The latest cliché?

[Bismark]

Have any of you come across the following phenomenon?

 

The number of potential players I have come across of the last few years that seem incredibly keen to create characters that depart radically from standard archetypes has become so great that I wondering whether or not this is itself becoming a cliché...

 

This can also cause party problems occasionally; no-one wants to play the 'boring tank of a fighter' but then the same people complain when the party 'front line' characters keep keeling over because they cannot cope with taking damage [fighters wearing heavy armour are apparently a 'cliché' ].

[CourtFool]

Read shaded text to players

 

Do you plan your adventures around the party, or do you have a pre-planned scenario laid out that does not consider party make-up?

 

I have never had a problem with my groups complaining they needed type X characters because I plan the adventures around what the party has. No tanks? I send them on stealth missions or something involving guerilla tactics that favors light armor and high maneuverability. No magic wielders? I send them on missions where they must use skills to overcome obstacles.

 

Personally, I do not enjoy playing in a campaign where I have to be a Cleric because the party did not have one. I want to play what I feel like playing. I see no reason to straight-jacket a player just because he was last to the table.

[Bismark]

Re: The latest cliché?

 

The party make-up is definitely considered - but the players have a habit of choosing 'unorthodox' tactics (and not in a positive way).

 

Last week they realised that they were trying to act like a standard party even though their capabilities were markedly different - charging into a ordered unit of Skeletons is NOT recommended if you are only wearing light armour, have no shield, and do not have an AoE melee attack (the character in question is fast enough that he could just have picked off one of the bad guys on the outside and then got out of the way, rinse and repeat...).

 

I think that the player still acts as though another player (who departed 6 months ago) is still around - his character was a battle priest in double mail with an Axe of Cleaving, and could wade through lesser minions as if they did not exist, as well as having lots and lots of BODY and a very high CON, so he was incredibly durable. When the 2 front-line characters went into combat back then, the whole was definitely greater than the sum of the parts - the priest carved up minions and the other guy (a highlander Dwarf with an armour-piercing claymore) used to nail the leader..

 

The players who are not playing front-line fighters appear to have a much better idea of tactics and they have finally got their message through, so the problem has solved itself, but it took a while...

 

And, for the record, all characters were designed by me to the players' exact specifications - I did not attempt to force them into any particular choices (sometimes their wacky character concepts are worth a fortune in entertainment value alone)

[BlackSword]

Re: The latest cliché?

 

First, I don't think every party has to be built in the MMORPG mold. No need for Tank, demi-Tank, DPS, Healer, Magic DPS, and Buff/Debuff as the sole party build.

 

I think the radical departure is sometimes a measure of player maturity. From my own experience, as well as observations, players seem to go through phases of a) Introduction and stick with what's in the book (mundane) -> Mundane is for suckers, I want to be anything that is completely different no matter how hard it is for the GM to justify why 3-headed alien from Rigel 8 is in Middle Earth, and my sole character concept is, "cause its different"* -> c) Well I have this character concept, how does it fit within the game world.

 

*This also sometimes diverges to, "cause its the most powerful build ever."

[Bismark]

Re: The latest cliché?

 

BlackSword said:

 

From my own experience, as well as observations, players seem to go through phases of a) Introduction and stick with what's in the book (mundane) -> Mundane is for suckers, I want to be anything that is completely different no matter how hard it is for the GM to justify why 3-headed alien from Rigel 8 is in Middle Earth, and my sole character concept is, "cause its different"* -> c) Well I have this character concept, how does it fit within the game world.

 

Been there, done that (I am ashamed to admit, in the case of option

 

Oddly enough, I have put the idea to my players of running a Valdorian Age campaign for a while, and so far all their character concepts have been (a) sound and ( - by some fluke - perfect for producing a balanced party

[AliceTheOwl]

Re: The latest cliché?

 

BlackSword said:

 

 

 

Been there, done that (I am ashamed to admit, in the case of option

 

Oddly enough, I have put the idea to my players of running a Valdorian Age campaign for a while, and so far all their character concepts have been (a) sound and ( - by some fluke - perfect for producing a balanced party

Give it a try. I've been enjoying the VA game Josh has been running. We have a campaign log around here somewhere . . .

 

Ah, here it is. Good lord, it's been forever since he updated.

[Old Man]

Re: The latest cliché?

 

This can also cause party problems occasionally; no-one wants to play the 'boring tank of a fighter' but then the same people complain when the party 'front line' characters keep keeling over because they cannot cope with taking damage [fighters wearing heavy armour are apparently a 'cliché' ].

 

I've made tanks who were mages. It's actually too easy to do in FH.

 

It sounds to me like the problem is not cliché or anti-cliché, it's just that no one in the group wants to play a tank. This merely means that they ought to change their tactics--wolfpacking instead of front and rear lines.

 

I've often considered playing an ultimate tank fighter who used a large shield on each arm, combined with heavy armor and some kind of exotic martial art, making him nigh invulnerable in combat. I trip on it because I envision him as being a member of some elite bodyguard, but then why would such a character go adventuring? Absolute loyalty would be a prerequisite for such an organization.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: The latest cliché?

 

Actually, I prefer to see games where the characters need to overcome a broad array of challenges. Sometimes, that means our PC's have had to stand back and say "We're not doing very well because we're using the same tactics that have historically succeeded. This situation isn't suited to those tactics. What can we do differently?"

 

After that brainstorming session, the rest of the scenario tends to be mush easier.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: The latest cliché?

 

"Head them off at the pass? I *DESPISE* that cliche'!"

 

Glad I got that out of my system.

 

Anyway, not everybody likes, or is capable of, playing every archetype, though in a typical group, you'll find someone who'll play the major ideas. Around here, though, for the most part, people just don't like playing heavy-armor warriors, since they find them to lack 'style', much preferring high-DEX swashbucklers.

 

That said, you should tailor, at least to a degree, the game to fit the players and characters, not vice versa. If the group doesn't have anybody with Stealth, they shouldn't be put in a situation where sneakery is their only option (if it's the BEST option, but there are others, sure). If they don't have any trap-disarming capability, they probably shouldn't go traipsing through a Tower of Traps.

[Enforcer84]

Re: The latest cliché?

 

I thought this was going to be about parties consisting solely of Old Arch Wizards, Twin Sword Weilding Drow Rangers, or Half Naked Barbarian tanks.

My bad.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: The latest cliché?

 

I thought this was going to be about parties consisting solely of Old Arch Wizards, Twin Sword Weilding Drow Rangers, or Half Naked Barbarian tanks.

My bad.

 

You forgot 'grumpy dwarves', 'effete elves' and 'chunky yet sticky-fingered halflings'.

[Manic Typist]

Re: The latest cliché?

 

I've often considered playing an ultimate tank fighter who used a large shield on each arm, combined with heavy armor and some kind of exotic martial art, making him nigh invulnerable in combat. I trip on it because I envision him as being a member of some elite bodyguard, but then why would such a character go adventuring? Absolute loyalty would be a prerequisite for such an organization.

 

Have him be loyal to another PC.

[Gunrunner]

Re: The latest cliché?

 

Have him be loyal to another PC.

 

Exactly. Even if none of the PC's are playing wealthy characters, then perhaps the PC is the unruly son or daughter of some powerful lord who has hired a personal bodyguard to keep an eye on him/her. Maybe your character even has a bit of authority over the other PC if he or she is especially reckless or irresponsible.

[austenandrews]

Re: The latest cliché?

 

The number of potential players I have come across of the last few years that seem incredibly keen to create characters that depart radically from standard archetypes has become so great that I wondering whether or not this is itself becoming a cliché...

You're right, it is a cliche. It seems there's always someone who wants to be X* because he'd be the only X* in the game world.

 

*where X in ('non-human in a humans-only milieu', 'martial artist in a European fantasy', 'psychic in a world without psychics', 'amnesiac god/dragon/demon/spirit', 'future/alien soldier transplanted to fantasy world', etc.)

[Curufea]

Re: The latest cliché?

 

I occasionally do let my players choose an archetype - just so that we can all point and laugh at how limited and two dimensional they are

But in general I disallow them. They can't exist in any fantasy world with a modicum of "this ain't a videogame" to it.

Archetypes should stay in CRPGs where roleplaying is supressed because it is so hard to program.

 

I want characters with jobs, occupations and actual individual backgrounds.

Characters that could actually earn a living when they aren't acting or reacting to the plot.

Characters that actually show the player has thought about them, and isn't just turning up to roll dice.

 

I'm a narrativist, and build the game around the players and their characters.

 

So, to me - it isn't a new cliche, I've been doing it for the last 15 years.

[austenandrews]

Re: The latest cliché?

 

I occasionally do let my players choose an archetype - just so that we can all point and laugh at how limited and two dimensional they are

Conforming to an archetype doesn't necessitate having a two-dimensional character. I would call a character like Gimli an archetypal fighter, yet he had a rich history. Heck, one could say Burglar Baggins is literally the archetypal fantasy thief, and he's nothing like the stereotype.

[CourtFool]

Re: The latest cliché?

 

Characters that actually show the player has thought about them' date=' and isn't just turning up to roll dice.[/quote']

 

Where do you find these people you speak of?

 

Actually, the players I have had recently thought about their characters but only about how to squeeze in another Damage Class.

[Curufea]

Re: The latest cliché?

 

I've been in games where the players are just there because they have nothing else to do. It's more a sense of duty that keeps them there.

[assault]

Re: The latest cliché?

 

I want characters with jobs, occupations and actual individual backgrounds.

Characters that could actually earn a living when they aren't acting or reacting to the plot.

 

"My character is a mercenary. When he is employed he spends most of his time fighting, practicing fighting, or standing around on guard duty. He's currently between employers."

 

"My character grew up on the streets, where he learned to steal things for a living. Now he's an adult and still steals things."

 

"My character is a commercial wizard. He makes his living performing small feats of magic for ordinary people."

 

"My character is a sucky jerk who apparently has some religious association."

 

What I am trying to show here is that the bog-standard (DnD-type)archetypes are actually mostly viable people. Fighters can make a living from being a fighter. So can magicians, as long as they have at least some spells that aren't related to blowing things up.

 

I was being snide with Clerics, though, because I don't like them and refuse to play them. I wouldn't use anything like them in any campaign I ran, either.

[Hierax]

Re: The latest cliché?

 

We all met at the Inn and just decided to "adventure".

[Dale A. Ward]

Re: The latest cliché?

 

We all met at the Inn and just decided to "adventure".

 

After quaffing a few too many ales, no doubt.

 

"Hey, Bork... ~hic~ y' wanna go down t' the cemetery an' kick over ~beeeeellllch~ tombstones?"

 

"Naah... I ~hic~ I ~hic~ I got a better idea! Le's all go up t' the ruin't castle an' see if'n we c'n make it t' th' basement 'thout gittin' et by th' rats!"

 

 

[Curufea]

Re: The latest cliché?

 

Conforming to an archetype doesn't necessitate having a two-dimensional character. I would call a character like Gimli an archetypal fighter' date=' yet he had a rich history. Heck, one could say Burglar Baggins is literally the archetypal fantasy thief, and he's nothing like the stereotype.[/quote']

I would only call Gimli a fighter because the culture of the Dwarves was never explored enough in the books to fit him into their society.

Bilbo ain't no thief. Hobbits in general are good at moving quietly and being nimble/dextrous. That's all. And Elves are much better than Hobbits at that. It's equivalent to saying all Elves are archetypical fantasy thieves.

Also the Elves were better at crafting magical items than the Dwarves.

 

However the analogy to characters in literature quickly breaks down.

Is Legolas a fighter or thief?

Is Gandalf a mage or a fighter?

What are Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin?

What are Elrond, Glorfindel, Galadriel and Golum?

 

Archetype = videogame. It's letting the players know that combat is more important than any other aspect in your game.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: The latest cliché?

 

After quaffing a few too many ales, no doubt.

 

"Hey, Bork... ~hic~ y' wanna go down t' the cemetery an' kick over ~beeeeellllch~ tombstones?"

 

"Naah... I ~hic~ I ~hic~ I got a better idea! Le's all go up t' the ruin't castle an' see if'n we c'n make it t' th' basement 'thout gittin' et by th' rats!"

 

From a game long ago:

 

"Hey guys! Let's go sack a dungeon!"

[austenandrews]

Re: The latest cliché?

 

It sounds like you're defining "archetype" as inherently shallow and lame. In which case, yeah, archetypes are inherently shallow and lame.

 

Myself, I call Gimli an archetypal fighter because as a character, that's pretty much all he did. I call Bilbo a thief because he spent the whole book sneaking around nicking things. The fact that Hobbits make good thieves doesn't change that. Gandalf is unquestionably the archetypal fantasy wizard.

 

What you seem to be describing I would call stereotypes, or more probably, character classes. Semantics.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: The latest cliché?

 

I would only call Gimli a fighter because the culture of the Dwarves was never explored enough in the books to fit him into their society.

 

He fought. That was where his skills lay. Gimli was pretty much an archetypal "tank warrior". The dwarves in The Hobbit demonstrated no real skills beyond combat either, or at least nothing that could not be described as ancillary. As a result, the archetypal dwarf is viewed as a warrior - a fighter.

 

Bilbo ain't no thief. Hobbits in general are good at moving quietly and being nimble/dextrous. That's all.

 

IIRC, he was specifically selected by Gandalf because he was a thief. It's been many years, however. In any case, the sneaky halfling did become the archetypal Fantasy rogue. Thief was always a poorly chosen name (despite Hobit nomenclature) because it implied stealing from the party.

 

And Elves are much better than Hobbits at that.

 

Elves tended to be silent and unseen in their forests - masters of woodcraft, more than thievery.

 

It's equivalent to saying all Elves are archetypical fantasy thieves. Also the Elves were better at crafting magical items than the Dwarves.

 

Elves tended to be archer warriors, or warriors with knowledge of magic. This became the elven archetype - an archetype all its own separate from the various human archetypes. And, in fact, the elven archetype typically enjoys bonuses with archery as a consequence.

 

However the analogy to characters in literature quickly breaks down.

Is Legolas a fighter or thief?

 

A fighter. Specifically, a fighter specialized in archery.

 

Is Gandalf a mage or a fighter?

 

Gandalf demonstrates minimal magic in LOTR. A mid-level Druid could accomplish most of what he does. Actually, Gandalf is closer to your point on Gimli - we learn very little of his abilities in the course of LOTR. He has fighting and mage skills, but is the stereotypical aged mentor character, who spends a lot more effort advising than doing. "Sage" might be a good description.

 

What are Frodo' date=' Sam, Merry and Pippin?[/quote']

 

At the commencement of the LoTR, young neophytes. They grow through the course of the books, of course, attaining some skills - so much so that, on their return to the Shire, they no longer fit in. Some gain skills more along the fighter's line, while others gain Roguish skills. Note that none of then breaks the Hobbit archetype and learns magic.

 

What are Elrond' date=' Glorfindel, Galadriel and Golum?[/quote']

 

Bit players. Elrond is an elven archetype with woodcraft, warrior and mystic skills. Gollum is a rogue - he moves quietly and steals things (if anyone is a thief...)He's also unique unto himself, so a "monster" may be an apt description.

 

Archetype = videogame. It's letting the players know that combat is more important than any other aspect in your game.

 

I think that's a huge oversimplification. An archetypal sage would be pretty much useless in combat. An archetypal rogue (as opposed to the d20 3e rogue) isn't much use in combat either. Most fantasy archetypes (in literature as well as in game) are very competent in combat - that's where we see their skills shine, and a novel with no conflict doesn't go very far.