Humans in rpgs

[MiserableOldGit]

It is a little odd, but you have to bear in mind that when you come up with different races, it naturaly follows you'll want them to have different attributes and areas of strength/weakness-the only problem is that for the game to make any sense to human players, they need to be attributes humans can relate to and understand, so your 'exotic' races end up being expressions of humanity(dwarves are the stout tough ones, halflings the ickle nippy ones, elves the clever magicky ones etc.), which leaves you with a rather ironic problem-where do you stick the humans after youve covered all bases? The simple answer is bang in the middle.
One thing I disagree with you on is humans not being all rounders. On an individual level you might find specialisation, but as a whole you'll see a broad range of potential, which is why we prospered on nearly every continent on the globe, and at the very are able to survive any where on the globe except the very deepest depths of the sea (we do need to utilise technology in some regions, but tool use is part and parcel of evolution, and is in fact perfectly natural). This is why many games, such as DDO feature human versatility-no one character can take all the asoociated feats, but they can have some, given them an avenue into any given area of expertise.

 

[Grand_Arcana]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj4Ng6DBfrg&translated=1

-snip-

-snip-

-snip-

Catharsis means "to release pent up feels to achieve inner peace." In that case, the Romans are sort of indulging themselves in the thrill of battle in a moment of escapism. It's the same with Boxing or playing a bloody video-game, only with real consequences. It's also worth mentioning that not all Romans enjoyed the Colosseum games.

The celts waged war yes, but there were things to gain from it: land, wealth, booze, women. War is a means to dominate another culture and profit on their resources, a completely rational action.

The "thrill of battle" doesn't come from killing or causing pain, but from the challenge of competing against someone else in battle. It's possible to have this feeling without going through with the killing blow (at least with normal people). The trill is akin to playing football, basketball, or a fighting game. Competition is fun.

Childhood trauma is childhood trauma, and I wouldn't say "evil" as much as "deranged". Like I said earlier, I think that true evil is when a person is willing to harm others for more money, land, or power. A sadist takes pleasure in harming others, but a mentally healthy person who doesn't really like hurting, but does it anyway in order to gain something is much more devious IMO. In terms of storytelling, I think that having a sadist for an antagonist is just lazy. An antagonist whose actions you see as entirely rational if you were in his position is much stronger. It says "yeah, I'm a normal human, but I'm still a selfish bastard, and so are you". I just prefer a little grey in my stories.

In summation: violence fueled with rational thought is evil, violence for violence sake is just insanity. I don't consider sadist as evil, just insane. Conquerors are evil, Cortez was evil, slave trading is evil. Putting kittens in a microwave is a sign of mental illness.

 

[number4096]

Warning:French dialogue.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5hw7b_la-science-du-combat-15_tech

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5hyip_la-science-du-combat-25_tech

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5hyiq_la-science-du-combat-35_tech

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5hu90_la-science-du-combat-45_tech

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5hu7u_la-science-du-combat-55_tech

The last two videos talk more about weapons.

I would like to know if there would be anything inaccurate or wrong with these videos?

About what you just saidersonally,if the antagonist simply wants some resources,providing him with these would be sufficient,but the french tried to do that once and the vikings they tried it on wanted more than just resources,they wanted the blood of people they never met before just because.So vikings attacked the french anyway and took the resources afterward anyway(Maybe it is their mythology that wants that,though one would wonder why their mythology would have been made that way.).

An antagonist with a motivation can dealt with without violence,a sadist,not so much,which makes the sadist scarier since it will go after you no matter what,and reasoning will never work.

In a schoolyard,have you ever been attacked by someone who was smirking or laughing about it,and lacked any form of motivation or anger for doing so?(Slightly off-topic,but it talks about human evil.)

(The outfits of renaissance swordsmen kind of looks like Kefka Palazzo's outfit.Just a note.)

 

[YamadaJisho]

a few things bug me with the way humans are shown in rpgs:

-first,humans are shown as a balanced species,when in reality they are probably the most heavily specialised(sic) of all animals.

Herein lies the problem in your argument. You're comparing humans to vastly different animals, and not comparing humans to other humans. The different races in most Role-playing Games seem to be more like comparing people of different ethnicities, not comparing humans to animals. Thus, the problem is more that there is a generic 'human' as a baseline, but this is more for ease of integration. If the other races have a comparison, then it is easier to relate to them, as you have the "like humans, but..." analogy that has been said earlier in this thread.

-Humans are shown as more diversified than everyone else,when in reality,animals are just as diversified as humans are from an individual to the other.Any species that reproduce sexually will have this sort of diversity.And as can be seen outside,people tend to copy each other and do the same things,with those behaving differently from the mass being called exceptions,for a reason.

Okay, so humans are more specialized, and more diversified? In all actuality, I don't know what RPG's you're talking about. If you're talking about book RPGs, the wide range of professions are generally attainable by any race. There are exceptions, but most book RPGs I've played (and I review book RPGs) don't have the problems of single class races. One of my favorite RPGs out there is one called '7th Sea', which is based on a Renaissance fantasy Europe-like continent. The different races are different nationalities, and EVERYONE is human. In general though, if creating an RPG with different species of playable character, such as D&D or Star Wars, then really, a baseline is needed. Elves are faster, but not quite as hardy as us. Wookies are stronger, but not quite as smart (these are merely examples, please don't correct them). In order for these races to be playable, they have to be relatable, and in order for them to be relatable, they have to have a basis for comparison, i.e.: us. If you're talking about video games, then, well, the same rules really apply. Not only that, but the limits of what a company can do with the programing, and how much they can fit into their product make certain short-cuts needed.

-Humans are oftenly(sic) shown as magic users,which kind of breaks any forms of resemblance with real humans.They should be called something else at least.

I have NEVER seen any game, either video or book, that has shown humans to be primarily magic-using. Many have humans ABLE to use magic, but the races that primarily use magic are ALWAYS fantasy races. Most often, humans are portrayed as expansionists, colonists, and explorers. Also, humans using magic breaking realism is neither a fair, nor accurate argument. If that kind of magic existed, MANY humans would practice it. People all over the world look at supernatural abilities and want them. Whether those abilities come in the form of mystical arts (magic, ninja arts, the Force), technology (Advanced weaponry, starships), or internal hullabaloo (psionics, super-powers, chi, etc.), humans have always wanted to be able to do them. Complaining that in fantasy, humans can is like complaining that humans have ambitions of a better life. In fantasy, we can be whatever we want. If you're playing a game or reading a book, then you're not in control of the world. The creator is. You're looking into his/her vision. If you want something else, write it.

Also, 'oftenly' isn't a word. It would just be 'often.'

-Humans are too oftenly(sic) shown as english europeans rather than other ethnicities or at least other europeans than english europeans.This is not so bad until other ethnicities are shown as different species altogether(Redguards,anyone?).Or when the very first humans to born are shown as caucasians rather than africans.It is not racist,but it is inaccurate in relation to reality.They should at least be called something else.

Huh. A nation of primarily whites having whites in their fantasy? INCONCEIVABLE!!! The reason that most western fantasy is like that is because it's WESTERN FANTASY. Before the rampant westernization of Japan, most eastern fantasy had its own fantastic races and had Asian heroes and villains. The fantasy that exists in South America and Africa features heroes of those nationalities too. The reason most fantasy shows a western European bias is because they are made by those of western European descent (either actually western Europe or America). Japan does it now because it's fashionable in Japan, and it sells more games in the areas that net them the most profit (i.e.: America)

-Humans are oftenly(sic) shown as the good guys.Look at human history for three seconds.You will see on how many levels this is wrong(Humans should be shown as worthy,powerful villains who make other species tremble in fear if anything.With demons and other evil species being hunted down for sport.).

Okay, this comment, not to mention your whole debate with SakSak earlier shoes what little you actually know about both morality and human history. And general fantasy, now that I think about it.

1) Human History - Human history is replete with good individuals who strive for the betterment of humankind (Martin Luther King Jr., Martin Luther, Ghandi, Mother Theresa, Jesus (though, admittedly, he is known as "The Son Of God"), Princess Di, etc.). Though they don't stand out against such thoroughly evil individuals like Hitler, Stalin, Chairman Mao, Nero, Charles Manson, and many, many more. But then one has to consider WHY these individuals stand out. They stand out, and the evil that happens in this world stands out specifically because that evil is not the normal situation. Goodness is normal, evil is shocking. Humans in general are good, which is why evil stands out so much to us. I, personally, get very tired of people who paint humans as evil creatures who destroy everything we touch. It simply isn't so, otherwise we would have no society outside of military dictatorships where the strong rule the weak. And while those societies do exist, they are constantly noticed and spoken out against (which is why things like "Foundation Rwanda" exists). No one says "Wow, look at America, Israel, the UK, Australia, they have weird governments! Their people actually have rights!" That's the norm. Brutality is uncommon, which is why it's so noticeable.

2) Morality - Morality is a subject that relates more to the actions of an individual, and less to the intent behind it. If you hold a door open for a woman, that is good. It doesn't matter that you wanted an in to start dating her. Intent is very difficult to ascertain in the best of times, so people can only be judged by their actions. But even in the case of intent, the grand majority of people have no intention but to do the right thing. That's why betrayal stands out so much, because it doesn't happen that often and is generally abhorrent to people. As with my point above, the reason it stands out so much is because it contrasts so sharply with the good and honest intentions that surround it.

3) In most fantasy with humans v. Monsters, the monsters are either unfeeling, amoral demons/beasts that revel in destruction, or they're defending their territory and the humans at the end are shown as complete jerks for waging an 'unnecessary' war. In all honestly, in modern games and movies, humans=bad guys is a WAY too common theme. It's one of the reasons I liked the movie "Independence Day' (even though it was a terrible movie). It was finally a movie that went back to the 50's sci-fi humans = good, aliens = bad stupid theme. But most fantasy nowadays shows humans to be the bad guys, even if humans are also the good guys. It's honestly a little tiring.

One last point, I do have to say, in your discussions about morality, you really did come off as ignorant of the subject matter, and arrogant in the extreme. Even when you apologized, it seemed half-hearted. You used extremely specific examples to make generalizations, a lot, and used sources known specifically for being unreliable and untrustworthy. It reminded me of an argument I had with a conspiracy theorist who constantly showed the research he had done, and it all came from a website called conspiracyplanet.net. Not very convincing. In truth, in saying that the majority of humans are evil, the burden of proof is on you. It's up to you to sell that to everyone else (as you are the OP), not up to us to prove that wrong. So far, you have been, shall I say, less that convincing.

-The fixation on swords is impractical and inaccurate.The only useful swords to ever appear were the roman gladius and the japanese katana,and even these had to be paired with a shield or a wakizashi to be useful.Spears and polearms in general were always better than any other melee weapons(Case in point:Honda Tadakatsu and Tomoe Gozen.).

The fixation on swords is neither impractical nor inaccurate. You're comparing ancient heavy warfare to fantasy skirmishing. The two are COMPLETELY incompatible. In comparing ancient warfare to fantasy warfare, the pole-arm is used in both contexts. However, in our own past, in medieval times, the small skirmishing forces often used swords simply because they were a FAR more versatile weapon than a pole-arm. Pole-arms are great in open fields and when you give them to a thousand farmers to stab horses and knights with. Inside cities, dungeons, indoors, forests, the sword is simply more useful. The spear is a good weapon, but it's use is very much dictated by who and where you are fighting. In ancient Japan, the Katana was used more than any other weapon (and no, most Samurai used only the Katana. Yes there were a few samurai who dual-wielded, but they weren't as numerous (also, as a side note, every treatise I've ever read either about or by Miyamoto Musashi has shown him to be a one-sword man), and samurai who used the Katana FAR outnumbered the samurai who used the Yari or the Naginata as a primary weapon). In small skirmishes, the sword is the better option, simply because you're not going to be getting into mass warfare most of the time, and the sword is WAY more versatile. A skirmisher/hero never knows what situation he'll get into, so a weapon that can handle many different situations is better than a weapon that's excellent at one situation. Also, if I'm not mistaken, there are characters who use swords in Dynasty Warriors. The examples you gave of a lone spear-man holding off armies are 1) obviously historical embellishments and 2) a true master against a bunch of rank-and-file soldiers. You take a master swordsman against a bunch of spear wielding rank-and-file, and the swordsman will win (as has also been shown in Dynasty Warriors).

The other reason for the focus on the sword is because of the sword as a symbol. The sword has ALWAYS been a symbol of power and virtue. The spear is a symbol of a pointy stick. When you see children playing knights, they're using imaginary swords, not imaginary spears. When you see the crests of medieval noble houses, the sword is nearly universally present. Our modern Marine Corps uses the sword in their dress uniform. There are still today master sword smiths. Historically, the sword has ALWAYS been the symbol of the leader.

-Why the fixation on swords?Or England?Or goody-two-shoes?Villainous and powerful humans would be both more authentic and more interesting to play than goody-two-shoes.

People have tried that before. It doesn't work so well. Most people WANT to play the hero, and the 'engligh' human hero with the magical sword is simply the most relatable. There are games out there that allow you to play the villain, but they're simply not as popular, they don't sell as well. Video game companies are going to make what sells, and rightly so. They work hard, they deserve to make money from a game they make. They won't make that money if no one likes what they make.

-Sorry,that was long,what do you think?

I think you probably don't think your post is that long anymore. Sorry if I seemed insulting at all, but it really seems like you didn't do a whole lot of research, and none of the research you did was very good either. You really do just seem like a kid with a evil spear fetish.

 

[Raiha]

i avoid playing humans whenever possible. i am human, i don't want my escape to become a slightly different human with a to do list.

 

[number4096]

I will stop talking about human evil/good since it seems to be starting fights.

As for weapons,swords were considered awesome mostly because it was expensive rather than efficient.But i will stop arguing beyond that because i am honestly underinformed(Keep sending articles about human history,though,i like them.)about this subject.

As for post lenghts,i discovered that people really didn't mind the lenght that much,so i made my later posts longer.

YamadaJisho,i liked the informations you brought,so keep telling me more about history so as to correct my viewpoint.This thread since the beginning has taught me much,much more than i tought and i want to learn more with it.You,SakSak and Grand_Arcana have really well contributed to it but i think that i should stop arguing and listen instead so as to avoid fights.

(By the way,have you seen the five videos i recently linked?Tell me what you think.)

 

[ultrachicken]

I don't think a pixels should be compared to the real world
Also, humans are generally shown as being european because most rpgs have knights and dragons, and since that mythology originated in Europe, it makes since to have europeans does it not?
Besides, all the good RPGs let you customize your skin color so it's not a problem.

 

[Grand_Arcana]

I will stop talking about human evil/good since it seems to be starting fights.

As for weapons,swords were considered awesome mostly because it was expensive rather than efficient.But i will stop arguing beyond that because i am honestly underinformed(Keep sending articles about human history,though,i like them.)about this subject.

As for post lenghts,i discovered that people really didn't mind the lenght that much,so i made my later posts longer.

YamadaJisho,i liked the informations you brought,so keep telling me more about history so as to correct my viewpoint.This thread since the beginning has taught me much,much more than i tought and i want to learn more with it.You,SakSak and Grand_Arcana have really well contributed to it but i think that i should stop arguing and listen instead so as to avoid fights.

(By the way,have you seen the five videos i recently linked?Tell me what you think.)

The videos aren't playing for me. Oh, and refer to Yamada's and SakSak's posts on human morality. I prefer physical sciences, not social sciences. History and human nature are not my strong points.

Anyway, I'm done for today. Thanks for racking up my post count.

 

[number4096]

You're welcomed,Grand_Arcana.

And thanks for your posts,you taught me the most out of everyone on this thread.You rock.

 

[YamadaJisho]

I will stop talking about human evil/good since it seems to be starting fights.

As for weapons,swords were considered awesome mostly because it was expensive rather than efficient.But i will stop arguing beyond that because i am honestly underinformed(Keep sending articles about human history,though,i like them.)about this subject.

As for post lenghts,i discovered that people really didn't mind the lenght that much,so i made my later posts longer.

YamadaJisho,i liked the informations you brought,so keep telling me more about history so as to correct my viewpoint.This thread since the beginning has taught me much,much more than i tought and i want to learn more with it.You,SakSak and Grand_Arcana have really well contributed to it but i think that i should stop arguing and listen instead so as to avoid fights.

(By the way,have you seen the five videos i recently linked?Tell me what you think.)

Yeah, the whole post length thing was more of a joke. I guess humor doesn't translate well in the written word. As for the videos, well, they were comparing weapons in a very tight format. "La Science du Combat" is really just like the American show "The Ultimate Warrior", and neither really have very good conclusions. I've watched both shows several times (I speak both languages), and I've been summarily unimpressed. There's nothing particularly wrong with the shows other than they don't look at very many situations. They take people who are literally masters with their weapons and perform various tests that seem, well, honestly, contrived. In a fantasy RPG, or in real life, the people using the weapons or fighting in general are almost never experts, much less masters. Especially in fantasy, the hero has a multitude of skills, so the versatility of the weapon becomes the deciding factor. If, for example, a pike-man and a swordsman got in a fight on an open field, then chances are the pike-man would win, simply because he would strike first. If you're playing D&D, 3rd ed, then the appropriate term would be "an Attack of Opportunity." But in the middle of a forest, in a small room, in a crowded city, my money would be on the swordsman. There's just more room for the sword to move around in rather than a pole arm. Also, I've wielded both weapons, and I'd MUCH rather have a sword on my hip. They're significantly lighter and less cumbersome, they're easier to use (pole-arms have a LOT of centrifugal force when swung), and swords can be used to stab as well as slash.

I will agree with you that one of the reasons that made the sword the status symbol it is was probably the cost, but the same is true of many things (silk, purple dye, dark woods, gold). It doesn't make them less 'awesome'. It's also not the only reason that swords were the symbol they were. As has been said before, every other weapon used by mankind was originally suited for a different purpose. Pole-arms were originally used for fishing. Axes were used for lumber harvesting and wood-working. But swords were made only for combat. It made all the other weapons the weapons of the profession they were made for, but the sword was the weapon of the warrior, the soldier, and the lord. Historically, the sword is omnipresent, and there's a reason for that. Every culture, even African tribes, have different variations on the sword. And each culture developed the sword independently, and always for combat. It wouldn't have happened if the sword didn't make sense. There are definitely virtues of other weapons, and to master a weapon is no small feat and is to be awed. But the sword exists for a reason. If the spear was a better overall weapon, then it would have been the primary weapon of the world, which it's not. There have been duelists, skirmishers and the like that have primarily used the spear in the past, but if they had been successful, then the spear would have become the primary weapon. Don't get me wrong, the sword is NOT the end-all be-all weapon of the world. It has its drawbacks. What sets it apart is its primary function and its versatility. There are definitely uses for a spear, just as there are for an axe and a bow.

Here's my personal take on what should be in a video game fantasy RPG (or somesuch). How about giving your character the option at the very beginning as to what weapon to specialize in. It's been done before, and it requires a LOT of tweaking (as in most games that give you that option, if you don't choose the right weapon, your screwed proper, and if you don't have the right stats either, YOU'RE DOUBLE SCREWED!), but if a game did it right, I'd play it.

To give you an idea as to how long my posts usually are regarding any subject, this is one of the shortest I've ever written *snicker*

 

[skyfire_freckles]

I cannot read all the posts to make sure no one has beaten me to it. I must express my rage.

There is no such word as oftenly. Often is already an adverb; you can just leave off the ly. Please believe your spell checker when it tells you this.

/rant

Why do they put humans in games at all? We put in what we hope and fear we most are, that's all. It makes sense to do that.

 

[number4096]

Et puis si c'était une hallebarde au lieu d'une lance?L'hallebarde pourrait trancher et perçer en même temps.

(Translation:And if it was an halberd instead of a spear?It could slash and pierce at the same time.).

What do you think?Yamadajisho?

Can i type in french here?

 

[YamadaJisho]

I don't think a pixels should be compared to the real world
Also, humans are generally shown as being european because most rpgs have knights and dragons, and since that mythology originated in Europe, it makes since to have europeans does it not?
Besides, all the good RPGs let you customize your skin color so it's not a problem.

Gotta disagree with you on one point. Dragons didn't originate in Europe. Well, not exactly. Virtually every society developed dragon myths independently of each other. Asian dragons are not a cheap knockoff of European dragons, and South American dragons are not a knockoff of either. Other societies also have their own dragon myths too. There are only two explanations I can think of for such a phenomenon.

1) Mythical dragons actually existed in the past, and humans eventually hunted them to extinction because, well, the presence of hyper-intelligent magical flying lizards who ate people would be kind of a threat to your society. They probably also tasted like chicken.

2) Dragons were actually dinosaurs, and they didn't go extinct nearly as long ago as we thought. I tend to lend credence to this idea as it makes more logical sense. Pictures of people tend to embellish the subject quite a bit, so I imagine that a knight fighting a magical, monstrous, fire-breathing dragon was more exciting than a knight squaring off against a Deinonychus (Velociraptor for all you people who paid WAY too much attention to 'Jurassic Park')

As for all the best RPGs letting you change skin color, skin color is not the only physical difference between people if different ethnicities. I mean, many different ehtnicities have teh same skin color, but are vastly different. Mongolians and the Spaniards have almost identical skin colors, but they are DEFINITELY not the same ethnicity. Bone structure, hair color and structure, prevalent eye color, height, all these change as well. Just because I can change my character to a darker skin tone doesn't mean I'm playing an African or an Islander. It just means I'm playing whitey with a tan.

Of course, all the RPGs out there with the slider system don't really do it very well either because, as Yahtzee said during his AoC review, the only choices you really get are big muscly football hooligan or wispy lingerie model. The sliders only determine how incredibly huge your muscles or boobs are. It's one of the many problems with video game RPGs. The limits of character creation won't be fully defeated until games get big enough to be able to hold that many options and still have a smidgen of game play added on for good measure.

Wow, this one was kinda short too. Well, I guess it was in response to a pretty small post.

 

[YamadaJisho]

Et puis si c'était une hallebarde au lieu d'une lance?L'hallebarde pourrait trancher et perçer en même temps.

(Translation:And if it was an halberd instead of a spear?It could slash and pierce at the same time.).

What do you think?Yamadajisho?

Can i type in french here?

It doesn't slash and pierce at the same time, you can simply do both. I've used a halberd, and it is ENORMOUSLY heavy, mainly on account that not only is it a spear, sword, and axe all at the same time, it's also hefted on an EIGHT FOOT POLE, and not a thin one (otherwise the shaft would break all the time). Halberds have NEVER been a very good weapon in real life. It was a sound idea, letting a person have the reach of a spear, the versatility of a sword, and the power of an axe, but in practice it's just unwieldy.

Also, I'd stick to English. Whereas I'll understand the French (and you may want to review some, unless we're speaking different dialects), not many other people in the thread will. I assume that most of the bi-lingual members of this community are going to be English/Japanese and Spanish/English. It's better to use the language that most people will understand.

Oh, and Skyfire_freckles, yes I have brought that up.

 

[ultrachicken]

I don't think a pixels should be compared to the real world
Also, humans are generally shown as being european because most rpgs have knights and dragons, and since that mythology originated in Europe, it makes since to have europeans does it not?
Besides, all the good RPGs let you customize your skin color so it's not a problem.

Gotta disagree with you on one point. Dragons didn't originate in Europe. Well, not exactly. Virtually every society developed dragon myths independently of each other. Asian dragons are not a cheap knockoff of European dragons, and South American dragons are not a knockoff of either. Other societies also have their own dragon myths too. There are only two explanations I can think of for such a phenomenon.

1) Mythical dragons actually existed in the past, and humans eventually hunted them to extinction because, well, the presence of hyper-intelligent magical flying lizards who ate people would be kind of a threat to your society. They probably also tasted like chicken.

2) Dragons were actually dinosaurs, and they didn't go extinct nearly as long ago as we thought. I tend to lend credence to this idea as it makes more logical sense. Pictures of people tend to embellish the subject quite a bit, so I imagine that a knight fighting a magical, monstrous, fire-breathing dragon was more exciting than a knight squaring off against a Deinonychus (Velociraptor for all you people who paid WAY too much attention to 'Jurassic Park')

As for all the best RPGs letting you change skin color, skin color is not the only physical difference between people if different ethnicities. I mean, many different ehtnicities have teh same skin color, but are vastly different. Mongolians and the Spaniards have almost identical skin colors, but they are DEFINITELY not the same ethnicity. Bone structure, hair color and structure, prevalent eye color, height, all these change as well. Just because I can change my character to a darker skin tone doesn't mean I'm playing an African or an Islander. It just means I'm playing whitey with a tan.

Of course, all the RPGs out there with the slider system don't really do it very well either because, as Yahtzee said during his AoC review, the only choices you really get are big muscly football hooligan or wispy lingerie model. The sliders only determine how incredibly huge your muscles or boobs are. It's one of the many problems with video game RPGs. The limits of character creation won't be fully defeated until games get big enough to be able to hold that many options and still have a smidgen of game play added on for good measure.

Wow, this one was kinda short too. Well, I guess it was in response to a pretty small post.

I assumed someone would post something like this...
The kind of dragon typically used in RPGs is the European type, is it not?
On topic of skin color and ethnicity: The RPGs I'm thinking of don't even let you talk or express your character's culture and ethnicity in any other way than bashing the nearest goblin in the face. Also, I wouldn't take anything Yahtzee says into account. His job is to rip on games to make you laugh.

 

[YamadaJisho]

I assumed someone would post something like this...
The kind of dragon typically used in RPGs is the European type, is it not?
On topic of skin color and ethnicity: The RPGs I'm thinking of don't even let you talk or express your character's culture and ethnicity in any other way than bashing the nearest goblin in the face. Also, I wouldn't take anything Yahtzee says into account. His job is to rip on games to make you laugh.

In general, yes, the dragons you fight are usually western style dragons. But not always. And you made a pretty jarring generalization that isn't entirely accurate.

As for what Yahtzee said, I was citing the quote I was using for the fact that I've observed in other games. He just put it more eloquently that I could. As for not taking a game reviewer's points on games, well, I think you're on the wrong site then.

 

[number4096]

Here is a good article for you,Yamadajisho:

http://fudoshinkan.over-blog.com/article-28947777.html

I think female characters in rpgs should look like that instead of the skimpy ones we get,it would be more realistic.

Anyway,i will get off now and look at answers to this post tomorrow.

It is a very interesting that taught me a lot.You are all awesome.

 

[YamadaJisho]

Here is a good article for you,Yamadajisho:

http://fudoshinkan.over-blog.com/article-28947777.html

I think female characters in rpgs should look like that instead of the skimpy ones we get,it would be more realistic.

Anyway,i will get off now and look at answers to this post tomorrow.

It is a very interesting that taught me a lot.You are all awesome.

With the exception of the face, I agree. I like more realistic-looking women anyway. Not ones it looks like I would break as soon as I breathed on.

Well, I think I'm outtie myself. It's late, and I have to go to work tomorrow. *sigh*

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

a few things bug me with the way humans are shown in rpgs:

-first,humans are shown as a balanced species,when in reality they are probably the most heavily specialised of all animals.

The general reason one would consider humans as being "balanced" is because the species represents a known quantity. As such, all other species and races are compared to this known benchmark. A dwarf possess a greater capacity for sustained physical effort and are, on average, stronger than a person. In exchange they tend to be less apt at the social arts and tend to be rather dim thanks to their prediliction for hanging about under ground digging for shiny things. This is not an intrinsic truth, but simply a way to relate the nebulous concepts encapsulated in an RPG statistic in a way that is readily grasped. In this case, Dungeons and Dragons provided the basis for comparison.

-Humans are shown as more diversified than everyone else,when in reality,animals are just as diversified as humans are from an individual to the other.Any species that reproduce sexually will have this sort of diversity.And as can be seen outside,people tend to copy each other and do the same things,with those behaving differently from the mass being called exceptions,for a reason.

Diversification takes on many forms. Yes, there are birds that exist in every corner of the earth that harbors human life but there is no singluar species that can make such a claim. In the case of RPG sterotypes, it is generally societal conventions that offer up diversity or lack thereof. Dwarves and Elves are relatively homogenous cultures in the world of Dungeons and Dragons for example, and while there are subleties in there the basic points indicate that most members of either race exist in a culture incredibly similar to that of another member. In comparision, humans in this universe have a wider diversity in their culture and thus in their endeavors.

Again, this generally strikes me as an attempt to encapsulate the idea of an entire race into something that is readily digested. I need no information to understand the basic premise of humanity but I need something to latch on to if I'm going to figure out what makes an elf tick. The real trouble of course is the conventions are commone enough that they have become steroytpical and people rarely bother trying to create a new take. Humanity, by virtue of simply existing, provides plenty of examples for differing lifestyles and attitudes. When you're forced to come up with something new, it's easiest to place it in relation to something known.

-Humans are oftenly shown as magic users,which kind of breaks any forms of resemblance with real humans.They should be called something else at least.

Depending upon they mythology in question, magic can have any number of explanations. Regardless of it's source, if one is going to assert that humanity expresses diversity as a species it should be expected that they have the basic capacity to engage in any endeavor, including magic.

-Humans are too oftenly shown as english europeans rather than other ethnicities or at least other europeans than english europeans.This is not so bad until other ethnicities are shown as different species altogether(Redguards,anyone?).Or when the very first humans to born are shown as caucasians rather than africans.It is not racist,but it is inaccurate in relation to reality.They should at least be called something else.

There are perfectly sound reasons behind this. First, the godfather of the modern fantasy conventions (J.R.R. Tolkien) was an Englishman and as such his groundbreaking works inherently possess a European perspective. Second, the audience for such games tends to reside in a nation either located in or heavily influenced by European culture, and in general it's easier to create a cast that an audience cares about if they can identify with them. As an American, I find it fantastically difficult to identify with an African Tribesman or a native of a south-pacific island. At least when dealing with a pseudo-medieval european culture I can latch onto the basic ideas.

Also, to your latter point, I don't recall redguards being classified as a different species and instead are referred to simply as an alternate race. It has been years since I've played an Elder Scrolls game however so I may be mistaken.

-Humans are oftenly shown as the good guys.Look at human history for three seconds.You will see on how many levels this is wrong(Humans should be shown as worthy,powerful villains who make other species tremble in fear if anything.With demons and other evil species being hunted down for sport.).

Again, this is an issue of having an identifiable point of reference and convention. Orcs are generally bad guys because they aren't human and have an alien culture that I don't identify with. Moreover, in their first appearances they were the primary antagonists of the tale. Sure, Sauron might have been pulling strings but it was a black tide of orcs that were assaulting the lands of middle earth.

An important thing to remember is that, in spite of the fact that people rarely set out to be the villian in any endeavor, for the sake of a narrative it is generally accepted that the audience needs to understand the sides and the stakes. Any entity you don't understand is halfway to an enemy already. The fact is, there may be Orcs and Gnolls that are perfect examples of heroes in their own right with actions worthy of accolade within their own ranks, but when either race's objectives conflict with those of men, do you side with the creatures you don't understand or do you side with the evils you are famailar with?

The humans are the heroes not because their position is inherently better (though, in general, this is true in most RPGs), but rather because you play as a human. The Darkspawn are the bad guys in Dragon Age precisely because they are attempting to destroy the civilizations of man, elves and dwarves. They may have perfectly good reasons behind doing it but as a member of one of these races you are forced to contend with their transgressions.

-The fixation on swords is impractical and inaccurate.The only useful swords to ever appear were the roman gladius and the japanese katana,and even these had to be paired with a shield or a wakizashi to be useful.Spears and polearms in general were always better than any other melee weapons(Case in point:Honda Tadakatsu and Tomoe Gozen.).Why the fixation on swords?Or England?Or goody-two-shoes?Villainous and powerful humans would be both more authentic and more interesting to play than goody-two-shoes.

Sorry,that was long,what do you think?

I'm not quite sure where you come across such a notion, especially given the enormous time gap between the gladius and the katana and it's ilk. The sword was never the king of weapons in european warfare because often there was a better implement for the job of the moment. The thing is, even if the sword wasn't the BEST tool for the job, it was at least an always useful tool. The sword was thus considered the queen of weapons, prized for it's flexability and utility. It had no specific function. A mace is designed to combat armor, the spear gives a mass of men enormous killing power so long as they maintaina close formation. A pole-arm offers tremendous power behind every stroke so long as the oppostion can be kept in a narrow range. Thus, while a sword was rarely the primary weapon carried into a battle by any soldier, it often accompanied him for those moments when his usual armaments were rendered irrelevent by the tides of battle.

As far as why we fixate on the sword, the answer is simple enough. The spear is the weapon of the unnamed peasant soldier. There is no elegence in it's design as it is perhaps the best example of pragmatic engineering in history. It requires no great skill to operate, other than the ability and discipline to maintain close order ranks. The mace, though shockingly effective is an utterly crude weapon with no finesses in it's operation. One simply smashes away at a target until it collapses hoping that strength of arm and cleverness of design will win the day. It is the flexibility of the sword that grants it a mystique all it's own. Most armaments are inherently classified as pieces designed for offense (say a spear) and pieces designed for defense (a shield for example). The sword can be leveraged as both There are weapons with greater power yet lack the speed of a blade. There are weapons of longer reach but they rely on a mass of men to make up for the inherent shortcomings. The sword is romantized because it was the swordsman, not the sword itself that made the difference.

Of all the ancient weapons of war, only two remain in common usage: The Bow as the Spear. The bow, long superceeded by the gun, continues to serve precisely because it is inferior to a gun and offers a hunter a greater degree of challenge than a high powered rifle. The sword retains a place in the martial traditions of many nations in spite of it's irrelevence in modern warfare. But, unlike the bow, the sword took centuries to fade from the battlefield and dispute resolution. In fact, it is the last 400 years or so that the sword has earned its romantic status, for it is in this era that the weapon spawned an entire field of study that persists to this day in the sport of fencing. The gun, in short order replaced the bow, the bayonet replaced the pike and spear but it was not until weapons could reliably and regularly fire multiple shots before reloading that the sword faded into irrelevence. This, if nothing else, makes the ultimate case for the flexiblity of the weapon.

 

[defult]

Wouldn't it be boring if every race was human? At the creation screen you would have a choice of English, French, Italian. Then everyone would call i raciest as they think that their nationality should have +1 every stat compared to everyone else. This leads to my next point.

Ive always seen the different races as different nationality's in disguise.

The English as humans boring average no real personality.
The Irish as Halflings/hobbits people who would rather have a drink then fight, underhanded and likly to steal your wallet.
The French as Elves Wise but snobbish to other people who do not understand their ways.
The Scottish as Dwarves Hard and always ready for a scrap + the beard is kinda normal on any highlander.

Just some examples of what i think on the matter, your right humans are alot more diverse then in RPG's but I would rather have 1 type of human and alot of other races then at the creation screen have to pick what type of human I want to be and have no other choices.

The magic thing completely disagree Ive always seen elves as the master of magic but I see no reason why humans would not be able to use it if real some people are very in touch with their surrounding.

Edit: As for humans being average I normally use myself as a measuring stick, IF someone is smarter then me they are smart if they are dumber then me they are dumb. I dont go well They are dumber then me so Ill call them average and me smart. You will always need a measuring stick and humans in a rpg will be that stick.

There are some RPG's that use other cultures as their settings but they tend to be poorly supported and very few people end up playing them. Im sure I played a Japanese based RPG once but I cannot recall the name.

Also I believe you are referring to "western" RPG's which is why most are english