I've played arm for a while now, and I like dwarves out of them all, and during my time, I've gathered some thoughts, and questions.
1: I think dwarves should be karma. Their focus is a huge roleplaying factor to the character, and is something that can easily be ignored, abused, or hard to play.
2: I've noticed dwarves have the potential to become absurdly strong, to the point of almost mul-like levels (when a dwarf can throw out 40 damage hits with wooden weaponry on armored opponents, you question dwarven strength, or armor/training weapon values) and if a dwarf gets a good stat roll, they can own most humanoids in similar guilds. Just how strong are dwarves portrayed in game? Codedly, a dwarf with high str could potentially knock out, or even kill (in rarer cases) certain beasts, and all humanoids spare a half-giant, in one or two blows. The amount of weight a dwarf can lift compared to others, is a considerable amount more. Hence, why I've been wanting to determine a strength ratio. If a strong elf punched you, how would it feel? If a strong dwarf punched you, would stuff be broken? If a half-giant did, or a human? How should we react accordingly to dealing with the various arms of Zalanthas, because currently, alot of people can play off being alright, after being hit with a fist, or some weapon with brutal force. This is also another reason I believe dwarves should be higher karma. all the high str races are karma spare dwarves.
3: Endurance. It says dwarves are very sturdy, to the point of having increased resistances to poisons, yet in every encounter I've had with poison, playing a dwarf, well the resistance doesn't really seem to take effect. I've also noticed sturdy humans tend to be just as sturdy as any dwarf with a decent endurance roll (or even good ones). Is their endurance accurately portrayed?
4: In-game, with each of the second class races, there's something people, mainly humans don't like about them. With the breeds and elves, self-explanatory. Half-giants, real stupid and able to killz so eazy. Muls due to their immense strength, danger, and fabled rage, more so fear. What do humans dislike about dwarves? Mostly in game, unless people are on shade mode, I've noticed no one seems to hold actual negative views on dwarves, other than them being short.
So, discuss! Should dwarves be karma? Should their endurance be more accurately portrayed? Just how -is- dwarven strength portrayed in-game? Dwarven focus - complicated, or easy? Another reason for karma perhaps?
I don't know about all the karma or strength stuff but I would think that the reason that humans would dislike dwarves would be because they are unpredictable. Of course, in some ways they ARE very predictable because they are so focused on a single goal and you can always know that whatever they do will be in pursuit of that goal, but you might not always know what that goal is...it could be something absolutely insane. Also, since the dwarf is willing to do whatever it takes to achieve their focus, people should be on their guard around such a creature. If they decide they need to step on you to get what they're after, you'd better watch out.
Nah. Poorly-played dwarves aren't that disastrous and newbies rarely live long enough to truly leverage a dwarf's stats. Also I feel like they're pretty important to rounding out the newbie character options.
Endurance, in general, could probably use some tweaking. I was very underwhelmed by the HP range on muls and half-giants too. Might be nice if, indeed, endurance had some more secondary perks.
I agree with all of the points in the OP. 1 Karma for dwarves. If only just to limit how many of them are in-game at any given time.
HOWEVER. I think it's a bad idea to take option away from newbies.
So I'm conflicted.
I don't really see the point of dwarves from an rp standpoint. I can get foci, but I don't see the point unless it's some sort of bizarre off-kilter focus.
For literally anything that isn't "crash the moons of zalanthas together" I'd just play an extra driven human.
The fun thing is that the dwarven mindset can lead dwarves to do insane things for the sake of even a seemingly boring and ordinary focus.
Perhaps flopping mundane desert elf and dwarf karma restrictions, to keep options open?
Their stats do stand them apart, some times dangerously, and their focus is a huge pointer to why they are alien, not human. This is why most humans should/could react to a dwarf differently. A clever non dwarf might try to manipulate one by attempting to discover (if they have a baseline understanding) what drives them and guide them to align that dwarf to align to their personal motivations. Or use it to see that dwarf dead if she is an obstacle. Or be mystified by their obtuseness. And so on.
That's my take on it anyway.
1. The focus may be easy to ignore, but it's straight forward. It's not nearly as complicated, and doesn't take as much time playing the game to understand the concept of as it does to understand delf culture/history or other roles' place in the game. So, because they have no culture/history that is imperative to understand, I think entry level karma is fine.
2. The stats are dangerous, but not uber. They are a kind of slave race that make good workers and slaves... and they sort of get treated like that. Military roles aside, you don't see them in leadership positions as often as humans. Also, good stats alone can only take a PC so far.
3. Endurance is accurately portrayed if you do some easy comparisons over several characters, it will be obvious.
4. They have clan limitations, and are generally treated as tools, IMO. If I could have one wish, though, it would be that dwarves were truly considered an kind of slave race and almost never made it to leadership positions in clans established by humans, instead being treated as a talking, trusty mule or attack dog.
I probably would never have gotten into the game if dwarves were 1 karma. Not only are they my favorite fantasy race, but I think it's insulting to suggest that the Focus is so difficult to roleplay that we don't trust players who make it through the application process with it.
...and obvious "problem dwarves" in the game are hardly ever newbies. Perhaps stronger staff oversight to make sure focus roleplay is being adhered to is warranted, but the karma gate will accomplish little and cause harm.
I don't think they're complex or dangerous enough to warrant a karma level. Dwarven strength is considerable, but it's not HG or Mul levels of crazy. A human with a high strength role will hit nearly as hard. I think a big part of "dwarven strength" is that dwarves seem to skew toward warrior more than any other 0 karma race. So you've got dwarven strength buff + warrior strength buff + strength priority in confluence.
Actually, I don't see why they have a strength bonus at all, tbh. Sure, they're pound-for-pound more muscular than a human... but they're also 4 feet tall, so I feel like it should even out. But as it is they get these beefy strength bonuses, so their players, and those around them, get delusions that they're "massive" or "hulking", despite the fact that they're actually just balder, more domesticated versions of Danny Devito... But that's my pet peeve.
As far as racism, what I see most often is people prodding at the consequences of the focus. Dwarves being unpredictable or unreliable because of it. Focuses seem to be mostly harmless to bystanders, so I don't think they get as bad a rep as things like elven thief culture, or half-breed moodiness. Focuses that have detrimental effects to friends and employers aren't terribly common. The other reason one could be racist toward dwarves, culturally, is because they sacked Allanak at some point in the distant past. (Or at least sieged it for a while - I don't recall.) That's the Arm's reason for not recruiting them, but I"m pretty sure they're the only clan who doesn't.
Quote from: hyzhenhok on March 02, 2016, 04:17:16 PM
Perhaps stronger staff oversight to make sure focus roleplay is being adhered to is warranted,
It would be nice if focuses had to at least be achievable, so that people couldn't take the old "b tha tuffest" or "find the six-fingered man who murdered my father" cop-out routes just because they want to roleplay a strength score, without the roleplay...
Perhaps a requirement that after you have rolled 4 or 5 dwarves, at least one needs to have gotten killed due to stupid, single-minded pursuit of the focus or else the option is removed. ;)
Actually, locking the dwarf option after you roll one until you submit a post-death/storage report explaining the dwarf's life and how he pursued his focus, and how much progress he made, seems almost reasonable to me.
Quote from: IAmJacksOpinion on March 02, 2016, 04:21:25 PM
Quote from: hyzhenhok on March 02, 2016, 04:17:16 PM
Perhaps stronger staff oversight to make sure focus roleplay is being adhered to is warranted,
It would be nice if focuses had to at least be achievable, so that people couldn't take the old "b tha tuffest" or "find the six-fingered man who murdered my father" cop-out routes just because they want to roleplay a strength score, without the roleplay...
You're God Damn Right.
related,
If you're a dwarf or a half-giant and you carry around a chest or a crate like it's a magic floating box, know that I think you are one cheesy motherfucker.
Quote from: Delirium on March 02, 2016, 04:28:16 PM
related,
If you're a dwarf or a half-giant and you carry around a chest or a crate like it's a magic floating box, know that I think you are one cheesy motherfucker.
Hold on, imma' let you finish, but you're god damn right.
Dwarf focus has always been one of my favorite things, I love playing them and their obsessive mindset. There is nothing wrong with dwarves with a "get badass" focus but it isn't so much my bag.
People tearing at dwarves are people who I know never play dwarves. They are really interesting to RP for me.
That being said I have always been on the 1 karma bandwagon.
Dwarves and half giants spawn with chests
Quote from: Desertman on March 02, 2016, 04:35:26 PM
Quote from: Delirium on March 02, 2016, 04:28:16 PM
related,
If you're a dwarf or a half-giant and you carry around a chest or a crate like it's a magic floating box, know that I think you are one cheesy motherfucker.
Hold on, imma' let you finish, but you're god damn right.
What if I rp an HG who skips and swings his crate alongside him like a picnic basket?
Really though, it stems from only being able to carry two items. Players would rather deal with the foolishness of a floating, mary-poppins-handbag style crate, than fuck around with their inventory all session.
Quote from: IAmJacksOpinion on March 02, 2016, 04:18:48 PM
Actually, I don't see why they have a strength bonus at all, tbh. Sure, they're pound-for-pound more muscular than a human... but they're also 4 feet tall, so I feel like it should even out. But as it is they get these beefy strength bonuses, so their players, and those around them, get delusions that they're "massive" or "hulking", despite the fact that they're actually just balder, more domesticated versions of Danny Devito... But that's my pet peeve.
I think the reason behind their strength bonus is simple. It's much much easier for someone short to fill out their form, (if putting on muscle or weight) than for someone tall to do it. Short is also just naturally stockier and more balanced, grounded to the ground I should say. Dwarves, while 4 feet tall, and balder, are not humans in any way, shape, or form, other than being humanoids too. Dwarves are built different, that's the way I look at it. Their muscles are naturally bigger/stronger, their bone density is naturally thicker, etc.
Now, I've played high str humans as well, and from my experience, high str humans can hit hard, and high, even breeds or elves, but dwarves with high str pretty much take the mantle of considerably harder hits. I don't think dwarven strength is uber, no, but in all reality, to me, dwarven strength is just under it.
Quote from: IAmJacksOpinion on March 02, 2016, 04:18:48 PM
Actually, I don't see why they have a strength bonus at all, tbh. Sure, they're pound-for-pound more muscular than a human... but they're also 4 feet tall, so I feel like it should even out. But as it is they get these beefy strength bonuses, so their players, and those around them, get delusions that they're "massive" or "hulking", despite the fact that they're actually just balder, more domesticated versions of Danny Devito...
At 4 - 4.5 feet tall, and weighing 200 + pounds at the high end of the weight scale... that's hulking, or very fat. I don't really see how you could fight very well with that kind of stubbyness, but that's just an imagination thing. Definitely hulks... short hulks, but hulks nonetheless.
Quote from: Desertman on March 02, 2016, 04:35:26 PM
Hold on, imma' let you finish, but you're god damn right.
My, that's a handsome avatar you have there.
And I do play dwarves. A lot of them. The problem with "b tha tuffest" as a focus isn't that it's bad or unrealistic as a focus. The problem is that too many people use it as a cop out to play durf, train like hell, and not have to be interesting. I wouldn't mind a dwarf trying to be the toughest if it occasionally manifested itself in anything besides sparring and finding a cool mask to wear. Like hearing that Sargeant Dragon-inked from the Arm is supposed to be an amazing fighter, and trying to convince him to duel you even though you're a random Byn Trooper. Or setting a series of dangerous tests. Anything but just using your focus to spar and not do anything interesting. Most dwarves I play with, even for an extended period of time, won't give out the slightest hint what their focus is, and to me that smells like someone playing a strength score. Sorry / not sorry.
It's mostly just that the amount of stun damage that a bludgeoning weapon deals with a hard hit to the head/neck/body is so extreme that any race with extra strength is outrageously powerful. A dwarf with a sword isn't so much of an issue. One that does 100+ stun damage with a blow to the head is, and a 0-day dwarf with exceptional strength can do just that. I estimate that 50% of dwarven PCs are created for that reason alone.
Let's not turn this into a thread about criticizing other peoples' roleplay.
What other type of thread is there? :P
I think buffing dwarves with fullstops and initial capital letters would go a long way towards their acceptance in roleplay.
Not being willing to give out their focus, or giving you a focus that sounds fake, may be a sign of having a focus that is dangerous to spread around.
I know what MY next dwarf focus is. Its going to be beautiful, and horrible and just fun.
Personally I never noticed that trend until it became a popular meme. I think all the bitching about it made people do it out of spite, or something. I've actually seen it more on elves.
There's nothing to be done about people who don't use caps/puncts except for auto-correct in the game. Reporting them doen't seem to help.
Why doesn't it just auto cap/punctuate?
Dark Sun dwarves just suck. Hairless, no tradition, no strongholds ... meh. All the best parts of dwarves removed.
I have always played dwarves in other games because I love the lore. From Tolkien to Warhammer, dwarves just plain rock.
In Dark Sun and its offspring? I feel too handicapped by what is missing.
The argument for making them karma doesn't make sense. You see a dwarf walk by. How do you possibly know whether or not he's playing to his focus? Does every dwarf immediately approach every other PC and fully explain their focus and how their current activity relates to it? No?
And if they want to carry a crate, chest, or barrel around then freaking let them. Is it that immersion breaking to see someone with a plain baobab chest in their inventory sitting at the bar? People sit in bars all the time with piles of book bags, shopping bags, or whatever at their feet. I keep thinking that argument is put to rest but it's the original ARM zombie, always rising from the dead.
Quote
Mirukkim apparently emerged as a language at about the time of the Dragon's departure from the Known World. Before that time the linguistic conventions were scattered, non-uniform rules used by handfuls of people at any given instant.
There are striking resemblances between Mirukkim and very old human languages (predating Tatlum). It is not unreasonable that the Mirukkim tongue was once a unified language similar to Kenessesh or some other extremely ancient human speech. The dominance of the Empire of Man (during which dwarves were most probably used as slaves) and the arrival of the Dragon quite possibly caused much of the fragmentation of Mirukkim.
The language files contain some compellingly interesting hints about dwarves and the stories they lived in days past. I find them a great source of inspiration for any character.
I am Jack Opinion had soem good questions for staff:
QuoteWhat are the most common focuses you see getting apped?
Are there significant numbers of players who take "cop out" focuses? (Cop out meaning ones that can't see any reasonable progress in game. Like, ones involving VNPCs or something.)
About what percentage of dwarves do you see really playing out their focus; including progress reports, or actions taken toward it.
What's the crazies focuse you've ever seen (and can talk about).
Quote from: seidhr Staff member1) "To be the greatest warrior/hunter/whatever coded skill." ("Hrrngnngh, something that lets me do a lot of combat!" is by far the most popular)
2) Yes. See above.
3) Well the guys from #1 seem to do a lot of sparring, hunting, crafting, whatever. Rough circle, buddy. The reporting quality and frequency varies a lot, as it does across the playerbase for any segment of the population.
4) There have definitely been some good ones but I don't want to call anyone out as some of them (may) live to this day. But sadly, and honestly - the hordes of people who fall under #1 kind of drown out the others.
I think it's all the more clear that dwarves need to be a karma race.
Edit: I just envisioned all the possible "reductionist" and "culture of limitation" arguments that would spur up if staff did this and I eye-rolled so hard they went full circle.
I don't think it would really matter. In my experience, it isn't the "shallow-focus no-punctuation took-dwarf-for-max-stat" dwarves played by zero karma players you have to "worry" about. They're pretty obvious and quickly die; not much more dangerous than a human with good stats.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on March 03, 2016, 05:47:10 PM
I am Jack Opinion had soem good questions for staff:
...
I think it's all the more clear that dwarves need to be a karma race.
I'd like to ask what percentage of those crappy backgrounds come from players who already HAVE karma.
Not exactly a fan of dwarves, but I can tell you that you start seeing less and less in chargen as a newbie and then learn that it could be RL YEARS before you ever see your first karma point ... then someone asks the inevitable question of "wtf is the point of playing THIS game."
Eh, I still don't think that they need to be karma. I see tons of poorly played humans to. Hell, I've seen poorly played MULs.
Quote from: The Silence of the Erdlus on March 03, 2016, 03:44:49 PM
Not being willing to give out their focus, or giving you a focus that sounds fake, may be a sign of having a focus that is dangerous to spread around.
Not really what I'm talking about. I don't think I've ever seen anyone, dwarf or otherwise, refer to their focus directly in game. At least not as a "focus." I'm talking more about a situation where I'm in a clan with you for an IG year, and we interact often, and I've never picked up on something like "Man, this dwarf really hates gith", or "He's really into stone carving" or any kind of personality at all that lends to your focus, it's usually safe to assume you're probably not playing the race to its full potential.
I'd feel way more inclined to play dwarves if they had their own tribe/settlement/eyebrows/beards.
Quote from: Erythil on March 03, 2016, 06:27:36 PM
I'd feel way more inclined to play dwarves if they had their own tribe/settlement/eyebrows/beards.
Agreed. Dwarven culture seems nonexistent. It's a race that lacks an identity. I'm guessing that the Gith players right now know more about how the Gith than anyone knows about the Dwarves.
That's kind of their schtick. They're not a nation, they don't have a culture (though I believe there are references to dwarven tribes?) They're functionally tools of their focus. They're just too obsessive-compulsive to angst about it like muls do.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on March 03, 2016, 06:52:24 PM
That's kind of their schtick. They're not a nation, they don't have a culture (though I believe there are references to dwarven tribes?) They're functionally tools of their focus. They're just too obsessive-compulsive to angst about it like muls do.
Exactly.
Dwarves are a slave race. Why would they have culture outside their focus? There are small dwarf families and tribes no doubt with their own culture but dwarves are working as intended. Don't feel bad dwarf players, you are doing well, every one of you. I would be absolutely fine with them being 1 karma but I feel karma players honestly have enough advantages as it is. Taking more away from newbies would be a bad step for the game, so I disagree with Doublepalli for that reason. Unless something else opened up.
Give dwarves something unique and interesting to focus on, like an in-game business/clan/guild of some sort.
The Dwarven Coalition. Bands dwarves together, fights for their rights, and helps them when they're down on their luck, taxes members. Someone make this their next dwarves focus.
I get that it's their shtick, I just think it's boring. If dwarves were slaves but remembered their great fortress Erebor or whatever, that'd be more interesting to me, even the memory of vanished glory.
I also think the OCD dwarf focus thing is lame and boring and that dark sun dwarves really just read like they changed them a bunch just for the sake of changing them. Like, their being hairless reads to me as nothing more tan 'OUR dwarves are DIFFERENT!' for the sake of being different.
They don't tunnel or dig rocks, they aren't renowned makers of magical things, they don't get drunk, they don't farm plump helmets, they don't covet wealth, etc. etc. They should be called something entirely different.
Dwarves with boring foci say more about players than they do about dwarves.
Dwarves have license to be the most unique, engaging, and insane PCs in the game. People just have to be more creative in their thinking.
I have had a dwarf focus to found a new dwarven religion all the way to find a lost city of dwarves which doesn't exist.
They can be roleplay fun, but I do just like the dwarves of almost every other campaign setting better.
Even (gasp) Faerun dwarves are more fun.
I know. I said it. I won't take it back.
It isn't difficult to play a character that's obsessed with a goal. Dwarves allow 0-karma players to demonstrate that they can play something with a little bit of coded power and a little bit of RP restriction within the docs (which is more or less what you have to do to get karma). And since a dwarf focus is mostly internal and the coded benefits of playing a dwarf aren't exactly super-powered, if someone isn't doing it right, it isn't going to break the game. In comparison, other 1-karma options are desert elves, vivs, and ruks, which all have some pretty serious roleplay restrictions. I don't think bumping dwarves up to 1 karma is necessary or productive.
Meanwhile, I've seen a lot of threads lately that have themes of 'I don't want to play stats that don't let me use my coded skills,' 'there's nothing wrong with spending 20 days played in the wilderness to skill up,' 'I shouldn't have to interact if I don't want to,' etc. But if someone wants to give their dwarf character a focus that allows them to have some reason to regularly use their coded skills?
NO DON'T DO THAT BAD RP
So what if it's been done before. Guess what else has been done before? Indie Hunter, Jayne-Cobb-esq Byn Warrior, Tressy Aide... basically everything in Armageddon has been done before by someone, and the obvious things have been done a lot. Especially the obvious things that involve using your coded skills, because people like to use their coded skills.
I kind of wish dwarves would slowly transform into tolkein-esque dwarves over the next hundred game years (growing hair, having a real culture that can be viewed in real items like elvish longbows or gypsy skirts are) but I don't think staff is gonna want to do it.
There's no reason dwarves can't have unique items. They aren't stupid. Just single minded. If something would work better for dwarves than other races (I can think of a few things off-hand that would) and would benefit some of them achieving their focus, there shouldn't be a problem with getting them IG. Just takes a staffer to do a call, or a character to mastercraft.
As to a dwarven nation...heh. I think it would be difficult to marshall a nation if half your citizens kept leaving every day because they "had something important to do." That's why dwarves are easy to enslave (initially). They don't support each other. And they aren't idealistic by nature. They are all out for themselves (by the human way of thinking).
Vivs and ruks are 2 karma, not 1.
Quote from: The Silence of the Erdlus on March 03, 2016, 10:19:11 PM
I kind of wish dwarves would slowly transform into tolkein-esque dwarves over the next hundred game years (growing hair, having a real culture that can be viewed in real items like elvish longbows or gypsy skirts are) but I don't think staff is gonna want to do it.
No, we won't.
My bit on dwarves.
My most enjoyable dwarf I ever played was a Rukkian that had the focus of becoming a Legend. It was vague and silly at a glance but it took him on a journey. Over time he became powerful, made sure he hung around people he thought were the stuff of stories and mimicked alot of what they did, had special armor fashioned for him that made him look like a legend, he was a big showboat. He challenged truly legendary beasts, paid bards to follow him around and witness his deeds. He created a following that joined him under a particular banner, all die hard loyalists. One day a Templar congratulated him on something spectacular he did, giving all of that credit to his powerful magicks. This turned into him despising his element for stealing all of his 'glory' and led him to rebel against Ruk itself, he stopped using magick and grew to be a brutal fighter without it. Eventually his element actually turned on him and things REALLY got interesting.
Playing a focus that evolves with the character is really getting the most out of a dwarf.
Be the best assassin.
Be the best warrior.
Be the best hunter.
If you end up making a focus like this, I recommend letting it evolve into something more than a skill grind. Be the best assassin, seek them out for training, assassins know about poisons so make yourself an apothecary for awhile and learn the ins and outs of herbs and medicine. Study weaponry, join salarr with a purpose of befriending one of their master crafters to learn more about weapons. Obsession can be hella fun to play out.
Quote from: James de Monet on March 03, 2016, 10:33:32 PM
There's no reason dwarves can't have unique items. They aren't stupid. Just single minded. If something would work better for dwarves than other races (I can think of a few things off-hand that would) and would benefit some of them achieving their focus, there shouldn't be a problem with getting them IG. Just takes a staffer to do a call, or a character to mastercraft.
As to a dwarven nation...heh. I think it would be difficult to marshall a nation if half your citizens kept leaving every day because they "had something important to do." That's why dwarves are easy to enslave (initially). They don't support each other. And they aren't idealistic by nature. They are all out for themselves (by the human way of thinking).
Depends. If so many dwarves have as their focus to "become a badass" then you could certainly convince them that they should become a badass in the defense of the new dwarven nation. And a number of dwarves are going to have as their focus to craft a masterwork stone bowl or something and they'd feel that that could best be done in a fortress surrounded by other dwarves.
So it COULD be done, but I think the staff weigh-in was pretty clear that it won't be supported.
The more you inspire other dwarves subconsciously the more I feel like dwarves would be willing to join your cause.
Starting up a huge dwarven village that is trying to be a kingdom is going to put the thought in a dwarfs mind. So even if he completes a focus he might develop one saying "Become a great fighter for the dwarven empire" as a focus.
Or a younger dwarf might start with a focus saying "Join a dwarven empire"
Etc. etc.
I feel like over time you could get dwarves to completely be focused on a tribe or empire.
Otherwise I have no idea how a dwarven tribe would succeed in the first place.
You would get into issues with playerbase distribution concerns if you tried to build such an empire and started to become successful on that front in any meaningful way.
You would basically be violating the unspoken (until it comes up and is said to you) rule regarding clan cap limits for the health of the overall game.
Five or six dwarves in your "empire"? No problem. But that isn't an empire and isn't going to establish anything meaningful.
20+ dwarves in your empire and you are now going to have some OOC issues in terms of you taking up too much of the playerbase with your unofficial clan.
You would need at least that many in theory to even begin to establish anything long-term and meaningful on the front of a self-preserving and lasting establishment.
It's an odd situation when you run into it.
It's a sort of, "Make the game fun for the people around you, but not so fun that a lot of people show up to take part in it.".
And that's where the natural anarchist in me starts raising objections.
If I come up with an idea that is literally so fun that EVERY SINGLE PLAYER wants a piece of it in some way, then who is anyone else to say that we can't do that?
It might go on for a week, or two weeks, or even a month before people start getting bored with it and wander off. At the end of it you're going to have that 4-6 hardcore players involved, but mostly everyone is going to go back to pursue their own interests later.
It's an artificial limit which I don't feel is in keeping with the game as it was originally sold to me as ... a "no limits" sort of campaign.
It makes it feel as if the staff stories are more important and supported than the player stories, and I don't like that idea very much.
The key is to get staff support for your player stories, most of the time. It can go a very long way.
I recommend frequent player reports and the ability to speak diplomatically in said reports and take direction/follow the path you will be set on.
What the? If there were 20 dwarf PCs around interacting with each other I'm sure staff would support them.
No humans allowed club.
I'm going to try and say this as neutrally as I know how...
Quote from: Miradus on March 04, 2016, 11:50:51 AM
It's an artificial limit which I don't feel is in keeping with the game as it was originally sold to me as ... a "no limits" sort of campaign.
Some fanboy over sold it to ya. There's not a lot of limitation where it comes to what you can codedly or socially do. Ie, if you want to start a "dwarven empire" you could maybe get 10 dwarf PCs to play along and come live out in the desert with you. But it would be a cave, abandoned fort, outpost, or whatever that was there already. There's no evidence in recent history (that I'm aware of) to suggest that the ten of you could, say, build a fort just because you devoted a couple IRL months to RPing stacking rocks up together. (Not that that specific thing has ever been done, to my knowledge.)
I think the closest I've seen is one PC, who played a noble for 2 IRL years or so, managed to build a bar. But that bar is closed these days. (At least in its capacity as a bar.)
Quote from: Miradus on March 04, 2016, 11:50:51 AM
It makes it feel as if the staff stories are more important and supported than the player stories, and I don't like that idea very much.
For better or worse, this is the case. Every few years a plot involving a "raider clan" of NPCs will pop up, and they'll get a little tent city out in some corner of the wastes they can use as a base. If you start a "raider clan" of PCs, your home base is going to be the bar in Red Storm.
I'm not saying these things to be mean or disparaging, that's just the way it is. Arm has an active playerbase of (presumably) at least 100? If you want to solo RP building a cabin, I know of at least one RPI open right now where you could do that thing. It's got a pbase of maybe 10, so it's builders have a little more time to accommodate that.
Quote from: IAmJacksOpinion on March 04, 2016, 01:26:08 PM
I'm going to try and say this as neutrally as I know how...
Quote from: Miradus on March 04, 2016, 11:50:51 AM
It's an artificial limit which I don't feel is in keeping with the game as it was originally sold to me as ... a "no limits" sort of campaign.
Some fanboy over sold it to ya. There's not a lot of limitation where it comes to what you can codedly or socially do. Ie, if you want to start a "dwarven empire" you could maybe get 10 dwarf PCs to play along and come live out in the desert with you. But it would be a cave, abandoned fort, outpost, or whatever that was there already. There's no evidence in recent history (that I'm aware of) to suggest that the ten of you could, say, build a fort just because you devoted a couple IRL months to RPing stacking rocks up together. (Not that that specific thing has ever been done, to my knowledge.)
I think the closest I've seen is one PC, who played a noble for 2 IRL years or so, managed to build a bar. But that bar is closed these days. (At least in its capacity as a bar.)
Quote from: Miradus on March 04, 2016, 11:50:51 AM
It makes it feel as if the staff stories are more important and supported than the player stories, and I don't like that idea very much.
For better or worse, this is the case. Every few years a plot involving a "raider clan" of NPCs will pop up, and they'll get a little tent city out in some corner of the wastes they can use as a base. If you start a "raider clan" of PCs, your home base is going to be the bar in Red Storm.
I'm not saying these things to be mean or disparaging, that's just the way it is. Arm has an active playerbase of (presumably) at least 100? If you want to solo RP building a cabin, I know of at least one RPI open right now where you could do that thing. It's got a pbase of maybe 10, so it's builders have a little more time to accommodate that.
Whats the RPI? Interested tbh
Quote from: IAmJacksOpinion on March 04, 2016, 01:26:08 PM
I'm going to try and say this as neutrally as I know how...
Be at peace, brother. It is what it is.
I am not the one to lead that fight, considering my main contribution to the game thus far is some 40+ scattered ranger corpses throughout the wilderness.
But I feel the lack. That's all I'm saying.
Quote from: Miradus on March 04, 2016, 01:43:51 PM
Quote from: IAmJacksOpinion on March 04, 2016, 01:26:08 PM
I'm going to try and say this as neutrally as I know how...
Be at peace, brother. It is what it is.
I am not the one to lead that fight, considering my main contribution to the game thus far is some 40+ scattered ranger corpses throughout the wilderness.
But I feel the lack. That's all I'm saying.
I like how this could mean either PK or noob death champion ;D
Quote from: Miradus on March 04, 2016, 01:43:51 PM
I am not the one to lead that fight, considering my main contribution to the game thus far is some 40+ scattered ranger corpses throughout the wilderness.
But I feel the lack. That's all I'm saying.
Never underestimate how much coming across a corpse (aka "jackpot") in the middle of the wastes can brighten another player's day. :p
There's no fight to lead. It's a fight that's been fought a dozen times. As Synth said in the strength discussion thread "Hey, it's time for this one again." But that doesn't mean its bad. I'll say that of my 10-12 year Arm career, I've seen the most exciting and positive growth taking place over the last 6 months. So staff are doing a bang up job lately, even if that one itch isn't being scratched.
What were we supposed to be discussing again? Dwarves?
Quote from: IAmJacksOpinion on March 04, 2016, 02:22:17 PM
What were we supposed to be discussing again? Dwarves?
You're God Damn Right.
Quote from: Majikal on March 04, 2016, 02:24:04 AM
My most enjoyable dwarf I ever played was a Rukkian that had the focus of becoming a Legend. It was vague and silly at a glance but it took him on a journey. Over time he became powerful, made sure he hung around people he thought were the stuff of stories and mimicked alot of what they did, had special armor fashioned for him that made him look like a legend, he was a big showboat. He challenged truly legendary beasts, paid bards to follow him around and witness his deeds. He created a following that joined him under a particular banner, all die hard loyalists. One day a Templar congratulated him on something spectacular he did, giving all of that credit to his powerful magicks. This turned into him despising his element for stealing all of his 'glory' and led him to rebel against Ruk itself, he stopped using magick and grew to be a brutal fighter without it. Eventually his element actually turned on him and things REALLY got interesting.
If that was Enri, focus achieved. :p I remember being in the Cai Shyzn with him and the imms brought out <legendary beast from the region> with a room echo along the lines of "something massive flies over the valley, temporarily blocking the sun." And there was a scene where we were all going into full-blown panic/evac mode, screaming "get to da choppa' now!" at Enri, but he just stops and looks back with this conflicted look like he was going to try and chase that thing down himself. Very well done example of how a dwarf can hint at their focus through RP. I always wondered about that emote, and 6+ years later it finally makes sense.
In a way, it's kind of sad that legendary characters don't stick around as legends. Back in the old days you had Khann, Moire and Ysania, etc. who were characters, for their time, may not of all been that special. I wouldn't know, I wasn't around and have only ever heard of them 20 years later because there're streets named after them. There have probably been characters who worked much harder and achieved much more (relative to what "achievement" meant as a player at that time) who have all but vanished once the PCs who knew them died off. And in a way that might be an accurate representation of a world without literacy... but I kind of wish that docs would immortalize famous old characters as legends. We can go to the docs and see that Tek buried Luir (or whoever it was) under "99 feet of stone" like 2,000 years ago, but there's nothing about, say, Samos.
Quote from: Jihelu on March 04, 2016, 10:16:09 AM
The more you inspire other dwarves subconsciously the more I feel like dwarves would be willing to join your cause.
Starting up a huge dwarven village that is trying to be a kingdom is going to put the thought in a dwarfs mind. So even if he completes a focus he might develop one saying "Become a great fighter for the dwarven empire" as a focus.
Or a younger dwarf might start with a focus saying "Join a dwarven empire"
Etc. etc.
I feel like over time you could get dwarves to completely be focused on a tribe or empire.
Otherwise I have no idea how a dwarven tribe would succeed in the first place.
This is my thought. Have powerful foci (and powerful dwarves) start to imprint on other younger or more impressionable dwarves. So you don't -have- to abandon your 'build an upside down 3/4 scale version of the pyramids on a Silt Sea island' for Thrain Ironsword's focus of 'take over Allanak', but you -could-. Then you add a -real- element of tension, conflict and surprise to the game. You never know -if- that dwarf is going to start accumulating dangerous plans or followers. Or, if it is going to completely harmlessly gather 2 other dwarves that build stone piles out in the desert.
If you let dwarves just ditch their focus for whatever seems cool at the moment (and that's what this would boil down to), then their roleplay really does become no different than any other character in the game.
Just like a dwarf joining a clan, inspiring other dwarves to band together with you isn't stripping their focus, it's them using the tools of that organization in order to further your focus.
Quote from: IAmJacksOpinion on March 04, 2016, 02:42:25 PM
Quote from: Majikal on March 04, 2016, 02:24:04 AM
My most enjoyable dwarf I ever played was a Rukkian that had the focus of becoming a Legend. It was vague and silly at a glance but it took him on a journey. Over time he became powerful, made sure he hung around people he thought were the stuff of stories and mimicked alot of what they did, had special armor fashioned for him that made him look like a legend, he was a big showboat. He challenged truly legendary beasts, paid bards to follow him around and witness his deeds. He created a following that joined him under a particular banner, all die hard loyalists. One day a Templar congratulated him on something spectacular he did, giving all of that credit to his powerful magicks. This turned into him despising his element for stealing all of his 'glory' and led him to rebel against Ruk itself, he stopped using magick and grew to be a brutal fighter without it. Eventually his element actually turned on him and things REALLY got interesting.
If that was Enri, focus achieved. :p I remember being in the Cai Shyzn with him and the imms brought out <legendary beast from the region> with a room echo along the lines of "something massive flies over the valley, temporarily blocking the sun." And there was a scene where we were all going into full-blown panic/evac mode, screaming "get to da choppa' now!" at Enri, but he just stops and looks back with this conflicted look like he was going to try and chase that thing down himself. Very well done example of how a dwarf can hint at their focus through RP. I always wondered about that emote, and 6+ years later it finally makes sense.
D'awww, it WAS Enri. ;D
Thanks bro.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on March 04, 2016, 07:00:07 PM
If you let dwarves just ditch their focus for whatever seems cool at the moment (and that's what this would boil down to), then their roleplay really does become no different than any other character in the game.
No, you just have to watch this as closely as any other aspect of dwarven foci. You write very descriptive docs about the process and then that informs their roleplay. You have to trust players more than assuming they'll be like 'haha, u have a cool focus lets clan'. And if they don't, they get dinged like every other tenet-breaking RP faux pas.
It's like tests of elven loyalty. It may suit an elf to be 'in and cool' with another elf, but that's not the docs unless it's heavily roleplayed.
Because trusting players to play to docs and not take the easy road (wide focuses, smart half-giants, lizard-boxing, innumerable other sins we all do) has worked out well so far.
The documentation is already there. The best way to achieve something "Dwarfy" is to make a dwarf and start trying to roleplay to the fullest extent of their racial roleplay. Great roleplay will inspire others to rise to the level.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying skeelz. You think someone trying to get dwarves to join their group is bad because then they will play with shitty focuses or lose diversity of focuses?
I'm skeptical of there being a mechanism created for dwarves to just ditch their foci and latch on to whatever the player decides is a cooler one. "My focus was to become a great soap maker but this dwarven empire idea is neat so I will start to devote time to it, even if it isn't really going to to make it any easier to become a great soap maker."
I'm supportive of the notion that a dwarf with one focus might start a chain-reaction among other dwarves who determine "Assisting this dwarf will assist me in completing my focus." The goal remains the same, but the dwarf changes their path. I believe that's how they're supposed to work now anyway.
I also believe the state of dwarf roleplay (or at least the popular perception of it) is due to player actions more than any inherent problem in their documentation. They do give people a license to spar, but that's the barest level of dwarf roleplay. It might be the most numerically common but it's certainly not what I think of when I think of well-played dwarves I've encountered. So I'm just kind of skeptical of the whole notion of there being a problem in the first place.
Dwarves who grow up as slaves often have foci related to their purpose as slaves.
Dwarves who grow up in cities may turn their focus on the city ...
Presumably, conditioning dwarves to join with a group is quite feasible, if you catch them young enough. They ... are a slave race.
I got interested in Arm while playing dwarves, so am biased against karma. My early dwarves had crazier focuses anyway (as I figured out what was and wasn't crazy in the world).
Anyone who practices martial arts has license to spar, except my dojo phased it out for safety reasons, somewhat to my disappointment. :( We don't really have coded reflection of training with your equals without sparring, though, to my knowledge (you can emote it, but that only satisfies so much before the disagreement with coded reality starts to grate).
I usually write my dwarves' focuses as a product of their upbringing. If it's hunting based, they were probably raised as hunters. If it's stone based, they were probably miners. If it's conflict based, they were probably bullied when they were young. If it's wealth based, they were probably in awe of a rich dude they saw sometime. Etc.
Docs don't really make it clear where focuses start, but Im willing to bet most of us treat it as nurture, not nature. At that rate, I don't think it's impossible that there could be a tribe of dwarves who are homogenised to the point that their foci would all be similar. Or at the the very least, not terribly conflicting.
Look at other tribes. Say, Akai Ta Var. They're all a bunch of nature loving tree huggers with beliefs that deeply ingrain their members with values of conservation. It's not out of the question that an elf might do something to put him at odds with that upbringing. In fact, I can recall 2 times in the ATV where we ostracized, and even flat out disowned, members of the tribe for conflicting with those ideals. But that's an exceedingly rare occurrance. If they were a dwarf tribe, it would be rare to see someone with the focus to "be the best hunter by killing everything always." And if you tried to be that dwarf, you wouldnt get your app approved.
Quote from: Case on March 03, 2016, 03:23:47 PM
I think buffing dwarves with fullstops and initial capital letters would go a long way towards their acceptance in roleplay.
I feel this would disrupt the meta too much.
I'm not sure if I've ever seen a badly-played dwarf, but then again where I'm playing they're rarer now for some reason, and the few I've gotten in deep with had a great grip on their foci. I don't care what their foci is so long as they've got a great grip on it. Just because its more convenient or easier or more to the player's taste to have a fighting-based focus, making the focus fairly common, doesn't mean to me that its a bad focus. If you roleplay the obsession well you should do okay.
What erdlus said.
A dwarf would probably have a "They understand me" bond with other dwarves. Aside from that, however, dwarves have no reason to congregate with other dwarves unless doing so would further or facilitate their personal foci. The "They understand me" part is a great reason to have dwarven friends, and I'd guess that there's also a measure of "Maybe I can get this like-minded person to help me achieve my reason for living" mixed in there too. While dwarves are tools to society as a whole, dwarves also view everybody else as tools to achieve what's important to them.
Now, with that in mind, a dwarven culture/society makes perfect sense, since any such successful group would be focused on the greater whole facilitating the individual. For instance, a single dwarf who had a focus of civilizing the nearest oasis could recruit kin who had focuses related or relatable to either hunting, building, exploration, protection, and nurturing. The hunter feeds the clan. The builder constructs dwellings or decoration or furnishings. The protector provides law and security. The explorer finds the ideal location and maintains tabs on the surrounding landscape. And the nurturer establishes mores for the clan to follow, and rules that govern the interactions of nearby tribes and outsiders.
Even the dwarf with the focus "I'll be the baddest badass ever" has a place here, since a dwarf's focus is part of the tool used to guide them to servitude. You'd just manipulate the dwarf into thinking that representing you as "the baddest badass ever" is where it's really at. Then you use that dwarf to be the big hammer when you need one.
I love the dwarven focus. Figuring out how it effects everyday life is by far my favorite thing in the game.
Other dwarves also tend to know mirukkim. Speaking a language not their first tongue may be normal for some(hi guys), but most people prefer their native language if they can help it.
I don't know. I always felt race would be a more highly motivating factor for developing bonds with the "lesser races" in Zalanthas.
I have seen people voice here a few times that they dislike when a dwarf seems to be friends with another dwarf quickly because they are both dwarves.
The same goes for half-elves and elves. People seem to dislike it when they see it.
It has never bothered me.
Zalanthas is incredibly racist. In an incredibly racist society the minorities are almost always the ones who suffer the most at the hands of the majority.
When you have a group like dwarves, half-elves, and to a lesser extent elves who all struggle against that upper-end racism that shits on them regularly it seems like that would be a strong motivator to band together.
Think of it like prison which is an extremely violent and hostile racist environment.
Race matters a lot. You don't want to be the white guy who hangs out with the black guys. You don't want to be the black guy who hangs out with the white guys.
You stick to your own because in a highly racist and highly violent environment that is what people do.
Zalanthas is extremely racist and violent. I have zero problem with dwarves, half-elves, elves, even muls banding together more easily when they encounter each other.
It makes perfect sense to me.
(I might even argue I like it when they do it. I feel it adds realism and extra depth to the game world because it makes so much sense.)
Edited to Add: I'm not saying I want to see all dwarves and half-elves walking around hugging each other and calling each other cousin. That would be pretty fucking stupid. I am saying that I feel in general it is totally acceptable and should probably even be expected that the lesser races are known to more commonly end up banding together when the opportunity is right. If nothing else, at its very base core they have this single thought in common, "Well, everyone else shits on me for being a dwarf/half-elf/elf, but, you are one too, so if nothing else, you can't shit on me for that. That doesn't make us friends, but, it marks one checkbox off the list immediately that I don't have with anyone else.". It's sort of a leg up, so to speak, on a reason for not hating each other immediately. Any common ground when you are the one who gets shit on regularly by everyone else is a valuable commodity for anyone.
While I mostly agree with that, Desertman, I think for dwarves it has less relevance than for any other race at all. Anything that could hinder the dwarven focus is bad, and other kin can certainly hinder your focus because they have their own focus. Unless the focus the other dwarf has is either completely separate from your own and thus offers you no resistance, or is enough in line with yours that they help you achieve your own focus, I'd argue that out of all the races, dwarves are the least likely to congregate and the most likely to accept sub-optimal conditions in the company of other races in an effort to further their foci.
The whole 'people don't shit on you for race when you are the same race' thing works wonders for gemmed too tbh.
Well.
Depends on who is enslaved to the templarate that week I guess.
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on March 07, 2016, 10:47:37 AM
While I mostly agree with that, Desertman, I think for dwarves it has less relevance than for any other race at all. Anything that could hinder the dwarven focus is bad, and other kin can certainly hinder your focus because they have their own focus. Unless the focus the other dwarf has is either completely separate from your own and thus offers you no resistance, or is enough in line with yours that they help you achieve your own focus, I'd argue that out of all the races, dwarves are the least likely to congregate and the most likely to accept sub-optimal conditions in the company of other races in an effort to further their foci.
This seems like a simple game of psychological numbers.
Does having no allies in the world help my focus? Yes or no? If yes, then fine, don't make any friends.
Does having allies in the world help my focus? Yes or no? If yes, then make friends with the people least likely to shit on you/that you can trust.
I would imagine MOST dwarven foci would to some extent not be hindered by the acquisition of valuable and useful allies and friends.
Why?
Because that just seems to make sense when it comes to raw numbers. Having friends and allies makes everything easier almost always unless your dwarven focus somehow is made easier by having no dependable help/fallback plan/allies/friends.
Not really my point, though. Of course that makes sense. In a vacuum, you'll gravitate towards those like yourself. However ...
... friends who understand me and help me follow my Path in five years, or outsiders who'll use me but I can achieve my needs in four years? For normally reasoned beings, it's the former, but for dwarves, it would often be the latter.
As I said, of all the races, dwarves would be the least likely to see companionship as an important thing.
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on March 07, 2016, 11:01:21 AM
Not really my point, though. Of course that makes sense. In a vacuum, you'll gravitate towards those like yourself. However ...
... friends who understand me and help me follow my Path in five years, or outsiders who'll use me but I can achieve my needs in four years? For normally reasoned beings, it's the former, but for dwarves, it would often be the latter.
As I said, of all the races, dwarves would be the least likely to see companionship as an important thing.
That's all situational. The assumption being made for your situation to work is that somehow people who aren't dwarves are going to somehow be more useful to the dwarf in question in terms of achieving his/her focus.
Why? Why does that have to be the case? Why would it even be the case most of the time?
Maybe it wouldn't be the case most of the time.
It seems just as likely.
I think there is a strong argument that other dwarves who can show understanding towards dwarven impulses because they better understand them would almost always be better allies for focus achievement.
There are a lot of assumptions being made that may or may not be the case for each individual dwarf/group of dwarves/group of non-dwarf potential allies. All of the assumptions being made are in fact possibly not even representative of the game world.
The only assumption one CAN make that will almost always hold true is that people who are like you generally tend to better understand you and would potentially, as such, be more inclined to bond with you.
Why? Because that's reality.
Well put, but also keep in mind that there should be room for a well-roleplayed dwarf to make simply the wrong decision about pursuing their focus. We don't always make the best decisions.
Like a college med student getting busted for pot possession on spring break. Bad decision that probably won't help their end goal much.
I don't think half elves should be banding together with each other, first of all. half elves don't like themselves often enough, let alone being reminded of why they can't be whole by a bunch of other breeds. Banding up with elves or humans should be their goal, even if it's tumultuous.
Dwarves... can. If they bully/influence their children into the right foci after initially establishing a group that happen to be able to contribute to each other's, then they could totally start a tribe. Dwarves are highly brainwashable if gotten young and that's pretty much what they'd need to do. Force the youngins to have a focus of "support and maintain the tribe". I'd love to see this as a group or even clan IG.
And an effective celf clan.
You're right, Desertman. Generally speaking, one could assume that dwarves could function better and be accepted in a dwarven environment, and I agree with that wholeheartedly. The only point I was making is that unlike the other races, and because of the foci, racial bonds would be less a factor for a dwarf in deciding the company they keep than it would be for anyone else, with the possible exception of half-giants. That's the only point, and it's the one you're missing the most. Foci before bond for literally every single dwarf. No other race has this driving need which trumps literally everything else.
As for half-elves, if I remember right, they can breed together, like half-giants. Technically, half-elves are their own race, unlike muls, whom are less a race and more along the line of one-offs.
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on March 08, 2016, 01:16:39 AM
You're right, Desertman. Generally speaking, one could assume that dwarves could function better and be accepted in a dwarven environment, and I agree with that wholeheartedly. The only point I was making is that unlike the other races, and because of the foci, racial bonds would be less a factor for a dwarf in deciding the company they keep than it would be for anyone else, with the possible exception of half-giants. That's the only point, and it's the one you're missing the most. Foci before bond for literally every single dwarf. No other race has this driving need which trumps literally everything else.
As for half-elves, if I remember right, they can breed together, like half-giants. Technically, half-elves are their own race, unlike muls, whom are less a race and more along the line of one-offs.
Ahh, I see what you mean.
I agree with that. Their foci would absolutely be put above any sort of racial bond they might naturally be inclined towards.
If their group somehow conflicts with their goal and they reach an impasse on that front, "Goodbye group. You've lived out your usefulness.".
Quote from: Miradus on March 07, 2016, 01:23:00 PM
Well put, but also keep in mind that there should be room for a well-roleplayed dwarf to make simply the wrong decision about pursuing their focus. We don't always make the best decisions.
Like a college med student getting busted for pot possession on spring break. Bad decision that probably won't help their end goal much.
Dwarves can, of course, make mistakes.
I'm not sure the analogy you gave is illuminating, though. I don't think a dwarf would do something like smoke pot just to have fun. "Just to have fun" shouldn't really enter the dwarven mind, unless their focus has to do with having fun. They'd never get involved with something totally ancillary to their goal, as in the case of a student with the goal of graduating from med school deciding to try pot.
When I think of a dwarf deciding what to do, I picture the red analysis screen from Terminator. "Object acquired: pot. Purpose: humans claim this helps them relax. I do not need to relax. Ever. Conclusion: completely ignore the existence of pot." They'd think about pot as often as they think about star-bellied sneetches.
...unless the med student was possessing pot with the intent to sell. I could see a dwarf doing that.
Dwarves aren't robots, they're still humanoids that need occasional rest and rejuvenation.
"Object acquired: pot. Pot helps me relax. Relaxing will help me better focus on what I need to do once I have fully recovered my stamina. Conclusion: smoke this pot."
objective: relax. pot helps me relax. i'm out in the desert. if i relax out here i will die and be unable to complete my focus.
but if i smoke pot i will relax faster.
i might die.
but i need to relax.
....
smoke pot
5 minutes later
a ruddy, brown-streaked mekillot has arrived from the north
the pot-smoking dwarf says, in sirihish,
"hey man, don't get all up in my face..."
Yeah, I don't think there is a problem with playing to the extreme but you need to understand it is in fact the extreme when you do it.
If you have a dwarf who's focus is to be the wealthiest dwarf in history, you have some options.
You can play the dwarf who pinches every single sid and would rather eat dirty tubers raw if they were cheaper than grilled and seasoned chalton steak for every meal.
That would be playing to the extreme. That could be fun. Hell I would do it. It sounds like a fun dwarf.
But you could also have the same focus and spend lots of money on the finer things as you go along. You aren't a robot. Your reasoning could be, "Yes my life goal is to be the wealthiest dwarf in history, and I'm on a good path to doing just that, and I'm going to enjoy that wealth along the way.".
The idea that you have to achieve your focus as quickly as possible is an interesting thought that I never considered but it seems to keep coming up in this thread.
In my example, why is becoming the wealthiest dwarf as quickly as possible a priority? Why is the "quickly as possible" variable even put into the equation?
(The same goes for be the strongest fighter, be the best baker, be the best mason, build a dwarven empire...whatever...)
What's the rush and why do we think there is some requirement to be in a rush in regards to the dwarven focus?
In my example, playing to the extreme and pinching every sid would be an example of rushing your focus completion.
Why couldn't that same dwarf say to himself, "Yes, I am going to be the wealthiest dwarf in history, and so long as I do that within the next fifty years and climb the ladder slow but steady and still enjoy my wealth along the way I will have had a good and fulfilling life I found enjoyable.".
That seems reasonable.
So long as you are still advancing your focus, no matter how quickly, a smart dwarf might reason that slow and steady wins the race.
No, they aren't robots. And of course, there's a lot of room for individual interpretation. I'm more aligned with the view that "relaxation" and "stamina" (in the mental sense of the word, that is, something that could be replenished by doing something fun or diverting)" are human ideas that may not apply to dwarves.
I picture it as being high on amphetamines and really, really wanting to clean. You might do it for 14 hours straight without resting, because that's all you want to do. Why not work until you sit down and instantly fall asleep? That's more efficient than needing to spend time relaxing.
I'm not making an argument, really. Not trying to say "this is how dwarves are, or this is how dwarves should be, because I am right."
Like I said, there can be a lot of interpretation. My opinion is that people may have more fun playing dwarves, and people around dwarves would have more fun interacting with them, if they were played as being less human and more alien in their behavior.
I played a dwarf that was pretty extreme in his singlemindedness, and had a lot of success with it, in terms of my own enjoyment and also feedback from others.
Quote from: Desertman on March 08, 2016, 08:47:39 AM
If their group somehow conflicts with their goal and they reach an impasse on that front, "Goodbye group. You've lived out your usefulness.".
There's a question of what qualifies as a racial bond. A non-dwarf might find the above behavior insulting, but a dwarf might just expect it. Their foci might be a basis for constant formation of short-term, businesslike relationships, and then they drift apart to work on their focus. This is good communication, and while dwarves may not appear to be social to our eyes, their respect for other's goals may contribute to more total social organization than what we would typically know.
In other words, dwarves may hang out with other races more, but when it comes to other dwarves, they cooperate with almost no effort. In this way, dwarves can have more social bonds with other races but be far more at ease with other dwarves.
My previous post was more in response to Delirium's.
Re: Desertman's:
I guess all I'm trying to bring out, is that a more, not sure of the word - effective? Focused? (heh) Authentic? Role playing experience might be achieved if people are willing to get "crazy" with their dwarf. Less human.
When I think of a mind that is truly, utterly obsessed with a goal, to a literally inhuman extent, I just don't see them being content with "I'm on the right path to my goal! I've earned the right to kick up my feet and have a beer. I'll get back to <goal> tomorrow." I think of them as burning with the need to refine, to progress, to try new angles, in every waking moment.
"I just spent 12 hours mining. But...what if I changed the handle of my pick, to make it easier to swing? I have to have it done by tomorrow!" etc. Never really "resting."
Now, what I could see, is working hard all day, and then continuing to think intensely about the focus while the dwarf is "relaxing" their body. Working hard at mining, and then sitting and thinking about the pick handle while drinking.
It doesn't necessarily have to take the form of "rushing" or sacrificing the long-term in favor of a short-term frenzy of activity.
Like I said before, I want to stress that I don't think I'm handing out the Gospel here, or that everyone has to agree with me.
I just think that one solution to "most people play dwarves in an uninteresting way - as slightly obsessed humans that mostly act the same way as humans" - is to try playing them as being manically, inhumanly focused, every moment of play.
Quote from: Large Hero on March 08, 2016, 10:12:37 AM
My previous post was more in response to Delirium's.
Re: Desertman's:
I guess all I'm trying to bring out, is that a more, not sure of the word - effective? Focused? (heh) Authentic? Role playing experience might be achieved if people are willing to get "crazy" with their dwarf. Less human.
When I think of a mind that is truly, utterly obsessed with a goal, to a literally inhuman extent, I just don't see them being content with "I'm on the right path to my goal! I've earned the right to kick up my feet and have a beer. I'll get back to <goal> tomorrow." I think of them as burning with the need to refine, to progress, to try new angles, in every waking moment.
"I just spent 12 hours mining. But...what if I changed the handle of my pick, to make it easier to swing? I have to have it done by tomorrow!" etc. Never really "resting."
Now, what I could see, is working hard all day, and then continuing to think intensely about the focus while the dwarf is "relaxing" their body. Working hard at mining, and then sitting and thinking about the pick handle while drinking.
It doesn't necessarily have to take the form of "rushing" or sacrificing the long-term in favor of a short-term frenzy of activity.
Like I said before, I want to stress that I don't think I'm handing out the Gospel here, or that everyone has to agree with me.
I just think that one solution to "most people play dwarves in an uninteresting way - as slightly obsessed humans that mostly act the same way as humans" - is to try playing them as being manically, inhumanly focused, every moment of play.
Hey man I'm right there with you. I believe playing the extreme-end part of the dwarven focus would be more fun and more fun to be around personally.
I just don't think it has to be the necessary standard across the board or, "you're doing it wrong". (Which I understand isn't what you are saying. My reply was in general to the whole idea I've seen presented a few times by several people about rushing/completing your focus as quickly as possible.)
Dwarves are not robots, but they're awfully close. It's knowing when to do draw the distinction between being a robot and being a biological entity that makes the dwarven persona. It's a fine line, and I absolutely agree that the fastest path possible is an extreme. There are many ways to achieve things, and it's very possible for them to take a longer path to their goal. But dwarves are crazy, and that's something you have to realize as a dwarven player. You are obsessive about your focus to a level that no other race can comprehend.
You are a crazy person.
I don't think the robot comparison is very useful. That word has a lot of connotations that obviously don't apply. Dwarves aren't emotionless, the aren't tireless, they aren't purely logical, they aren't incapable of producing art or abstract thought.
Also, dwarves are necessarily internally alien. That doesn't mean they need to be obviously externally alien. Surely for many (or even most) dwarves, effective assimilation into human-dominated society is important and useful for their focus. Some dwarves might be better at this than others, and some might not care either way.
It's a little worrying to see the effort by some here to narrowly circumscribe how dwarves must be played to be correct.
I like the point Large Hero (and others) make about dwarven focuses being alien. I've actually never thought of it to quite that extent, because I'm a lowly human, but I agree that it should be just a step beyond what other races understand as being "driven", or even "obsessed". I don't like the "robot" line of thinking though. They're focused, but not single-minded. If your focus is to catch the Man in Black, but doing so means letting Jake fall to his death, you can still save Jake, reasoning that you'll have another opportunity. It should never be an easy decision, but it's still a valid option for you to take.
Last weekend I was reading through this old AD&D Dark Sun box I found at a used bookstore, and a couple things stood out in reading the description of a dwarven focus; it must be take at least one week to complete (anything less is a task), and dwarves get morale bonuses to rolls made on tasks relating directly to their focus. The interpretation of the last part, to me, means that you are a cut above a regular obsessed person. If you and an insanely focused human were both in the gym working on your goal/focus of "having the biggest biceps", and you both had the same stats, you would stay 10 minutes later and bang out an extra set of curls more than what he would or could do. You wouldn't stay all night, and roll right into the next morning, but you could go that extra mile beyond what a person of the same ability could.
The other thing was the "at least one week." I don't know about ya'll, but most of my focuses tend to be grand in size. I'm trying to kill one of everything in the Known, not "Kill a Salt Worm." Or I'm trying to "start a dwarven empire", not "rent an apartment with an all dwarven lease." Does / has anyone ever played a dwarf whose focus is relatively small? How was it?
Quote from: IAmJacksOpinion on March 08, 2016, 07:03:23 PM
I like the point Large Hero (and others) make about dwarven focuses being alien. I've actually never thought of it to quite that extent, because I'm a lowly human, but I agree that it should be just a step beyond what other races understand as being "driven", or even "obsessed". I don't like the "robot" line of thinking though. They're focused, but not single-minded. If your focus is to catch the Man in Black, but doing so means letting Jake fall to his death, you can still save Jake, reasoning that you'll have another opportunity. It should never be an easy decision, but it's still a valid option for you to take.
Last weekend I was reading through this old AD&D Dark Sun box I found at a used bookstore, and a couple things stood out in reading the description of a dwarven focus; it must be take at least one week to complete (anything less is a task), and dwarves get morale bonuses to rolls made on tasks relating directly to their focus. The interpretation of the last part, to me, means that you are a cut above a regular obsessed person. If you and an insanely focused human were both in the gym working on your goal/focus of "having the biggest biceps", and you both had the same stats, you would stay 10 minutes later and bang out an extra set of curls more than what he would or could do. You wouldn't stay all night, and roll right into the next morning, but you could go that extra mile beyond what a person of the same ability could.
The other thing was the "at least one week." I don't know about ya'll, but most of my focuses tend to be grand in size. I'm trying to kill one of everything in the Known, not "Kill a Salt Worm." Or I'm trying to "start a dwarven empire", not "rent an apartment with an all dwarven lease." Does / has anyone ever played a dwarf whose focus is relatively small? How was it?
I'll try to be clearer on the "robot" thing.
Of course, they aren't robots. They don't think in machine language. When I play a dwarf, I don't type "think Target acquired. Relevance to focus: 39%. Acquire for further testing." :)
However, like a robot programmed with a singular purpose and some advanced AI, I try to spend every moment I play my dwarves thinking about the focus. I think it's appropriate for a dwarf to be completely set on the focus with every thought, from waking to sleep. They don't get tired from thinking on it. They don't need to rejuvenate their brain, to refocus, like a human might after 8 hours on a single task.
Because they aren't human.
It clicked for me when I realized, hey - dwarves probably have a
different brain structure.
It's funny you bring up the Man in Black example, because - if the dwarf's focus is "catch the Man in Black?" Unless saving Jake is critical to that mission (maybe he has some important information about the Man in Black, without which I can't catch him), I'd think a dwarf would let Jake die 100 times out of 100.
There's just no point in saving him, unless it helps fulfill the focus. That's another thing related to the "robot" idea. When I play a dwarf, I just don't give a damn about any other living thing unless they're important to the focus. The dwarf understands they're living, sentient beings, sure. But they're as important as other figures in a dream when you know you're dreaming. Or as important as enemy robots (there's that word again!) in a cartoon where robots are the bad guys so the protagonists can kill them without thinking. (Of course, not every dwarf has to be this sociopathic. But it certainly makes sense to me. Humans tend to be ruthless with other humans, when they get in the way of an important goal. I can only imagine what a dwarf would do, or think, about those who are a hindrance, or even irrelevant, to the goal that consumes his life).
If Jake isn't important to the dwarf's focus, it's like saying "Should I continue chasing the Man in Black, or save this meaningless pot of shit falling into the chasm?"
Again, these are just my opinions. But I have thought about dwarves a lot, and they're probably my favorite race to play. I don't often play them because it drains me, the
human, to focus like that. Because I'm not a dwarf. :)
That is similar to what I imagine a psychopath to be?
The focus of being a wealthy dwarf may entail being miserly, but it may also entail spending on finer things, because buying fine things is a manifestation of wealth and therefore potentially part of the focus. 'Wealthy people don't eat dirt tubers' is more likely the reasoning in this case than 'wealthy dwarves don't have to eat dirt tubers'. If you happen to be wealthy, and happen not to eat dirt tubers, then it is not relevant so do what increases your morale.
It may benefit your focus to adopt rules of ethics that generally apply to other people. Picked right, they make people more likely to help you, you don't have to waste mental energy figuring out how you should react to a situation. Just ignore them when they get in the way.
Pot being relaxing might make it more appealing than any recreation-based attempt to 'relax' if you need to be relaxed. Chemical effort makes more sense than distracting yourself doing stressful things that don't have any point.
Some aspects of what we consider psychopathy could manifest in even the most caring dwarf, such as a lack of remorse in certain circumstances, but none are particularly necessary. Then again the environment lends itself to diminished empathy and remorse regardless of the race of your character.