Roles that people have trouble with

[Cutthroat]

This seems a little more pessimistic than what actually is possible with a c-elf.

Sorry about that.  Can you elaborate?  I was just friendly advice to our bro who was complaining about having trouble with c-elves.  Basically I went through the same thing he's going through.

I mean when I tried to play a c-elf in the Byn...I had trouble participating in desert training because I can't ride a kank.  And then the staff made a questionable rule banning elves from riding a wagon, which prevented me from participating on missions at all.  In my mind this locked the role of the elf-soldier to just being a gate guard.  

How were you able to make the role of the urban elf work for you?

I haven't for myself, actually - my entire statement was based on my own observations of other c-elf PCs over the past few years, as well as my observations of several PCs in leadership positions that acknowledged the "usefulness" of elves in various positions. My point was that there are players all around that are willing to make a person's c-elf role work, but it often takes a lot of effort for both parties. You don't need to resign yourself to certain flavor roles; with patience, it appears that one could do a lot with a c-elf without ever having to leave the city.

[X-D]

Obsessive–Compulsive Personality Disorder
Essentials of Diagnosis
DSM-IV-TR Diagnostic Criteria

  1. A pervasive pattern of preoccupation with orderliness, perfectionism, and mental and interpersonal control, at the expense of flexibility, openness, and efficiency, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by four (or more) of the following:
         *is preoccupied with details, rules, lists, order, organization, or schedules to the extent that the major point of the activity is lost Meaning that one does not apply

         *shows perfectionism that interferes with task completion (e.g., is unable to complete a project because his or her own overly strict standards are not met)So, that one does not apply

         *is excessively devoted to work and productivity to the exclusion of leisure activities and friendships (not accounted for by obvious economic necessity)

         *is overconscientious, scrupulous, and inflexible about matters of morality, ethics, or values (not accounted for by cultural or religious identification)Nope, not that either, a dwarf simply would not care for the most part

         *is unable to discard worn-out or worthless objects even when they have no sentimental value Does not apply

         *is reluctant to delegate tasks or to work with others unless they submit to exactly his or her way of doing things

         *adopts a miserly spending style toward both self and others; money is viewed as something to be hoarded for future catastrophes Normaly does not apply, unless it is a money based focus

         *shows rigidity and stubbornness

So, lets see, the average dwarf would have maybe 2 of the 4 items needed to be considered OCD.
Pretty sure that means they are not normaly OCD.

ON TO CRIME LORDS!
I happen to agree on this point, there have been very few good crime lords. The funny thing is though, there have been more then you would expect, A good crime lord would not be seen by most as a Crime lord. Hell, Samos was one of the best Crime Lords in recent arm history.

Any others I can't mention because to recent or still alive.

[Synthesis]

I think you're missing the forest for the trees, X-D.

[AmandaGreathouse]

I think you're missing the forest for the trees, X-D.

I completely get what you mean. Other than the moral part, it seems extremely apt, in spirit, if not in letter. That's part of the reason I couldn't ever play a dwarf. It's far too limiting, and I don't think that I could have an enjoyable time playing the role in a fashion that does justice to the race, outside perhaps five or six foci. Though, I may wind up playing one with one of those with one of my next characters, just to explore it.

[X-D]

I don't think so, I've known enough OCD people, they are something else. And if your claiming the forest then don't post a quote showing the trees.

But hey, I gave you the addict comparison. I think it is a very good match actually. The types of addicts run from Weed to Meth and even all of them act differently but the same.

Still, in the end the need is the same in all.

[Synthesis]

I should note that I was incorrect in my first post w.r.t. OCD.

Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder is separate from obsessive-compulsive disorder, though it's been theorized (without strong clinical evidence) that the one leads to the other in some cases.

You might know people with OCD, but OCPD is what dwarves are like.

(OCD is the stereotypical obsessively-frequent hand-washer)

[roughneck]

When I play an hg my focus is to be easily influenced and manipulated and emotionally driven.

Really, I think the whole point of the race is that they were created to be an incredibly powerful but easily manipulated war/work tool.

I've found the easiest way to do this is to play your hg as somewhat emotional, or at least lacking an ability to understand/hide/control his/her emotions.  So after deciding what my giant loves, what upsets him, what scares him etc. I make sure to communicate that to the players around me through emotes and dialogue.

You're never lonely as a hg, everyone has a task for a towering killing machine to take care of for them and if you drop some hints about what your pc cares about and what can be used to leverage or motivate him/her you'll never be bored and everyone involved will have fun.

[jhunter]

I disagree that having a focus means they have OCPD.  I think a dwarf -could- have OCPD which may help or hinder their focus, but they do not have to go hand in hand. That's where the having differing personalities and having just as much variation as humans comes into play, as per the documentation. I think some of you have a too rigid and strict view on how it should be, not allowing for -any- variation whatsoever. Kind of like how some of you turn fear and dislike of magick into "Tuluki HATRED" all over the world. Both are in part correct, but not the rule for -all- pcs.

Oh, and as far as the silly "playing a dwarf to be a strong human" comment, they have a few coded drawbacks built in as well so if one is doing that it is kind of stupid considering (as X-D said) you can make a human and prioritize strength. That would give you the strength with none of the coded or rp drawbacks that come with dwarves.

[Synthesis]

Yeah, dwarves have so many coded drawbacks that they're always the second most-represented race in the PC population, despite supposedly being only 2% of the overall vNPC population.  Clearly the playerbase is just a bunch of newbs who can't grasp how awesome humans are.

Don't get me wrong, I fucking love BLASTING shit in the FUCKING FACE with uber dwarf strength...but...meh...they just seem cheap to me now because there are always far, far too many of them in the PC population.

Sure, you might be able to prioritize strength on a human, but you two know damn well that a dwarf who prioritizes strength will fucking own a human who prioritizes strength, until you get to maybe 50+ playing days, where agility might actually make a difference.  And that strength difference is -devastating- in open-field PK situations, where reeling is a must for the warrior class.  Hell, my last human warrior made it to 60 days and never managed to PK anyone outside of an apartment (except for that one person who was already in terrible shape, and the one dude who deliberately suicided on me), because it's so goddamn easy to flee from combat.

I mean, shit...how many humans have there been in the Byn where the Sergeant was like, "Okay, nobody spar with -that- guy, because he might accidentally kill you?"  I know there have been quite a few dwarves.  Hell, I had a fucking ASSASSIN dwarf that only the sergeant would spar, because his strength was so high that if he landed two successive blows with SPARRING weapons, it could kill you...and even if it didn't, your sparring day was over, at the very least.

Dwarves are fucking awesome in melee combat. Easily the best 0-karma race, until you get to very high days' played.  Anyone who says otherwise is a) confused or b) trying to play dumb so they don't get nerfed.

[X-D]

Or simply know better.

[boog]

I feel suddenly very enlightened about combat and stats in this game after reading this thread. 

[Aaron Goulet]

The dwarven focus is very similar to what OCD or addiction would be for humans.

And sure, the docs give you all this leeway to interpret that.  But again, I have to ask:  what is the point of playing a dwarf who is basically just a very strong human?  I submit the only reasonable answer to this question is to reap the benefits of the high strength stat without having to suffer any real negative consequences for it.

I don't see how high strength (and lower wisdom) helps a merchant/stonecarver (using my earlier example based off of a previous character).  Besides, it sounds like you're interpreting social = human, when that simply isn't the case.  There are plenty of ways to make your dwarf distinguishably dwarf-like to self and others without being a social shut-in.

The point of my post was that dwarves needn't constrain themselves so heavily, and they needn't spend all day twinking skills and avoiding social interaction.

[boog]

The dwarven focus is very similar to what OCD or addiction would be for humans.

And sure, the docs give you all this leeway to interpret that.  But again, I have to ask:  what is the point of playing a dwarf who is basically just a very strong human?  I submit the only reasonable answer to this question is to reap the benefits of the high strength stat without having to suffer any real negative consequences for it.

I don't see how high strength (and lower wisdom) helps a merchant/stonecarver (using my earlier example based off of a previous character).  Besides, it sounds like you're interpreting social = human, when that simply isn't the case.  There are plenty of ways to make your dwarf distinguishably dwarf-like to self and others without being a social shut-in.

The point of my post was that dwarves needn't constrain themselves so heavily, and they needn't spend all day twinking skills and avoiding social interaction.

I totally agree with this. What if a dwarf's focus is to, oh, win eighty dart contests in a row? Or to become a masterbard? Those are very social focuses. ;/

[Synthesis]

The dwarven focus is very similar to what OCD or addiction would be for humans.

And sure, the docs give you all this leeway to interpret that.  But again, I have to ask:  what is the point of playing a dwarf who is basically just a very strong human?  I submit the only reasonable answer to this question is to reap the benefits of the high strength stat without having to suffer any real negative consequences for it.

I don't see how high strength (and lower wisdom) helps a merchant/stonecarver (using my earlier example based off of a previous character).  Besides, it sounds like you're interpreting social = human, when that simply isn't the case.  There are plenty of ways to make your dwarf distinguishably dwarf-like to self and others without being a social shut-in.

The point of my post was that dwarves needn't constrain themselves so heavily, and they needn't spend all day twinking skills and avoiding social interaction.

Obviously if you're a noncombatant, it doesn't apply.  At that point...sure, you're making an interesting character, but just because your dwarf is a merchant doesn't mean he's going to be a social butterfly.

Also, being bad at socializing doesn't mean not socializing at all.  In a trading context, it would mean doing things like getting flustered easily during bartering exchanges and storming off or refusing to trade any further.  Perhaps a stubborn insistence on prices and refusing to change them, because that's the price your dwarf has spent MONTHS arriving at, and anyone who can't appreciate the objective reasonableness of that price point can go to HELL, because that's the PERFECT price, so stop trying to elf-talk me!

[jhunter]

I usually see -far- fewer dwarf pcs than I do elves so I don't know where you're coming up with your numbers but...whatever. Dwarven pcs whose focus represents a particular "job" tend to be very good at them unless their character flaws hold them back. Whether or not it is a combat based role or otherwise. They do, by physical makeup tend to be better at jobs that require physicial strength or endurance...(slavery...soldiers, guards, etc) which fits the documentation. I don't think this means that a player who plays a dwarf in one of those positions with a focus that fits with it (pretty much required to play a dwarf) is metagaming or in some way being a powergaming twink.

[Synthesis]

There are -supposed- to be more elves, because they're supposedly about 40% of the population.

So, let me introduce you to some basic statistical analysis, here.

You see, there's this thing called the Chi-Square Test that compares expected values to observed values, to determine whether there is some significant deviation from what you expect to be the mean for your data.

Now, for dwarves, given that they are about 2% of the population, we would expect them to be about 2% of the PC population.  There are what...about 200? unique logins per week...so that means there should be about 4 dwarven PCs at any given moment.  I think we can all agree that there are currently more than 4 dwarf PCs out and about.  This means that, for some reason, there are more dwarves in the game than we would expect, given the documentation.

For elves, which should be about 40%, we should see EIGHTY FREAKIN' ELF PCS at any given time.  I think we can all agree that this isn't the case.  Again, another deviation from expected values.

Even if there are 10 dwarves and 50 elves, dwarves are STILL over-represented, despite the fact that there are 5x as many elves, because there should be 20x as many elves as dwarves.

You see how this works, or do I need to draw you a picture?

[Thunkkin]

The prevalence of dwarves has far more to do with what roles they're ICly allowed than their strength stat.

[Kiara]

I think you're being a bit unfair Synthesis. Is the burden on us as players to properly represent the documentation in regards to mere numbers in game, or are we not allowed to play what appeals to us anymore?

[Case]

I think you're being a bit unfair Synthesis. Is the burden on us as players to properly represent the documentation in regards to mere numbers in game, or are we not allowed to play what appeals to us anymore?

Nope. What's going to happen now is when you get into chargen, you're randomly assigned a name, sex, age, race, guild and subguild by the whims of expected values and averages.

[netflix]

There are -supposed- to be more elves, because they're supposedly about 40% of the population.

Bit over 31%, actually.

[jstorrie]

I try to avoid dwarves for much the same reason as Synthesis. I mean, yeah, it's nice to be able to plop in something like warrior/nomad or ranger/guard and just utterly slaughter the world for a while, but it's so advantageous as to almost feel like bug abuse.

Dwarves have social drawbacks, sure, but they're basically all of the 'you just can't work here' sort. No one particularly hates on dwarves like they do on sharpears/roundears/gickers/breeds/other-city-guys.

Not that I'm calling for the nerfbat or anything, but if you can roleplay focuses properly dwarves are total ezmode.

[roughneck]

Dwarves may be a little tougher than humans out of the gate but I don't think it's -that- much of a difference.  If you want to talk about playing a ranger on easy mode, roll a delf where you not only get mad stats but also tribal imm-love, protected territories and devoted clan buddies.

Let the NPC's represent the stats, the same as professions and guilds.  In pc's you have a mssive over representation of warriors, hunters, thieves, assassins, muggers, raiders, nobles, magickers and every other role that's a little fun and adventerous.

Given the roles PC's fill - typically soldier, hunter, mercenary etc. - I think it makes sense to see an over representation of dwarves who I think would be put to work by any mercenary group out there looking for some extra muscle.

Dwarves are like people from the Polynesian islands, I don't know very many myself but if you cruise by the offensive line of a professional football time get ready to meet some Tongan and Samoan ex-pats.

[jstorrie]

Given the roles PC's fill - typically soldier, hunter, mercenary etc. - I think it makes sense to see an over representation of dwarves who I think would be put to work by any mercenary group out there looking for some extra muscle.

Dwarves are like people from the Polynesian islands, I don't know very many myself but if you cruise by the offensive line of a professional football time get ready to meet some Tongan and Samoan ex-pats.

This is a very good point.

[Aaron Goulet]

The dwarven focus is very similar to what OCD or addiction would be for humans.

And sure, the docs give you all this leeway to interpret that.  But again, I have to ask:  what is the point of playing a dwarf who is basically just a very strong human?  I submit the only reasonable answer to this question is to reap the benefits of the high strength stat without having to suffer any real negative consequences for it.

I don't see how high strength (and lower wisdom) helps a merchant/stonecarver (using my earlier example based off of a previous character).  Besides, it sounds like you're interpreting social = human, when that simply isn't the case.  There are plenty of ways to make your dwarf distinguishably dwarf-like to self and others without being a social shut-in.

The point of my post was that dwarves needn't constrain themselves so heavily, and they needn't spend all day twinking skills and avoiding social interaction.

Obviously if you're a noncombatant, it doesn't apply.  At that point...sure, you're making an interesting character, but just because your dwarf is a merchant doesn't mean he's going to be a social butterfly.

Also, being bad at socializing doesn't mean not socializing at all.  In a trading context, it would mean doing things like getting flustered easily during bartering exchanges and storming off or refusing to trade any further.  Perhaps a stubborn insistence on prices and refusing to change them, because that's the price your dwarf has spent MONTHS arriving at, and anyone who can't appreciate the objective reasonableness of that price point can go to HELL, because that's the PERFECT price, so stop trying to elf-talk me!

I agree, that would be a good approach to the dwarven mindset, if prices are something your dwarf cares about.

I'm a bit unclear on your definition of the term 'social butterfly'; are you referring to social skills, the amount of social interaction the character partakes in, notoriety, or something else?

[Synthesis]

The point that what players choose to play doesn't necessarily have to reflect the distribution of races in the vNPC population is a fair one.

However, when the statistics are SO skewed, I think we should ask ourselves whether or not this has a negative impact on the game, and whether the rules imposed on certain races are perhaps too onerous, or if perhaps certain races need to be nerfed or have more serious restrictions put on them.

This is particularly the case with elves.  There are an awful lot of things people think they can get away with (and do get away with, usually) with respect to their interactions with elf PCs, because they know that most elf PCs only have a virtual tribe, or at most two or three PC tribe-mates.  If every time  you rolled into the Gaj there were 6 humans, 3 elves, and a dwarf instead of 6 humans, 3 dwarves, and an elf...I think it's fairly easy to imagine that this would immediately change the way people do business with elves in a way that would be much more realistically in-line with the docs and the theme of the game.

To continue the football analogy:  what if you tried to make a football team, but all you could find was guys who could play defensive and offensive linemen, because nobody wanted to play the tall, skinny guys who make good wide receivers and cornerbacks?