"Choice is not necessary for a game as seen in many games of chance in cards and dice."
Even in games of chance, choice is vital. Poker is very strategic, when do you fold or bluff, how much do you bet, etc.
Even true random gambling like slot machines (which barely rate as games) always have the choice to place a bet or not, then you see the outcome of that choice and that choice is the difference between gambling and theft. Mind you, gambling on things like horse races, craps, roulette, etc often have elements of strategic choice beyond choosing how much money to risk.
I was speaking in terms of things like War and Chutes and Ladders regarding things that have absolutely no choice beyond a Wargames esque choosing to play it or not.
(For the record, neither of the things I listed are good games by any stretch or definition, but they do exist)
I'm curious what "War" is that you are refering to as google says it is a risk like game with plenty of strategy.
As for snakes and ladders, you choose the high or low die each turn. Maybe they got rid of that in the modern varient, then again the point of that game is to teach morals, making it more of a gamified activity textbook than a game for fun anyway.
In any case, what is a game if not some number of choices that leads to outcomes? According to game theory, a game is a situation where the outcome is dependant on the choices of the participants.
Books are not considered games, despite choosing to read or not to read, and potentially stopping at any point.
There are even choose-your-own-adventure books that do include meaningful choices throughout and yet are still generally considered books, not games (I would classify them as one player games myself as the outcome depends on the participant's choices).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What things? How about you just pick 3.
---
A choice that does the same thing no matter what you chose, is meaningless and counts as a choice only by technicality.A game requires choices that actually matter, otherwise it isn't a game.
So, if a drow PC isn't stop-and-frisked by NPC guardsmen, then players lack choice?
There is always the choice of being a good sport or not.
If the dice turn on you and favor chutes, do you swear like a sailor?
So, if a drow PC isn't stop-and-frisked by NPC guardsmen, then players lack choice?What things? How about you just pick 3.
---
A choice that does the same thing no matter what you chose, is meaningless and counts as a choice only by technicality.A game requires choices that actually matter, otherwise it isn't a game.
Is there a reason so many people take things to the extremes as though moderation nor alternatives doesn't exist? Is there a reason everything is seen as black and white?
A) It doesn't need to be extreme, nor does it need to be negative.
B) A choice can be meaningless. It has as much value as no choice, despite actually being a choice.
C) If all players are treated like humans, then picking a race is simply a matter of mechanics, in which case, having them flavored as races is pointless and achieves nothing (because the one thing that could be achieved is ignored).
Specifically, to use your example, if the drow and other pcs are always treated like humans, then they are not truly choosing other races, they are choosing stat sets that are named similarly to races. A drow trwated lile a human is a human with particular stats.
How often do you ever remember the race of other pcs when it is never mentioned? Personally, that would be never and I can confirm at least three occasions of others forgetting the race of other pcs.
If the drow gets frisked every time you go into town, you aren't likely to forget that she is a drow, because it is no longer an unimportant detail. People forget unimportant details, they remember the important and attention-getting details.
Details that are forgotten day one and never come into play are pointless (unless you are a gm throwing out enouh detail that players don't know which are important or not.).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Specifically, to use your example, if the drow and other pcs are always treated like humans, then they are not truly choosing other races, they are choosing stat sets that are named similarly to races. A drow trwated lile a human is a human with particular stats.
This, like the rest of your reasoning, is completely and utterly nonsense.
You do not need bigotry to differentiate between races, you can do so just fin without it. People who want to play a race other than human but don't want to put up with bigotry aren't doing so so they can play a human with different stats, you're the only person putting forth this ridiculous idea.
"A drow trwated lile a human is a human"
You're conflating being treated like a person with the human rpg race. Not the same thing. If the GM and Players want their characters to be treated as people (not humans as you keep erroneously putting forth) because they don't want to deal with bigotry it is removing absolutely no value from the game.
And the only people who can determine the important details, the ones they remember, are the ones who experience them, not you from the outside looking in.
Stop demanding bigotry has to be forced on everything in order for races to have meaning.
"You do not need bigotry to differentiate between races,"
I never said you did. Bigotry is not the only way to bring occasional attention to a character's race.
Specifically, to use your example, if the drow and other pcs are always treated like humans, then they are not truly choosing other races, they are choosing stat sets that are named similarly to races. A drow trwated lile a human is a human with particular stats.This, like the rest of your reasoning, is completely and utterly nonsense.
You do not need bigotry to differentiate between races, you can do so just fin without it. People who want to play a race other than human but don't want to put up with bigotry aren't doing so so they can play a human with different stats, you're the only person putting forth this ridiculous idea.
"A drow trwated lile a human is a human"
You're conflating being treated like a person with the human rpg race. Not the same thing. If the GM and Players want their characters to be treated as people (not humans as you keep erroneously putting forth) because they don't want to deal with bigotry it is removing absolutely no value from the game.
And the only people who can determine the important details, the ones they remember, are the ones who experience them, not you from the outside looking in.
Stop demanding bigotry has to be forced on everything in order for races to have meaning.
While I agree 100% on the bigotry point Rysky, I can see where someone playing a dwarf who outside of the party never get treated any different for being a dwarf might feel like a human reskin. But it doesn't take a#!%&&~s to make you feel like a dwarf, make the player feel the difference in proper reactions. The bigotry line is something that has to be drawn at the table where everyone is okay with where it sits. The closest my tables come to true bigotry that everyone can agree on is that goblins are idiots. Which the party goblin plays to the hilt in front of others while having an 18 Int now but if he were to be against the people acting like that it would stop.
"You're conflating being treated like a person with the human rpg race."
No I'm not. I'm saying that completely ignoring that pcs are of various non-human races is no different than treating them all like humans, and that in a game like this, a character basically is what you treat them like, therefore, treating them like humans means they basically are humans regardless of the technicalities.
Call it persons all you want, treating them with no regard for race removes race from the game for all practical intents and purposes reducing to a mere cosmetic.
I think bigotry can be portrayed without encouraging it or making the players feel unconfortable about it. But I don't think it's the only way you can make a race feel different from a human.
I'll put the elf example. An elf might be fully integrated in a human society, but he still will have to face that most his friends will die of old age soon and he will still be young.
Everyone else tells him to do guards in the darkest hours of the night because he can see in the dark.
Nobody is discriminating, but the character for sure will feel different.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good advice. Anyway, I think the GM should talk to the player about his expectations. Some players might like to be treated just like humans, other players could like to see their differences portrayed in a possitive way and others would enjoy being treated with some degree of mistrusting from other people. So knowing the expectations of the player will help the GM to design the adventure in a way it suits the characters better.
You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake, you are the same set of stats as everyone else.
Or maybe we are all special and unique. It's a better way to see it.
But it's what you're pushing."You do not need bigotry to differentiate between races,"
I never said you did. Bigotry is not the only way to bring occasional attention to a character's race.
If he want's to back off from that position, let him.
Having a Drow PC demand everyone be frisked, including the trusted NPCs, is great roleplaying. It's up to the GM to build up the storyline so the NPCs don't act like a mass of stats. Remember that elves mistrust Drow most of all. They may think that a Drow turned good will have a skin color change.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is fine as long as the GM handles it right. Giving too much attention to the drow or harassing him all the time for being a drow is not good. Well handled, it's a great roleplaying option.
But it's what you're pushing."You do not need bigotry to differentiate between races,"
I never said you did. Bigotry is not the only way to bring occasional attention to a character's race.
If he want's to back off from that position, let him.
...
I'm not backing off as I never held that position. I just suck horribly at explaining myself.
I think this started from comments before about the default assumptions for a game, which is a separate issue from whether race is ignored or not, both of which are separate issues from whether acknowledging race requires bigotry.
I aggree that one must be consequent with the choices, but again, different GMs might have a different way of portraying it.
I might want to play an orc if I know the NPCs are going to mistrust him, I could consider it if I know they are going to treat him poorly, but if I know he's going to be continuously harassed or that NPCs are going to try to kill him at the first sight I'd rather play another character.
That's why I always ask my GM: «If I play X, how are you going to deal with it?». Good GMs often ask back: «What are your expectations on it?»
I am a rules lawyer xD
GM: Success! You hit the monster,score a critical hit and kill it.
Me: Actually... you mentioned it's dark. Shouldn't I roll for miss chance?
GM: Uh... OK.
Some of my fellow players hate me for doing that.
that's a stickler. There's no gray area there (in the rules anyway. That shdow on the other hand...) Rules lawyer is different.
"see, its an ability score modifier, but not an ability score BONUS they're totally different so of course they stack..." <--- thats rules lawyering.
Good to know the proper name for what I am. I always thought to be a rules lawyer.
Now I have to deal with an identity crisis. Who am I? What am I?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good to know the proper name for what I am. I always thought to be a rules lawyer.
Now I have to deal with an identity crisis. Who am I? What am I?
my work here is done!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good to know the proper name for what I am. I always thought to be a rules lawyer.
Now I have to deal with an identity crisis. Who am I? What am I?
*refers Kileanna to the thread topic, retreats to the shadows of retail*
I had a GM once who called me an «Unique Item from Diablo» and he meant. It was a compliment and I felt proud of it.
He also GMed one of the stories I enjoyed the most.
My problem with special snowflake is that it's been smurfed so often i have no idea what it smurfing means anymore
It means being a smurf in a Pathfinder related messageboard xD
|
Yes, specially that kind of players who have strong ideas about how a specific class/race should be played and won't admit anything that is even slightly different from their narrow point of view.
(An elf cannot have strength as his higher stat, all dwarves must dump charisma, a wizard without fire spells is not a wizard, etc.)
I had too often to face this kind of misconceptions from players who claimed to be experts.
I've seen this go both ways.
On the one hand, there's the person so invested in 1st edition or Tolkien-eque tropes of what classes or races should be, that when you bring in a dwarf wizard, elf barbarian, Halfling paladin or something else that plays against their narrow stereotypes you get the 'special snowflake' designator.
On the other hand, there's the individual who insists that their cleric isn't a 'healbot' and spends the first two rounds of a three round combat casting shield of faith and divine power on themselves only to not arrive at the fight before it's over, and meanwhile, the people who *did* contribute to the fight are now in serious need of healing, which that cleric can't actually do, because they 'aren't a healbot' and don't have any healing spells or abilities.
I love the idea of 'coloring outside the lines' and playing something non-traditional, but when it leads to someone falling for online rubbish about CoDzilla and spending an entire combat casting Cleric buff spells that end up making their Cleric theoretically better than where the Fighter, Barbarian or Paladin *started on round one,* it bugs me.
Even 'special snowflake' ness goes in degrees. Playing a Camarilla-centric Vampire LARP, there'd be the guy who wants to play a clan-less Caitiff (1 degree off plum, he's gonna have a hard uphill slog), the guy who wants to play a Werewolf (barely even compatible rules, totally different power scale, and adversarial themes and tone), and the guy who wants to play a friggin' Highlander (fasten your seatbelts, we've just gone to plaid)...
Doing nothing useful to the rest of the party does not make your deity look good. There are stronger words for someone who misplays a class like that.
The CoDzilla seems more like someone who wants to optimize and hasn't thought of action economy rather than a special snowflake.
I think it can be a very effective way to play a cleric... if you have a few rounds to prepare for the combat.
In vampire games I storytelled it happened that I said: «Camarilla oriented, socially-oriented, classic character concepts». And my players wanted to play an antitribu Lasombra, a Gargoyle, a Tzimisce from the Sabbat who has replaced the childe of the Prince and a Technocrat embraded Tremere. Then they were.surprised when I told them that their concepts didn't fit the campaign.and.they had to pick more standard options. Then they'd go Gangrel and Brujah with no social skills. Then suffer in terrible ways when facing the harpies at the Elysium.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the most accurate use of "snowflake" in this context (as it's generally connotationally pejorative) is when the particular uniqueness of a character leads that character's player to resist going along with either the rest of the group or with the basic premise of the story.
Like if the Duke's son has gone missing in the woods and there's a call for all hale persons to help form a search party, and one particular character concludes "Oh, I hate getting my boots muddy, I'm allergic to trees, and I'm an anti-monarchist, you see; I'll just stay here and read my book."
Or the aforementioned "I don't care about your politics" character in an poltics-oriented vampire game (this can be done, but you right off the bat invent reasons for your character to care; I've played a Ravnos in a Camarilla game who was running a con by pretending to be a particularly cultured Brujah).
If you want to be weird, go for it just make sure you're not being an impediment to the premise of the game or anybody else's experience. The reason "special snowflake" is often pejorative is less because we frown on uniqueness or high concept, but that we frown on selfishness. Be the most unique and unusual person in the land, but nobody else showed up to go to "the me show starring me."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My problem with special snowflake is that it's been smurfed so often i have no idea what it smurfing means anymore
I generally see it used ironically. Special snowflake in the sense of being a Drizzit clone, exactly like the rest. Insert whatever pop culture figure you like, and if the player is really feeling like making an effort, they'll reskin it slightly.
I don't think I've ever seen it used to mean actually unique or in any way interesting, and the players of such characters tend to be even less so.
Edit: No idea why I'm suddenly a smurf, but at least I'm Boss Smurf.
My female sorceress, being the only girl in the group had to be the one to tame the unicorn.
"You're an elf. Why don't you talk to the trees and find out where the bandits went?"
Gnome walks up to desk, "Hello."
"What? Who's there?" Stands up suspiciously, then suddenly relaxes, "Oh, sorry, I couldn't see you over the desk."
"Yo Kronk, you're a dwarf right? Can you fix my armor? Please? The shoulder piece came loose again."
The captain's desk was massive, towering over the halfling secretary's desk nestled up under the left side. A bump, and a quick expletive, was heard from the halfling at the sudden intrusion into the room, bumping her head on the desk as she stood up.
"Short stuff. You get the crow's nest."
"An orc wizard eh? I don't need a caster, but I could really use a scary looking bouncer at the door."
As the group cuts their way through the snow, the elf strides ahead, walking on the snow as if weighing no more than just another snowflake. The halfling as least doesn't feel the winds so strongly, being shorter than the height of the snow.
The kobald walks through the brambles, the thorns harmlessly glancing off her scaled hide.
As you track your prey in your tiger form, you find a very pleasent smelling spot that you just want to roll in cause it smells so nice. You found a patch of catnip. [insert survival roll to keep following the trail.]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe not bigotry but I'm sorry for having to say that many of those sound like racial stereotypes. If I played an orc wizard I wouldn't like to be told to waste my privileged intellect working as a bouncer and my answer to the person that told me that might not be nice.
Looking scary has nothing to do with skill or capacity. Besides, a wizard could spend most of the time sitting back directing an illusion of scary guards, or using the Haunted Fey Aspect cantrip to really do the job well.
Sometimes you won't be making money with the skills you studied (I certainly don't use any of my college learning).
There are lots of jobs where looks actually matter (acting for example. Hooters is rumored to even have a minimum breast size requirement [maybe a bit bigoted or something, but not really in a hateful "you're inferior" kind of way]).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Yo Kronk, you're a dwarf right? Can you fix my armor? Please? The shoulder piece came loose again."
This is totally an example of bigotry. It's almost as blatant as "Yo Pedro, you're Hispanic right? Can you show me how to hot-wire a car? Please? I left my keys at home."
The problem is that stereotypes, almost by definition, involve bigotry, especially in an age where benign bigotry ("Oh, Jews are all intelligent and good with money!") is still [correctly] recognized as a form of bigotry.
The other problem, though, is that without some form of "bigotry," you end up with Star Trek-style "alien forehead syndrome" where everyone can be as alien as they want as long as they think, feel, and act exactly like humans.
But, let's face it. Telling the orc wizard "well, you're an orc, so [my customers will think that] you look scary, so I'll only hire you as a bouncer, not as a dancer" is really the same statement that got thrown around in the (US) 1950s about "oh, I personally totally hire a colored waitress, but it would drive all my customers away, so I will only hire you as a dishwasher."
I aggree with you.
The orc might look scary, indeed, but the fact that they can only see him as scary, besides being a wizard, meaning that he has studies, he is an intelligent and skilled person. And they will hire him as a bouncer because of his race.
It's exactly the same bigotry that inmigrants face in our world. I've seen people coming here to Spain with a career and who'd end cleaning houses because they are latin americans. They judge because of your looks, not by your skills. That is bigotry.
I'm not sayibg that I wouldn't want to play a character who has to face bigotry, but my characterwouln't feel comfortable about it. And if I portrayed bigotry as a GM in my games I'd make sure that my players know that it's not somethibg possitive.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like a thing we want to be pretty aware of is that by 2017 the whole notion of "we will use the oppression of elves/mutants/halflings/mages/whatever as a cipher for real world social issues" is pretty tired and honestly potentially offensive to people who face discrimination and don't even have magic powers to make up for it.
Prejudice in fantasy worlds always made more sense to me in terms of regional conflicts than genetic ones. That is, you view the people in your country or village as okay because you're familiar with them, but those people over the border are bad eggs, stories of whose badness we use to make us feel better about ourselves.
Which is to say that it's realistic that a human from country A would have more in common with a gnome and an elf from that same country, than another human from country B. So I run it where people who all share a place have more or less gotten used to each other, and tribalism simply runs along the lines of patriotism/nationalism.
I think stuff like "You're a dwarf, you know about gold and armor and beer" is best left to players to determine about themselves. If someone wants to lean into the archetype, by all means do so. But the whole notion that "Orcs are generally perceived as scary" is absolutely an opportunity for a player to subvert that if they want to play a particularly serene orc. The GM needs to be really careful with stereotypes; it's best to just leave this stuff to players. Let players tell you who their characters are, you don't need to do it for them. I personally try to even avoid using "obviously prejudiced" as a shorthand for "this NPC is a loathsome individual" since it's lazy and potentially hurtful.
I mean, if villagers are intimidated by a party containing a orc druid, they may well be just as put off by the other heavily armed people and the tiger as they are by the orc. The typical party of adventurers on average probably contains at least 2.5 completely terrifying people.
Maybe not bigotry but I'm sorry for having to say that many of those sound like racial stereotypes. If I played an orc wizard I wouldn't like to be told to waste my privileged intellect working as a bouncer and my answer to the person that told me that might not be nice.
That would be a good roleplay opportunity.
Maybe not bigotry but I'm sorry for having to say that many of those sound like racial stereotypes. If I played an orc wizard I wouldn't like to be told to waste my privileged intellect working as a bouncer and my answer to the person that told me that might not be nice.That would be a good roleplay opportunity.
Not saying it wouldn't. I aggree with you and I probably enjoy roleplaying it. But it still would be bigotry.
I feel like a thing we want to be pretty aware of is that by 2017 the whole notion of "we will use the oppression of elves/mutants/halflings/mages/whatever as a cipher for real world social issues" is pretty tired and honestly potentially offensive to people who face discrimination and don't even have magic powers to make up for it.
Plenty of things in the game are tired and potentially offensive for somebody (succubi, sorcery, baby eating goblins, paganism, slavery, rapists ogres... ).
We should also be aware that portraying bad things in the game is not the same as supporting those things in real life.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Plenty of things in the game are tired and potentially offensive for somebody (succubi, sorcery, baby eating goblins, paganism, slavery, rapists ogres... ).
I mean, I think generally avoiding reference to eating babies, slavery, and rape is good practice as a GM. I don't think this should be really that controversial, though I know there are some messed up people in the hobby who love that stuff, I just don't want to be anywhere near them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course it's not, and I'm the first who likes portraying some controversial stuff. But I could not do it in a way that might seen as possitive when it goes against my own beliefs. If I portray rape, I don't want to do it in a casual way. This folks rape people and that's all. That's the wrong message. Rape is a serious issue, as is bigotry, etc. Making it look casual or unimportant is offensive to me.
A fantasy world will always be a reflection of the real world because us, who are creating it, belong to the real world.
I don't want to use a roleplaying game to teach any lessons, but I don't want either to frivolize with real world issues.
I hate not being able to express my thoughts better, not being a native English speaker. Sometimes the right words won't come to my mind and I feel like I'm unable to write accurately what I want to say.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a mention, you basically just called people who enjoy a bunch of settings ranging from A Song of Ice and Fire to the Witcher to Dragon Age messed up.
You can not like those various themes/types of acts, but it's not classy calling the people who do enjoy dark(er) fantasy as messed up.
I think a charitable reading would be that I was saying that people who like dark fantasy *because* of all the rape and cannibalism are messed up. "Sexual Violence" is not actually a selling point for anything you mentioned.
Plus, there's a pretty big difference between a book, video game, movie, or a television show which is an experience you need not share with other people and a cooperative roleplaying game which is inherently a social experience.
If you're going to do the really dark fantasy in a tabletop setting, it's pretty irresponsible to not use something like the X-Card or Lines and Veils to head of inevitable problems.
Which is to say that it's realistic that a human from country A would have more in common with a gnome and an elf from that same country, than another human from country B.
Is it, though? Part of the magic of fantasy (and of science-fiction, for that matter) is that different races are often different species, and there are actually interesting differences that can be explored.
One of the things I've always liked about the Traveller game (now available through Mongoose Games, if I remember right, and on its 6.023x10^23rd edition) is that the aliens in Traveller were actually alien. Some of them didn't even have the same attributes as humans, reflecting the fact that their social structures didn't map well (or at all) onto human social structures. Even their brains didn't map well. What's the equivalent of a family in a race (like codfish) that doesn't rear children?
To use a common fantasy trope -- elves in Tolkien are literally immortal (unless killed by violence, and even then, they reincarnate with their forms and memories intact, as did Glorfindel). Even in Pathfinder, they live for dozens of human lifespans; if I am a half-elf, I need to face the very real possibility that my father will know my great-great-great-grandchildren and I won't. Humans in the real world --- literally all over the real world -- are driven by the fear of death and their own mortality in a way that elves will never truly understand.
The question really becomes how "difference" can be something other than "oppression." Fantasy gives us the tools to explore what "human" truly means by positing the opposite of human --- and, yes, that's a trope, but an entirely different one than exploring "the oppression of humans" by positing "the oppression of the opposite of human."
Of course it's not, and I'm the first who likes portraying some controversial stuff. But I could not do it in a way that might seen as possitive when it goes against my own beliefs. If I portray rape, I don't want to do it in a casual way. This folks rape people and that's all. That's the wrong message. Rape is a serious issue, as is bigotry, etc. Making it look casual or unimportant is offensive to me.
A fantasy world will always be a reflection of the real world because us, who are creating it, belong to the real world.
I don't want to use a roleplaying game to teach any lessons, but I don't want either to frivolize with real world issues.
I hate not being able to express my thoughts better, not being a native English speaker. Sometimes the right words won't come to my mind and I feel like I'm unable to write accurately what I want to say.
Uhm, I'm curious if you always portray murder in such a serious way. Do you never had some bandit hunting portrayed in a casual way?