Another dwarf focus thread

[BleakOne]

Also remember that dwarves are not uniform in the way they go about things. Using the travelling troupe example above with the 'see all of the Known' focus, I can see different dwarves doing different things.

A tough, loner dwarf would probably not consider joining. He can travel places on his own, and he thinks he can survive.

A dwarf with concerns about dying via travelling alone or wanting to learn the paths others take might join for a while as Kyros said. However, even once they've gone everywhere he's seen, a manipulative dwarf might suggest travelling to gather stories from tribal lands. Some would be loathe to give up on what they perceive as advantages.

Although they are single minded, I think dwarfs would go for the path they consider most likely to succeed. A focus to kill a Templar might involve training up and charging one headlong in the street, but a more astute stump might spend years, even decades working for those he wants to kill, waiting for the moment when he can strike. Another might dedicate his life to honing the perfect musical performance to give himself access to the upper crust of society if only for the chance to catch them off-guard and use the knife he carries hidden coated with the deadliest poison he knows of.

[IntuitiveApathy]

Note:  everyone's just giving their opinions, so I will to.  Based on the docs, and trying to play dwarves now and again:

my stuff

your stuff

Your example includes the potential situation where a dwarf who 'wants to see all the known with his own eyes' meets traveling performers.  In that case, I would agree that the dwarf might take up to working with them, with the only factor being:  do they travel to places I have not been?  If they do not, they would hold 0 interest to that dwarf, and he or she would ignore them.  If they do, he or she would work with them until they show him all the places they travel to, then quickly abandon both them any any interest in performing that coincided with his affiliation to them.  And he would be off to find the next way to see more of the world.

In other words, this is no indulgence, but a clear cut decision if it helps the dwarf further their focus, or not.

Again, just my thoughts:  but if we as players allow them to come closer to human by giving leeway for human like behavior, I feel we cheapen the world.

I think this is really just perception and semantics now - I think we're on the same page really, but what is a "distraction" to a dwarf?  Technically nothing, not in the eyes of the dwarf including something new in their methods or using a entirely new approach to get to her focus.  But it might seem that way to another character or player observing that same dwarf - "I thought she was really focused on training with swords in the Byn, but she just picked up a flute?"  I believe the real question should be what the dwarf's character and background is which formed that character which leads them to do something different (or to not do so).  My point is that dwarves should be just as possibly flawed as any other race in the world in terms of variation in their personality.  They're not perfect and not able to make perfect decisions because they're not omniscient.  This doesn't make them human, and nobody is saying that any dwarf would give up on their focus.  It's just that we have to take their character into account when considering whether they are still perceiving themselves to be following the best route to be getting where they want to go.

Continuing the troupe example - what if the dwarf is paranoid by nature, and somehow convinced the troupe might be lying to him, that they really do travel to other places that they haven't shown him and he's so stubborn in his belief that he won't even accept when they tell him that's not the case and he still thinks they're his best bet for seeing those places?  That's just one example of a character flaw, which is perfectly justifiable in terms of what we've been discussing.  The player playing that dwarf might've just plain made that up on the spot, or shaped their dwarf that way through background or whatever - but the point is if they really wanted their dwarf to be with that troupe, there's plenty of ways to make that happen and still jive with the concept of a dwarven focus.  And that's what people have been talking about, being able to shape their dwarven characters in that way, to "jusitfy" their actions in that manner, and I'm of a similar opinion that there are many ways to do so and still be playing their dwarves "correctly".

TLDR: My two cents is that dwarves shouldn't all be a homogenous dwarven robot personality, each dwarf should have their own unique personality that affects how they go about achieving their focus, which should allow players to explore different avenues of dwarven play.

[Ouroboros]

I think most everything worth saying on dwarven foci has been stated eloquently by others in the thread already. I'll just tack on one bit of opinion, from the perspective of a dwarf's player...

It's about the journey, not the destination.

For the dwarven character, it's all about the destination. Their eyes are fixed on the prize and they'll do whatever it takes to get there. As players of such a character however, we're in a position to guide our characters through whatever path we see fit towards reaching that destination. I'd suggest players of dwarfs focus (pun intended) more on the journey itself and all the entertaining roleplay it will bring to you and other players, and less on reaching completion. This might include any number of "seemingly" unrelated traits, objectives, and hobbies thrown into the mix, which while ultimately serve the dwarf in completing its focus, will also serve the player in enjoying the role. The shortest path isn't always the most enjoyable, and even if you do complete your focus (which we all should hope to), it'll be a far more rewarding experience in itself if you've taken the long route.

You don't have to of course, the choice is yours. If your goal is to become a great warrior, you could simply spar in the Byn until your skills are high enough, call that focus complete, and move on to the next. But unless you're a very specific type of person, this alone might not satisfy you much and you might even end up being bored to death (figuratively for you, literally for your character). If you make the journey interesting though, chances are you'll end up with a character that you and others will enjoy even if their focus is never achieved.

On a related point, the simpler the focus, the more freedom of interpretation you have to play with. There's nothing wrong with complex foci of course, and I've done and enjoyed those myself. But in my experience so far, the simpler foci end up with more memorable characters in the end. And we're all playing to enjoy the game at the end of the day (except those of us who play to chop muthafuckaz up with bone swords).

[Kryos]

Your stuff

I'm not trying to be a thorn in the thread but, I sadly have to say that I disagree with what you are saying here.  In my own mind, this is why dwarves should be a 2 karma race, they're even harder for humans to grasp than a delf.  To properly portray a dwarf, you should not give in to these indulgences of the player, as it were.  They do want to move towards their focus as excellently as they can, which is why I believe the documentation says 'life long goal.'  Taking side trips for your own pleasure cheapens the portrayal you should be doing.  If you want to do that sort of thing, play a human, elf, giant, or so on.

Your stuff

We definitely don't agree.  Dwarves should be always evaluating things by the measure of their Focus.  And so most things other people do are distractions to a dwarf.  And likely the reason of dwarven scorn for other, less devoted races.

Your troupe example is including psychotic pcs, which, is viable.  They could have physiological problems leading to psychological conditions like paranoia.  However, a dwarf that isn't deficient isn't going to behave this way, especially since paranoia is akin to fear and fear has no effect on a dwarf.

Again, just my opinion, but at this point I think its time for staff to say something, if they will at all, since there is clearly a divide in thinking within the pbase.

[Ouroboros]

I'm not trying to be a thorn in the thread but, I sadly have to say that I disagree with what you are saying here.  In my own mind, this is why dwarves should be a 2 karma race, they're even harder for humans to grasp than a delf.  To properly portray a dwarf, you should not give in to these indulgences of the player, as it were.  They do want to move towards their focus as excellently as they can, which is why I believe the documentation says 'life long goal.'  Taking side trips for your own pleasure cheapens the portrayal you should be doing.  If you want to do that sort of thing, play a human, elf, giant, or so on.

We're not in disagreement actually. Including on your desire for dwarves to be a karma race, perhaps. I think you're simply assuming that to enjoy yourself as a player and to portray a realistic dwarven focus are mutually exclusive. Taking the long scenic route isn't the same as taking a flat-out detour, especially when you factor in that these are meant to be life-long goals as you quoted. Furthermore, the best way to complete a focus isn't the same as the fastest. Dwarves are detail-oriented, obsessive compulsive perfectionists in most every sense, and that inherently implies that the speed with which one achieves their goal isn't nearly as important as the perfection they achieve it with.

To clarify, I'm not suggesting that players ignore their focus in order to take part in other activities. I'm only pointing out that you can take part in other activities if you responsibly sit down and think about how they'd incorporate into your character's focus. In the end, any accurate portrayal of a dwarf rests in the hands and ability of the player behind the keys. Someone able to grasp the dwarven focus properly will be able to see both limitations and possibilities therein.

[whitt]

To clarify, I'm not suggesting that players ignore their focus in order to take part in other activities. I'm only pointing out that you can take part in other activities if you responsibly sit down and think about how they'd incorporate into your character's focus. In the end, any accurate portrayal of a dwarf rests in the hands and ability of the player behind the keys. Someone able to grasp the dwarven focus properly will be able to see both limitations and possibilities therein.

This.  Always this. 

This is a community game and only works if we all take into consideration how what we are doing creates opportunities for the other players, just as we hope they will give us something to play off of as well.  Great example?  You're character is pissed off at the world, so you go lock yourself up in your apartment and engage in some (perhaps cathartic) solo-roleplay with Barrier up so no one can find you.  Well...  no one else can find you, so they'll go about their hour of playtime without you... no opportunity for them, minimized activity for yourself.   If, instead, you take your anger to the inn, the barracks, anywhere other PCs may witness and become involved in your rant - that's ooportunity to contribute to the community while still meeting your PCs need to be anti-social.  It seems like a conflict of interest, but its really just a conflict of perspective.

Dwarf Focus the same way.  If you can find  a way for your Dwarf to be somewhere that may not be optimal, you increase the ooportunity for others to get involved in your PCs life and maybe care about helping you out as a PC.  If you constantly push other PCs away, because they're not the immediate source of progress to your PCs goal... you'll never have more thean a surface interaction .

[lordcooper]

Does the average human know that a dwarf will have a focus?

[FantasyWriter]

I think that most humans who have been around many dwarves would know that dwarves are single-minded/obsessive to an consistently high degree.
The slave houses (as well as other with access to written and/or long-held knowledge) would know this well enough to learn to take advantage of it.

I do not believe that the idea of the "dwarven focus" is as transparent or hard set as it is in Dark Sun, even to dwarves themselves.
If there is an exception to this, it would likely -only- exist among the slaving houses and the Templarate.

[Zoan]

I like to play characters, dwarf or otherwise, as largely ignorant of a 'focus'. I notice dwarfs are very FOCUSED, but not that they have a FOCUS.

My dwarfs, they don't view their focus as a focus. It's just a thing that they need to do. It's as natural as breathing.

[hyzhenhok]

Edit: This thread was fairly high up and I didn't look at the dates. Oops. Oh well, just a few months too late.

...and fear has no effect on a dwarf.

The docs don't say dwarves can't be risk averse. It doesn't say they are suicidally fanatical. It says fear cannot be used as a lever to shake them from their focus. There is a pretty big difference.

Let's say a dwarf's focus is to dig the world's deepest hole in the Salt Flats. One day, he goes out to work on digging his hole and sees a mekillot chilling on top of it. It seems like if dwarves all behaved like you think they should, this dwarf would be obligated to march into the room and attempt to continue digging as the mekillot chomped him to death because he can't be affected by fear. But it's perfectly reasonable for the dwarf to say, "Well, either I lose a day of digging or I don't do any more digging for the rest of my life. Pretty easy choice."

Because this is just an instance of risk/danger. It's not really "fear being applied as a lever." Where that comes into play is if a templar shows up while the dwarf is digging one day, and tells the dwarf to stop digging holes in the Salt Flats or else be executed. Obviously, the dwarf will never stop. Still, he is aware the templar can kill him. The dwarf is not obligated to keep digging in front of the templar and provoke his own execution simply because "fear cannot be used as a lever." So it'd be perfectly reasonable for the dwarf to pretend to go along with the Templar's demands while making plans to dig in secret, or to eliminate the templar, etc.

A dwarf should always be weighing his choices against how they help him accomplish his focus, and a rational, intelligent dwarf understands that being dead is a very big hindrance to completing their focus. As such it's perfectly fine for dwarves to be rationally weighing how much an action helps them complete their focus against how risky it is. If something likely to kill them would guarantee their focus' completion, yes, they would likely do it.

Suicidal stupid dwarves trying to complete crazy focuses is a fun part of the game, and it does make sense that some dwarves would behave like that. But not every dwarf has to.

[Kryos]

Looking at threads while the game is down and caught this, a little late myself.  And allow me to offer that I never said they are beyond measure of preservation:  death means no ability to complete the focus.

However, I remain adamantly opposed to the idea of stretching out flimsy justifications to do activities because it might be tangentially related to a focus:  that's not very dwarven.  And that dwarf that sees the mek on the hole might very well, if riding an animal that is fast, attempt to bait away the mekillot from the hole by running it clear.  Or she may attempt to hire the Byn to drive it off.  Failing a reasonable direct solution, she might then engage in activities that further her hole digging enterprise directly, such as upgrading her shovel and pick, acquiring some coins to buy a tent so she can stay out most night and days digging or perhaps a bodyguard to enable the same, and so on.  That's a dwarf.  If that dwarf decided to join some traveling band because they might know about holes but has no proof or concept of believable information on it, that's a player indulgence, and in my own perspective, a failed portrayal of a dwarf.

A story I can use involving a dwarf and a mekillot, as its been over a year, as an example including the fear.  His 'friend':  a fellow Sergeant in the Byn who took care of the more 'social' and 'round ear' management things, while he did the gritty on the sands killing work.  This allowed him to further his focus directly, and the compliance of this other Sergeant was immensely beneficial to him even though it would get that Sergeant all the credit and potential elevation up the unit rankings.  Didn't matter the dwarf, being promoted had no impact on, and was not his focus.  In fact, it might have been detrimental.

Sadly, one day, after murdering a salt worm (part of his focus, so he was rather pleased) a mekillot ran up and ambushed the group, killing a few unimportant runners and most painfully, that Sergeant.  Loosing him set this dwarf's focus back tremendously, as now the burden of handling such affairs would be foist upon him, and it was a grievous setback to his ambitions.  Filled with rage at the loss, and, killing the mekillot being part of his focus goal set, he turned and engaged the mekillot in solo combat as his stunned unit watched from afar.

He did not die, and after a minute or two of battle, he became demoralized at his ineffectiveness and withdrew, unscathed but mentally scarred.  He then modified his focus slightly to kill *that* specific mekillot as a micro goal in the macro focus, and set about doing some very shady and perhaps amoral in the eyes of many business to see to it.

I felt that this portrayal of a dwarf was rather spot on, and in my mind, is how they should roll.  But to be clear, just my opinion, and also why I think they are very difficult to play correctly.