The Gaming Den

... Unless you were some kinda of magic-user, diplomancer, or even thief...

Magic counts as a weapon if it can be used in combat for purposes of "need to be proficient at", assuming it can be used as easily. Since it doesn't exist on Earth, its not relevant, unfortunately.

Diplomacers are too broken to be permited.

Thieves...better be damn good.

Sorry, I assumed we were still in a fantasy context.

Sure, if you're playing a nonfantasy combat-based game then Viking character will have to be good with weapons.. as will everyone else. That's not a cultural limitations, that you setting up a game where all characters are fighters.

Personally, if I was doing such a game, I'd either a) do classless or B) break fighter into pieces.

Even a noncombat focused game in that era would need "combat proficient" as a given.

And no worries, I could have been clearer.

As for culture: Its more "all Vikings should have these traits" than "Can only have these traits".

Being a Cossack who is allergic to horses would be funny in a silly game (a silly and sadistic game?) but not so good for a seirous campaign.

Fair enough, actually.

Sounds like we are left with two things.

1) Differences of taste.

2) Figuring out what is balanced with what.

So long as everyone is a proficient adventurer, whether my character is better with a sword than yours is not vital.

Talisman wrote:In which case the should not be allowed as PCs.

No.

It's stupid to remove choices arbitrarily, especially because it's not great. If a player wants to play a bad combination, let him. When the fluff for orcs says, "Orcs have naturally limited magical potential because of X, and thus they make poor spellcasters," that's straightforward enough.

Also, the fucktarded Elennsar bashing needs to stop. The sheer amount of fail and strawmen being leveled at him is fucking ridiculous. Derpderpderp, saying that "people from culture X tend to have the following characteristics" is racist, amirite? No, it's not. Even if Elennsar were to say something like, "Black people tend to have afros," it would be stereotyping, not fucking racism. Furthermore, there's a huge difference between one tiny culture and an entirely diverse spectrum of people based on skin color.

Good Lord. This thread makes me cry.

Elennsar wrote:And I say this as an Aspie.

/facepalm

Also, I'm a right-wing Christian racist who likes eating babies and murdering transients.

Elennsar wrote:1) Differences of taste.

2) Figuring out what is balanced with what.

Differences of taste I can deal with, They're not really germane to this discussion.

Balance is the key factor. It's the most important part (style/taste can be adjusted easily), and the only part we can reasonable expect to agree on. I could argue why LotR is better than, say, Star Wars and never convince a Star wars fan because that's a matter of opinion. Crunchy numbers are not.

So long as everyone is a proficient adventurer, whether my character is better with a sword than yours is not vital.

True, but oversimplified.

If your PC is better with a sword that mine because I allocated my resources differently, that's fine.

If you're flat-out better than me because you have benefits I can't access, then we have a problem.

---

Edit: @ P_R

Psychic Robot wrote:

Talisman wrote:In which case the should not be allowed as PCs.

No.

It's stupid to remove choices arbitrarily, especially because it's not great. If a player wants to play a bad combination, let him. When the fluff for orcs says, "Orcs have naturally limited magical potential because of X, and thus they make poor spellcasters," that's straightforward enough.

A race/class choice that is noticeably subpar should be either restricted or reserved only for experienced gamers who understand what they're getting into.

In other words, players shouldn't have their mechanics punished because of their fluff. An against-type orcish wizard should either be viable or disallowed completely.

Also, the fucktarded Elennsar bashing needs to stop. The sheer amount of fail and strawmen being leveled at him is fucking ridiculous. Derpderpderp, saying that "people from culture X tend to have the following characteristics" is racist, amirite? No, it's not. Even if Elennsar were to say something like, "Black people tend to have afros," it would be stereotyping, not fucking racism. Furthermore, there's a huge difference between one tiny culture and an entirely diverse spectrum of people based on skin color.

Thank you. I agree.

I don't agree with all of Elennsar's positions, but there has been an alarming amount of vitrol leveled against him. If you can't debate civilly, shut the hell up.

WTF, people? Random insults *do not* make you look smarter. They make you look like a 13-year-old.

PR -- why don't you define racism for me, then?

Oops.

A race/class choice that is noticeably subpar should be either restricted or reserved only for experienced gamers who understand what they're getting into.

You can't really put that kind of limit on standard races because the DM's generally seen as a dick if he's like, "No, you can't play an orc because you're a noob." The nonstandard races--the ones that have crazy modifiers--should all be left to DM fiat, and I would agree with that decision. But I'd still allow an orcish wizard just because I'm okay with crappy choices as long as there's a big warning sign that tells the player that they're about to embark on a difficult road.

The problem is, one of the things you have as a dwarf as opposed to an elf is stuff I can't duplicate.

If that's stuff "I can't do at all", that's potentially much worse than "a small bonus to stuff we both do". (or removal of a penalty.)

As for the Aspie comment: The point was, I'm not saying "Aspies are unplayable." I'm just convinced that trying to play someone with Asperger's syndrome would be damn hard for most people. Getting into the head of someone whose fundemental thought patterns are skewed strongly towards one end of the spectrum is fiendishly difficult unless you're very empathic or skewed similarly.

Same with any other significant mental/pyschological difference from the normal mindsets (plural intended) of the human race.

Talisman: How hard is it to say "Oh. Orcs make bad wizards. So says the fluff -and- the rules. Maybe I shouldn't do an orc wizard."?

I mean, how many people who can make good characters based on their own ability to tell how vital Int is to a wizard will fail to read that?

*sigh*

We're arguing in circles and we need to decide exactly what we want to accomplish.

I'm signing off of this debate for tonight...I'm tapped out and I have a game to run tomorrow.

I will say that this

If that's stuff "I can't do at all", that's potentially much worse than "a small bonus to stuff we both do". (or removal of a penalty.)

is not necessarily true. I'm talking about different options, not improved abilities.

Yes, there's a power increase, but it's a relatively slight one...and presumably, other races will have their own unique options as well.

As has been mentioned, it's acceptable if one PC is better than another ina given scenario, as long as things balance out over the course of several scenarios.

I'll just leave this with wishing you a fun experience, restful dreams, and hopes that all bonuses or additional abilities in any game you experience are cool and useful, then.

Of course, some people don't really care about balance that much. People have been playing fighters for years now.

Yeah. What's troublesome is winding up with someone who is never strong enough to be level appropriate or even useful.

Having the fighter be a meat shield for the wizard is one thing. Finding out that the fighter being in the party costs it more resources than he contributes (and not just because the latter is "almost nothing" at high levels) is distressing.

"Less good' is one thing. "counterproductive" is another.

Elennsar wrote:There are plenty of nonblonde Scandinavians, so being a redhaired Dane won't hurt anything. But if your Viking is a pacifist, I'm starting to wonder what "Norseman." meant other than eight letters on the character sheet.

I now dare people to accuse me of strawmanning.

I dare you to figure out a way that you can be a pacifist from Viking culture and survive both the time and place in general, and that particular part of it.

Pacifism and warrior cultures plus dangerous times in general do not match up well.

Elennsar wrote:I dare you to figure out a way that you can be a pacifist from Viking culture and survive both the time and place in general, and that particular part of it.

Pacifism and warrior cultures plus dangerous times in general do not match up well.

First off, "pacifism" has a crapload of possible definitions, so I could start ridiculing you just by trying to ban them all at once. But also, "being a character" and "being an adventurer" aren't the same. So of course some definitions of pacifism could indeed make someone definitionally unfit for some (common even) definitions of adventurer. But you know what? Of that was the case, it'd have precisely nothing to do with being Norse.

So we're mandatorily talking about "character" or definitions of "pacifism" and "adventuring" that aren't mutually exclusive. Anyway, for your challenge to be a challenge at all, I'd also have to make the assumption that all able men took part in raiding - which I find exceedingly unlikely. But guess what? You can just ... not be an able man ... unless you think people other than them died all the time - I even have the impression that they died less often than able men, maybe that has to do with not fighting, perhaps?

Actually, most norse living in their settlements were very peaceful.

'Going Viking' was what un-landed, drunkards, criminals, outcasts, and extra sons and daughters of the settlements did. They'd strike out and try to bring home loot so they could buy their way into a town, or find some place to settle.

Their homes were hardly armed forts; and only their trade centers were protected, generally by paid experienced, rich fighters, farmers, and fishermen.

I'm not sure how helpful that is, but it does serve as a reminder that back at home, they were pretty much like everyone else, instead of some warlike cult.

-Crissa

I wanted to go with his ridiculous premise first.

Okay, first off.

I said Viking for a reason: I'm implying (perhaps I should emphasis that to the point of "outright stating") Danes/etc. who left their homes and did more dangerous things than fishing and hunting.

So you would have to be fit for that. The fact that there are characters who never leave their homes is not relevant to those who do.

Second off.

This is a dangerous time with plenty of people who will attack you (either to kill or rob) with not much you can do about it, so most people (certainly most men) are familiar with self defense.

Third off:

Pacifism: I will not kill (people) is a pretty good base definition.

"I will only kill in self defense" is not necessarily an illegitimate concept, but its still damn rare (there's not much stigma in killing in war in this era, though murder is a bad thing).

The Norse (and many other people of their time) had a problem with cowards. A man who refused to fight would probably be seen as cowardly. A man unable to fight would have problems if and when the many scenarios that they faced more than oh, citizens of Constantinpole, came up. Even nonadventuring men.

So while most Norse wouldn't actively go around killing people, being unable to do so when the occasions came up would be unwise.

Bigode: How about figuring out what the actual premise is, and then commenting?

War cult or not, the Vikings did more fighting more often than most people in the modern world (not unique) and generally encouraged things like the go-a-Viking more than (ot seemingly more than) the others of their time.

Unwise = a great plot hook

Sometimes. Sometimes not.

Elennsar wrote:I said Viking for a reason: I'm implying (perhaps I should emphasis that to the point of "outright stating") Danes/etc. who left their homes and did more dangerous things than fishing and hunting.

So you would have to be fit for that. The fact that there are characters who never leave their homes is not relevant to those who do.

You damn well should. So, your premise was "the only stories worth telling about the Norse involve pillage". OK, I underestimated your stupidity.

Elennsar wrote:This is a dangerous time with plenty of people who will attack you (either to kill or rob) with not much you can do about it, so most people (certainly most men) are familiar with self defense.

Not going with the more retarded version of your premise: don't be the majority. Play a woman.

Elennsar wrote:Pacifism: I will not kill (people) is a pretty good base definition.

"I will only kill in self defense" is not necessarily an illegitimate concept, but its still damn rare (there's not much stigma in killing in war in this era, though murder is a bad thing).

You just agreed a definition was legitimate and proceeded to discard it. Congratulations.

Elennsar wrote:The Norse (and many other people of their time) had a problem with cowards. A man who refused to fight would probably be seen as cowardly. A man unable to fight would have problems if and when the many scenarios that they faced more than oh, citizens of Constantinople, came up. Even nonadventuring men.

And so? You just nailed for me that the exact same happens in Constantinople, only less often. And I saw the same in a school this week.

Elennsar wrote:So while most Norse wouldn't actively go around killing people, being unable to do so when the occasions came up would be unwise.

See "legitimate alternate definition discarded".

Elennsar wrote:Bigode: How about figuring out what the actual premise is, and then commenting?

How about actually stating your premises (which you didn't by own admission)? Having premises less retarded helps as well.

Elennsar wrote:War cult or not, the Vikings did more fighting more often than most people in the modern world (not unique) and generally encouraged things like the go-a-Viking more than (ot seemingly more than) the others of their time.

Like the other people didn't go to war, and like the non-violence of the modern (rich) world's up for comparison.