stuff to do." And then it's off to fight the old social norms that are all that are left that prevent them from doing what they want.
If you have a fantasy world where even a low level Adept can help keep food and water clean and provide some extra water with cantrips, and divine magic and alchemy are present that it is possible to get cured of diseases and so on, the standard of living by my logic is going to be high enough that you're going to have a society where women are going to be active participants in society at various levels.
Of course different worlds implement these things differently, but if you're approaching a situation from, "I can't let you do that because a woman would never be allowed to do that," that smacks of oversimplification and lack of consideration of the underpinnings of WHY that might be, if not outright being a jerk (not that YOU are a jerk Auxmaulous, but that I have seen GMs be jerks and just say "you can't do that" without explanation with something akin to "historical accuracy" as an excuse that falls apart after the slightest of examination).
And also, even in places where women are hideously oppressed, there are always exceptions to the rule. If you have an actual medieval world, I'd play a Margery Kempe type or Hildegarde of Bingen type or Elenor of Aquitaine type or so on--I've got plenty of sources of inspiration both real and fictional. (For the first, playing an utter lunatic of an Oracle who definitely finds ways to get away with whatever she wants would be tremendous amounts of fun.) Taking a place as a stand out hero--and thus being the PC that has the job that no other woman has--actually makes a lot of sense. :)
For stuff like homosexuality, it is exactly our modern sensibilities that get in the way -- our perception of homosexuality is very contemporary, and other cultures have not always viewed it the same. Ancient Greece had very different ideas about certain same sex relationships than we do -- not more openminded or less openminded per se, just different -- and yet if we used some of their "acceptances" of certain practices in a fantasy world, would that not be in fact MORE historical than too modern? Viewpoints on homosexuality also depend a lot of lifestyle and custom as well. A lot of how you design the cultures in your world and how those viewpoints work is up to you.
I think in short I agree that you need to be able to explain why your fantasy society functions as it does -- for its flaws and its benefits.
Where I object is where people use often extremely faulty and misinformed contemporary concepts of "medieval" in order to establish a fantasy world that limits player options in the name of "accuracy" when often, it's neither accurate nor fun for a player to be invested in.
|
|
Magic (or the prevalence or magic) would be a strong blanket reason for why things would be different in most fantasy games, so I agree with you on that one.
In my current game:
-Magic amongst NPCs is rare and magic ability/skill/equipment is coveted
-Magic item creation is limited - and thus the prevalence of magic in daily life or common use is more or less non-existent.
-No spammable magic (create anything, repair anything: unlimited)
Under these conditions you still have the serf, you still have second class citizens and you still have power brokers. That is my game –YMMV and things will be different from game to game based on what is allowed and the level of magic available to the common person.
This isn't an effort to run misery world, or a game of "you can't do that". For me it's an issue of running what I know and what attracted me to gaming (history combined with the myth and legend). So my long running campaign is heavily rooted pseudo-European based societies fused with some Greyhawk style pulp. It's brutal, but it's brutal for everyone. There isn't a mid-level mage or cleric who wanders by fixing problems with crops or fending off attacks from monsters on the town. The local lord, his guards and the peasants all have to deal with their own problems. That or use hired adventurers/mercenaries.
I always err on the side of human behavior and human history. I believe that if there is greater immersion (for me and my players) then they can identify with the problems facing all the people in the world they populate. That's why I would never run a high fantasy game with magic trains, magic dry cleaners or magic hospitals - it just isn't for me. I think at the games inception magic was supposed to be scare (due to ability requirements) and from a game design perspective it was to be used to facilitate adventuring (that is why there are so many logic holes in world design going back to 1st ed) and I strive preserve that feeling while fixing the logic holes. Magic isn't ingrained - it's tacked on, it's scarce and it's coveted (maybe even controlled).
If you are running a lower magic game - doesn't matter if it's quasi-medieval or Robert E Howard pulp, the people on the bottom of the pyramid are going to be living under bad conditions - call them serfs, peasants or even tribals - whatever. The introduction of various races doesn't necessitate the change in familiar roles (defender, homemaker, etc) if most of those races follow the same paradigm.
To restate I agree with you that magic is the big game changer (literally) and the largest variable to factor into all of this. Magic can be everything or it can just be annother unreachable resource for the common man/woman – depending on the campaign world.
I would never tell a player "you can't do that". What I would say to a player is that – "this ethnicity is very rare in this region or part of the world; these are some of the issues you may face". Or "a woman/paladin/cleric of Suchandsuch probably wouldn't do that" and then let them go at it. As long as they know the situation, use their brains and play heroic they can try to do whatever they want – even if it goes against traditional roles and societal expectations.
I do the same thing when running brutal Post-Apocalypse based games. There is no assumption of rights or equality; in fact the conditions are usually worse then they are in Fantasy/Magic Europe. All you have is what you can take or make on your own. My players know this when we play these types of games and knowing ahead of time they don't get offended at the harshness and unfairness that societies exhibit when they come into contact with them. Also in the case of a PA style gaming, modern sensibilities almost have to be thrown out the window (not the PCs, but the world they live in).
And to also restate – this is how I run things.
I run it this way because of immersion which in turn makes for great storytelling. I hate storylines where magic permeates everything - You need to go to point A because Y's magic society isn't working right, or magic device which provides water stopped working. All that magic is pseudo tech to make a modernized world with plate mail armor and I find that incredibly dull.
I like intrigue, secrets and scandals in city life – not "fix the magic well by finding magic device". I would much rather have a plot line where the heroes try to defend the good name of a dark-skinned noble foreign born warrior PC/NPC from suspicion (because of mistrust) of being a murder, than a fix/recover the magic whatever that is just the magical equivalent of some modern convenience or ability.
All that being said the point of the game is to have fun.
A DM and their players need to be on the same page when it comes to expectations. If I want to run a very 3rd ed, magic-infused campaign with a strong sense of modern rights and my players enjoy that then great. I don't think that the DM should run their campaign using the excuse of the campaign world/theme to instill hardship or misery (beyond what’s expected up front) under the guise of "but it's medieval", or "it's pulp" or horror, or anything else. Let everyone know up front and let them know at CharGen how things are going to work.
This thread needs a troll to tell us all how racist and unreasonable our games are.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not a big fan of xorn and other creatures that can borrow through solid rock at the speed of a man walking (sometimes much faster)
I also don't like creatures that seem to come directly out of a horror/sci-fi movie.
Dude, I'm a monster who seems to come directly out of a horror/sci-fi movie, who can burrow directly though solid dirt and rock at the speed of a man walking.
ALL OF YOUR GAMES ARE RACIST AND UNREASONABLE!!
(Sorry, I had to.)
This thread needs a troll to tell us all how racist and unreasonable our games are.
Successful Troll believes too much success cheapens all successful trolling. Successful Troll has been seeking balance among Successful Troll's troll brethren.
This thread needs a troll to tell us all how racist and unreasonable our games are.Successful Troll believes too much success cheapens all successful trolling. Successful Troll has been seeking balance among Successful Troll's troll brethren.
Is that some kind of very subtle trolling?
Dayum, Succesful Troll is indeed Succesful.
Comedy races.
You know what's more hurtful than comedy races that I CAN NOT condone in my fantasy game? (usually)
Comedy characters.
These guys manage to spoil shit for all just for fun. Or worse, they take the atmosphere right out of the game and belittle the tension when the party is encountered with a dangerous obstacle or enemy.
Oh, I also hate it when dwarves chip the glasses, crack the plates, dull the knives, bend the forks, smash the bottles and burn the corks. Yo know, because Bagins.
Comedy races.You know what's more hurtful than comedy races that I CAN NOT condone in my fantasy game? (usually)
Comedy characters.
These guys manage to spoil s~%& for all just for fun. Or worse, they take the atmosphere right out of the game and belittle the tension when the party is encountered with a dangerous obstacle or enemy.
Oh, I also hate it when dwarves chip the glasses, crack the plates, dull the knives, bend the forks, smash the bottles and burn the corks. Yo know, because Bagins.
In my first serious horror-themed campaign(Ravenloft), I had 2 players make a pair of rogues modeled after Jay and Silent Bob. All the tension and suspense; gone. Just. Gone.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my first serious horror-themed campaign(Ravenloft), I had 2 players make a pair of rogues modeled after Jay and Silent Bob. All the tension and suspense; gone. Just. Gone.
I'd have thought that'd be easy to deal with. They'd simply be the first to die.
In my first serious horror-themed campaign(Ravenloft), I had 2 players make a pair of rogues modeled after Jay and Silent Bob. All the tension and suspense; gone. Just. Gone.I'd have thought that'd be easy to deal with. They'd simply be the first to die.
Things got serious real quick when one of them(the Jay one) got afflicted with Lycanthrope, and failed his save to get rid of it(in Ravenloft, you get once chance to be cured, and if you fail, the Lycanthrope is permanent). The player completely freaked out and it made for one of the most awkward, bad vibes game sessions ever.
The player left the game, the character got retired to an asylum in hopes of learning how to contain "the beast," and Silent Bob player retired his character as well to help his friend.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Weird. I can't understand why a) someone would want to make a couple of disruptive characters in the group like that in the first place or b) why you'd get so upset by something that's just an aspect of the game.
Admittedly, though, a 'Jay' afflicted with Lycanthrope is kind of funny.
But hey, this brings up something else I don't like in fantasy games: PCs modeled after non-fantasy characters. That's not an all-inclusive statement. I don't mind an Indiana Jones type character but don't try to play Robocop, please.
Weird. I can't understand why a) someone would want to make a couple of disruptive characters in the group like that in the first place or b) why you'd get so upset by something that's just an aspect of the game.
Admittedly, though, a 'Jay' afflicted with Lycanthrope is kind of funny.
But hey, this brings up something else I don't like in fantasy games: PCs modeled after non-fantasy characters. That's not an all-inclusive statement. I don't mind an Indiana Jones type character but don't try to play Robocop, please.
Yeah, it was pretty weird. The Jay player did have a lot of RL stress going on at the time, and was not particularly known for his stress handling facilities. I think having that happen to his character in game was some sort of proverbial straw breaking the camel's back. At least, that's the best way I can make sense out of the situation. It was intensely un-fun to say the least.
The Silent Bob player decided it wouldn't be fun to play half of a lookalike schtick and rolled up a new character.
And I agree on not liking characters based off of another non-fantasy character. It can be fun for a one-nighter, but for a full campaign, the schtick wears off and it's just annoying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Weird. I can't understand why a) someone would want to make a couple of disruptive characters in the group like that in the first place or b) why you'd get so upset by something that's just an aspect of the game.
Admittedly, though, a 'Jay' afflicted with Lycanthrope is kind of funny.
But hey, this brings up something else I don't like in fantasy games: PCs modeled after non-fantasy characters. That's not an all-inclusive statement. I don't mind an Indiana Jones type character but don't try to play Robocop, please.
If there's a consensus, this kind of stuff can be great. I mean, the game is pretty silly as-is... and you're there to have a good time.
Ruining someone else's fun by being silly is just as bad as ruining someone else's fun by being serious. The important thing is to make sure you're not ruining someone else's fun. If everyone in the group is working toward that, you've got a good group. And it can have ridiculous silly characters in it.
