From: grixit@NOUCE.gci-net.com (Dr Pepper) Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Fantasy Species Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 19:47:54 GMT Organization: GG TECH: Fandom and conversation (42:4802/1001) Lines: 83 Message-ID: X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Message-ID: <42:4802/1001@Candynet 73923759> X-Gate: grixit@gci-net.com X-Poster: Net-Tamer Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:15376 X-From: grixit@NOUCE.gci-net.com (Dr Pepper) On Wed 16 Jun 1999 16:40, Mike Harvey wrote to Mark Jones about "Fantasy Settings/ Races/ Familiarity". MH> Mark Jones wrote: MJ>> MJ>> At the risk of touching off another madhouse thread, I want to ask MJ>> oppinions on something I'v seen touched on here a couple times: MJ>> "traditional" fantasy races. MJ>> MJ>> When you sit down and read about a new setting, do you physically MJ>> cringe when you see the word "elf" or "dwarf"? MH> No, it grabs my attention. It produces certain assumptions which may or may not be valid. MJ>> Do you consider it clumsy if MJ>> the author creates races with obvious relations to the MJ>> tolkienesque races, but uses different names? Elves and dwarves are not "tolkienesque" they are folkloric. That's why Tolkien used them. MH> Yes, very much so. I generally see them as knock-offs rather MH> than original ideas -- different for the sake of being MH> different. It often strikes me as pretentious. ("I have MH> grown beyond elves and dwarves...") bleh. Well i have my own species (not race, a race is a division *within* a species) because i wanted more control. No one can say to me, as they often did when i was running eclectic D&D, that i'm doing elves wrong. That's because i don't have elves. I have flajessavs, a hominid species that fills the niche, as it were, for elves, being as they are tall and slender with pointed ears and all that, but the description is entirely mine. MH> Now *occasionally* I do see an interesting new race. But it MH> really needs to be interesting; there is almost nothing you MH> can do with humanoids that is very original any more, other MH> than make another wannabe-original elf knock-off with a few MH> tweaks from some stereotype. Agreed. If your alternate species are just like your base species (usually human) plus infravision or whatever, then why bother? My flajessavs differ from my base species (hyuumins) at the instinctive level, starting with their lack of a drive to kill or even seriously hurt other flajessavs. This affects both the societies they create and the personality traits they develop. MH> GRIPE: D&D elves and dwarves are only vaguely "Tolkienesque". MH> Tolkien's MH> dwarves were stealthy and they could cast spells. His elves MH> were tall MH> and strong, lived in caves, and he never mentioned pointy MH> ears. His MH> hobbits were warriors, not thieves. Let me suggest that you MH> could be MH> different and add depth to your game by emulating Tolkien more MH> accurately, rather than following the D&D versions or trying MH> to come up with your own "warped" version of demihumans. Heh. Back in the 70's i knew several gms who did this. Problem was there were difference of opinion over what was authenticly tolkienish. MJ>> How much would you weigh "instant familiarity" with "originality"? MH> I think that familiarity is much more important. In fact, MH> originality can be detrimental if players do not "get" the MH> new race, or have a difficult time playing it correctly. Agreed. But i've found that for serious roleplayers there's nothing they can't "get", if explained properly. | 10 2 | grixit | DR PEPPER | @ | 4 | gci-net.com ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: Fantasy Species Date: 20 Aug 2000 00:52:15 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 93 Message-ID: <6uk8dc984g.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 966725535 1120 10.0.3.2 (19 Aug 2000 22:52:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Aug 2000 22:52:15 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:15419 grixit@NOUCE.gci-net.com (Dr Pepper) writes: > On Wed 16 Jun 1999 16:40, Mike Harvey wrote to Mark Jones about > "Fantasy Settings/ Races/ Familiarity". > > MH> Mark Jones wrote: > > MJ>> When you sit down and read about a new setting, do you physically > MJ>> cringe when you see the word "elf" or "dwarf"? > > MH> No, it grabs my attention. > > It produces certain assumptions which may or may not be valid. I will support that one. > MH> Yes, very much so. I generally see them as knock-offs rather > MH> than original ideas -- different for the sake of being > MH> different. It often strikes me as pretentious. ("I have > MH> grown beyond elves and dwarves...") bleh. > > Well i have my own species (not race, a race is a division *within* a > species) :-) That may be the common use in science/biology, but the OED disagrees with you: race ^3 n. 1. group of persons or animals or plants connected by common descent ... ; genus or species or breed or variety of animals or plants, any greater division of living creatures. (the human, feathered, four-footed, etc, race). 2. descent, kindred (...; separate in language or race). 3. class of persons etc. with some common feature (the race of poets, dandies, etc). > MH> Tolkien's > MH> dwarves were stealthy and they could cast spells. Actually their magic was fairly limited, more mentalist than actual spells. Gandalf used spells, but he is an Istar/Wizard, not an Elf. > MH> and strong, lived in caves, and he never mentioned pointy > MH> ears. O-god-o-god. That question is nowhere near as decided as you make it out to be. The question about pointy ears comes up every few months on the Tolkien NGs [1] and is great flame war inducer (OK, Balrog wings and eagles flying Frodo into Mordor beat it). It has long ago made it into the FAQ as "undecidable". [1] latest example (fairly tame, but with all argument in it): http://neil.franklin.ch/Usenet/rec.arts.books.tolkien/20000715_about_ears > MH> hobbits were warriors, Huh? Tolkiens Hobbits were mainly farmers. Hobbits that went out on adventures were looked on as "not respectable" (Tokiens words). > not thieves. Apart from Lobelia Sackville-Baggins. Ever heard of silver spoons? :-) Of course Gandalfs claim that Bilbo was a great thief was pure bull. > MH> different and add depth to your game by emulating Tolkien more > MH> accurately, rather than following the D&D versions or trying > MH> to come up with your own "warped" version of demihumans. > > Heh. Back in the 70's i knew several gms who did this. The group I am in still does that. Actually we started as "play in Tolkiens world" group. > Problem was > there were difference of opinion over what was authenticly tolkienish. Such discussions tend to be short over here. I suppose that is due to having an undisputed Tolkien connaisseur (all 12 HoME books) in the group. -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ Nerd, Geek, Hacker, Unix Guru, Sysadmin, Roleplayer, LARPer, Mystic