What are some concepts or themes you believe have been over-trivialized by tabletop games and fantasy / sci-fi in general?
>Arthurian myth or anything resembling it
>space civilizations use credits
>evil cult in the sewer
>>47899689
define overtrivialized
>>47899689
Credits make sense as an abstract currency and its allot better than making up a name and saying thats what money is called
Evil cults in the sewer arnt trivial but they are overused in d&d
Maybe reword your post to overused instead of Trivialised
>>47899689
See >>47899704
You can't just come in here slinging a phrase like "over-trivialized" around without some kind of context or explanation.
What it sounds like is you mean "overused".
>Arthurian myth
This is a little played out but it's a good myth arc.
>space civilizations use credits
As apposed to what? Kwaytogs? Gurpgorks? I don't see what your issue is here other than it doesn't automatically entail a bunch of thought put in interplanetary currency denominations.
>evil cult in the sewer
Well, if you plan on hiding your illicit death cult and its activities in an urban area, that's not a bad place for it. A lot of really weird, shady shit goes on in IRL sewers and subway tunnels.
>>47899689
swords are vary expensive and vary rare. hard to get enough metal or skilled enough smith to make the blade. almost no one used swords on the battle field. axes, spears, clubs are the most common wepens
most armies are made up primarily of expendable pessents / militia (slightly trained and almost armed pessents) and not professional solders (who don't work the fields and just drain resources) with the rare exception of knights and Sargents (professional solders)
almost all settlements had walls but only really wealthy or old settlements have stone walls
most land is inhabited contrary to popular demand in traditional dnd settings. with the advent of agriculture there is a much denser population than hunter gatherers. even able to support crafts men(non-farmers)
most wealth was in land not money. money couldn't buy you anything but lucteries and land could get you food / fortifications / population
>>47899689
>Dragons and everything related to dragons. They've gone from being something rare, powerful, and the things of myths and legends to "HURRDURR, SO MANY PEOPLE HAVE DRAGON BLOOD IT'S NOT EVEN NOTEWORTHY ANYMORE!" That's not even counting dragons being so rare that every shop and smith and alchemy store has stuff made from their bodyparts and "dragon slayer" is a viable profession. Fuck, 5e even has an entire "dragonborn" race, because dragon-blooded sorcerers wern't dragon enough apparently.
>>47899689
Magical walmarts. Once magic items become commonplace people start asking why everyone is still living in the middle ages
>>47904015
The army thing depends on the era, location, and wealth of the nation in question.
Even a Dark Ages army wouldn't have consisted of untrained peasants; cultures that tend towards every man of fighting age going to war pass down warrior secrets from father to son, as free men are expected to defend their/the king's land.
A Saxon Fyrd for instance would have consisted citizen-warriors much in the same way a Viking warband might, and a chieftain would always maintain a body of professional warriors, to whom he acted as patron and lord.
>>47900388
>>47904015
>>47899689
Do you guys actually think anyone follows the Arthurian myth anymore?
When's the last time you've ever seen a character motivated by doing good for a lady he has declared his undying love for, carrying a token of her favor upon his lance or breast as a constant reminder of his promise?
Nowadays it's all grim dead parents in a burned village or being a rape victim or love to murder or a million other reasons, you don't *get* "I want to make my woman proud/do something with muh honor" anymore.
>>47904847
>5e even has an entire "dragonborn" race
>5e
They've been around much longer than that, famiglia. They're a 4e race based on a racial template from 3.5.
>>47904847
dragon blood is a pretty sick plot point in a low fantasy setting, though
>>47908472
Which is arguably based on AD&D Dragonlance's Draconians
>>47904915
Easy solution for that: never allow magic items to become commonplace. Or just play in Eberron.
>>47904015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9SvgWJNSd8
>>47908462
>hurr durr everyone's just an edgelord now I just wanna save a damsel from a dragon.
Don't know why I need to keep saying this, but this whole "muh shades of grey" thing is not some new fad. Your black and white feel good princess-rescuing romps are historically an exception in literature, not a norm.
Even Arthurian legend is full of the stuff people like you would deride as "edgy". Or did you forget Lancelot doomed his entire kingdom when he fucked his best friend's wife?
>>47908524
>Even Arthurian legend is full of the stuff people like you would deride as "edgy". Or did you forget Lancelot doomed his entire kingdom when he fucked his best friend's wife?I prefer the story of Sir Balin, actually. What a fuck up he was.
I never imagined the old stories weren't without tragedy or darkness, anon, I was meaning that there seems to be a difference nowadays between "conflict" and "suffering." The foolish knight that dooms the nation tends to read very differently from the rape-victim villager that watches as Orcs burn down his village, and he swears revenge upon them.
It's about the fatal flaws of man coming out at just the wrong time versus throwing dead babies at a character until they're covered in edge. It's Man vs. Self against Man vs. Man, and as far as I'm aware too many people think Arthurian myth was Man vs. Man.
>>47904915
>>47908513
i think that the normalization of heedlessly slaying lesser enemies that stand in the PCs paths, "magical supermarkets," and other tropes of tabletop games that are more like video games than not tend to cheapen the in-game world
>>47908647
You're pretty delusional if you think dead baby meat grinders are somehow the norm right now. No serious character is that edgy and no one takes shit like that at face value. Stop barking at shadows.
Also, your earlier example of a knight who just wants to make some lady he just met proud of him is a silly and shallow motivation.
>>47908687
"shallow" maybe, but good lookin' ladies like men who dress to impress
men lift for girls, do you think that's "silly and shallow"
not at all unrealistic
>>47908687
And yet it is one countless real men have had over the ages.
>>47908708
>>47908709
I guess for me it comes down to portrayal. Some Johnny Bravo style paladin or bard who just wants to show off for those foxy elf mamas would be pretty great.
But I can't stand the idea of playing with some knight PC who plays the whole "why my lady, allow me to bear your favor into battle!" thing completely straight. Like as in the player sincerely thinks it's a compelling or interesting personality.
>>47908687
>Also, your earlier example of a knight who just wants to make some lady he just met proud of him is a silly and shallow motivation.
>He doesn't go on epic quests to earn the favor of a forest nymph
Nigga why are you even going out on adventures if it isn't to get some tight ass
>>47908754
It doesn't matter if you can stand it or not, anon. That's how chivalry used to work.
>>47899689
>these guys i purposefully frame as super evil bad guys need killing!
>oh no! You killed all the innocent hippy orcs and trampled that meadow and killed their fluffy bunny farm in the process
>you monster.
>tragic events to families to "mature" characters
>shipwreck
>>47908754
i see what you mean but have never seen it in-game
mostly because i can't imagine anyone thinks that's cool nowadays
a PC going out on a holy quest of redemption, or slaying evil just to prove to himself he's a badass, i'm all over that though
>>47904015
I honestly can't tell if you're listing the false assumptions or the truth side of the common myths. Honestly it seems like you just mixed the two fairly liberally with no distinction between your intents.
>>47908754
>But I can't stand the idea of playing with some knight PC who plays the whole "why my lady, allow me to bear your favor into battle!" thing completely straight.
Really? You can't stand the thought of a PC going out just to make his lady proud?
And hey look, you're making assumptions too; you're acting like the knight is adventuring solely to earn his lady's favor, and while it's true they're doing all their works in her name, you need to realize much of the glory and gold is going to him as well.
Like you so eloquently put it before, you're barking at shadows; a knight PC doing this would obviously be more developed than "M'lady *Tips bascinet.*"
>>47908784
>mostly because i can't imagine anyone thinks that's cool nowadays
I'd agree if it wasn't for how many people I see on /tg/ complaining about some imaginary edginess epidemic and talking about rescuing princesses from Evil with a capital E.
Fortunately none of my players think that way either.
>>47904015
>entire point of the feudal system is that peasants don't have to fight unless it's a dire situation
>HURRRRRRRR, ARMIES WERE MOSTLY MADE UP OF PEASANTS!
I bet you think that Game of Thrones is an accurate depiction of medieval life and warfare.
>>47908784
>a PC going out on a holy quest of redemption, or slaying evil just to prove to himself he's a badass
Every time I make a "I'm an evil sinner and I need to be redeemed" character the table just groans, though.
The redemption quest has been played out, it's practically the bread and butter of tabletop, second only to "I kill bad things to show I'm tough."
>>47908806
Nah. Thats fedoratier whiteknight type shit. Just like most knights the woman isn't much of a prize outside of babymaking and possible nobility ladder climbing. I could see a player acting that way just for her but for the entire game? No.
>>47908926
>Just like most knights the woman isn't much of a prize outside of babymaking and possible nobility ladder climbing.
>romance is impossible, a knight could only ever desire his lady for lustful and political reasons
>>47908852
> second only to "I kill bad things to show I'm tough."
i love that though. thats a good a motivation as any
>>47908955
Historically speaking? Yes.
The goal was to become legitimized into nobility. Knighthood got you recognized but you'd aim specifically for someone's daughter who's relatively high up. Then you make babies. This establishes the house and name. You wouldn't waste your time otherwise or you'd take the loved one as a concubine or escort, secret or otherwise, but actual courtship is solely for political gain in nighthood.
>>47908926
So you're saying my knightly character that strives to be a symbol of chivalry after earning the interest of a mighty forest nymph is not an interesting motivation? He's even the odd duck out of the party, embodying the Virtues as hard as a Paladin, even though he's just a Cavalier.
I guess I need to get that nymph raped, maybe discover she's actually a hag. That will make him an interesting character, right?
>>47908839
>entire point of the feudal system is that peasants don't have to fight
It definitely wasn't
>>47908994
>but actual courtship is solely for political gain in nighthood.
>it is literally impossible for genuine love to exist between a knight and a lady
>for centuries in medieval Europe, no married couple in the nobility actually loved each other
>>47908926
>>47908994
I thought we were talking about tabletop fantasy though, where it's very possible the knight actually *is* romantically interested in the lady.
>>47909000
The code of chivalry states you should marry politically not romantically. You should actually read up on it as its not what people seem to think it is in a LOT of cases.
>>47908776
>>these guys i purposefully frame as super evil bad guys need killing!
>>oh no! You killed all the innocent hippy orcs and trampled that meadow and killed their fluffy bunny farm in the process
>>you monster.
This shit is why I don't play with randoms anymore, and it's especially why I never recruit from /tg/ anymore. Every second GM was some faggot with a highschool-level understanding of philosophy who wanted to "teach the players a lesson" about morality and show us that the world is a dark and cruel place and that we're dumb moralfags for liking heroes.
>>47909026
> Every second GM was some faggot with a highschool-level understanding of philosophy who wanted to "teach the players a lesson" about morality and show us that the world is a dark and cruel place and that we're dumb moralfags for liking heroes.
>>47909025
>The code of chivalry states you should marry politically not romantically.
The Song of Roland does not mention that in its definition of the code of chivalry, and neither did the Duke of Burgundy. I call bullshit.
>>47909081
There's whole scholars papers on this shit. You NEVER married for love solely. Your main aim was nobility legitimacy. You can google all that shit cause fuck scouring several 300 page papers.
>>47909025
>The code of chivalry states you should marry politically not romantically
The Code of Chivalry says nothing of the sort.
Are you talking about Courtly Love? Because all Courtly Love expects you to do is become devoted to a lady, and the thing about becoming devoted to a woman is you often eventually develop genuine feelings for them (like Lancelot when he declared his love for the queen.)
>>47908994
>legitimized into nobility
>Historically speaking
It was rare as fuck, holy shit. If you were a commoner and saved a daughter of noble lord he would reward you and maybe keep as a retainer but no way in hell he would let you in the family. Unless she is ugly as sin, 4th daughter with no claim and generally unmarriable to any half-decent noble.
>>47909015
Not the guy you were responding to, but I think a better way to put it is that the feudal system, among many things, aimed to have fighting men who were somewhat decent at their jobs.
There is some debate as to if, when, or where peasants fought in warfare. We are talking about a time period from around 800 to 1400 that spans the whole of Europe, it is not as if everyone is going to be on the exact same page for how to run fighting wars.
>>47909116
>There's whole scholars papers on this shit.
Oh, there's whole scholars papers on how the code of chivalry explicitly states "marry for political advantage"? I'm not stupid enough to think that purely political marriages didn't happen among medieval nobility, but don't pretend that love never came into it either.
>>47908524
Don't forget
>after I rescue the princess I make her my waifu even though my character is the son of a goat herder. Every one in this feudal society is fine with this, especially the king :^)
/tg/ really has some godawful taste
>>47909160
But anon, love is a thing you either have or don't have with a person! It's impossible to get married and then love the person later, it's all or nothing!
>>47909183
To be fair, that's something DMs tend to do, not the players.
>>47909160
Not him, but my beef with "chivalric love" is less that it never happened (which is wrong) and more it's just a very, very shallow form of romance.
Like I'm sorry, but I never really bought love at first sight and I have a real trouble enjoying romance narratives where the conflict is some guy saw some girl, immediately fell head over heels for her, openly declares this, and spends the rest of the arc pining madly for her.
One of the many reasons I rarely put romance at the forefront of my characters' motivations.
>>47909189
>b-b-b-b-b-but strawman!
Fuck off. Do you honestly believe that never once did the romance occur before the wedding among the nobility?
Real heroes don't limit themselves to just one princess.
>>47909207
>the idea of shallow romance makes me upset
Boohoo, cry me a river faggot.
>>47909183
Honestly, given how /tg/ acts half the time they'd probably just make the dragon their waifu.
>>47909015
It was though, you don't sent peasants who barely know which end of the spear goes in the bad guys you send your professional fucking warrior class who train all the time to git gud at fighting. Peasants are busy with crops making sure your professional warrior class doesn't starve while they practice gitting gud at fighting.
>>47908772
No its not. Wearing "your favor into battle" was code for "I want to bone", usually behind your husband's back
I bet you thing all that arthurain nonsense applied to knights on the battlefield as well, dont you?
>>47909232
>implying I'm upset
I said I don't enjoy it. Not that it triggers me.
>>47909268
Sure it doesn't. It doesn't trigger you so much that you try to pretend that genuine premarital romance didn't exist between knights and ladies.
>>47909183
>but GM! I SAVED her! Why can't i marry her?
"dude. You're literally a farmhand that got bored. What family would stoop so low as to let some nobody like you marry their politically viable daughter. Especially one who's just gained notoriety by surviving as a dragons hostage."
>thats bullshit! I worked hard for that!
"Yeah, and now you get a cash prize for doing so. Maybe buy some land or some shit and become someone of import they'd be willing to marry their daughter off to."
>Chad the 3rd son to an old noble family who has a fair hand in the market: so...does that mean I can marry her?
"You could try. Don't see why it doesn't stand a good chance either. You might not be very important family wise but your family's old blood with money and has had enough staying power to only get better with age. Hell you just killed a dragon and rescued their daughter AND now everyone knows your name and family."
>DUDE! She's MINE!
"Duel for it?"
>i'm a mage with no spells left and he's a fucking martial with a 5+ bastard sword of fuck me
"AND zero claim to a nobleman's daughter. Just to be clear."
>>47909277
I think you missed the part where I said I'm not that guy. Why would I lie about that? What do I possibly get from reversing an opinion for the sole purpose of continuing a discussion with someone who's frankly acting like a total asshole?
Not my place to say if someone's love is genuine or not. But narratively, I don't find love at first sight interesting. Sue me.
>>47909284
This is why I only go after noblewomen if my character's a noble himself.
>>47909245
>you don't sent peasants
You don't care if dozen or two levies dies while serving as a meat shield. Knaves were more often used for dirty siege work like chopping down trees for siege towers and rams, though.
>>47909201
Maybe. But I've been on this on board long enough to know that that lot of players uniroically expect this and then get ass blasted when they dont get it.
Another good is one is "why don't we get a face to face meeting, unannounced, with a king/lord, even though we're just a bunch of unknown sellswords? "
>>47909309
Very wise of you. Bastards are like pests but more cunning and vile.
>>47909284
Reminds me of that Starbarians cartoon where the "heroes" rescued the king's daughter from sex slavery and then asked if he could throw her into the reward as well.
He refused. The heroes said they should let fate decide and rolled a pair of dice to see if the princess should be a reward.
It then cut to their ship where the princess was bound and gagged, with one guy cleaning blood off his sword and calling the king a sore loser.
![tumblr_nsj57mKznG1u44ew1o1_500[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/BONU2wN.jpg "tumblr_nsj57mKznG1u44ew1o1_500[1].jpg")
>>47904847
I'm reminded of the time I wanted to torture one of my PC's (you don't have to believe me). The party encountered a dragon way above their level. The dragon subdues and drags away one party member.
The captured PC wakes up in a large bed. There's a red headed elf girl just watching him as he sleeps. PC is creeped out despite her being comely, and despite his character Usually being the horndog of the party and skeezing on at every opportunity. Quickly learns that the girl is the shape changed dragon. And thus, the party was introduced to the Yandere Dragon Girl Friend.
She would frequently kill any girl that shared more than a few words with "onii chan". The players spent a whole story arch trying to save a princess from the Yandere Dragon. Normally they don't care if the NPC's kill each other, but this time the princess was plot relevant and could tell them where a dungeon full of loot was, and... for some reason they just liked this princess (I don't know. Normally they take their in game sociopathy pretty seriously).
If the Yandere Dragon thought she wasn't getting enough attention, she'd kidnap some random maiden. More than once, the players thought they were working on a quest that didn't have anything to do with them, only to find the Yandere Dragon girl was behind it all in an insane version of a booty call.
The dragon would some times lose concentration and turn back into a dragon at bad times... like when it would sneak into "onii chan"s bed at night and fall asleep next to him. Many inn's were destroyed.
The players also didn't like it when she would kill steal and rob them of exp. However... they also liked watching "onii chan"s player suffer, so it just sort of became the nature of the game.
So. Does having a Dragon following around the party until it becomes mundane trigger you Anon?
>>47909326
>Another good is one is "why don't we get a face to face meeting, unannounced, with a king/lord, even though we're just a bunch of unknown sellswords? "
>MFW current group is a bunch of guys who are mature and experienced enough not to pull dumb shit like that, but young and immature enough to pull fun shit like "my broody teen superhero frequently has consensual hatesex with supervillainesses"
>>47909363
I cannot imagine any group which would tolerate an NPC like this.
Sounds like you forced an artificially difficult monster on them solely to browbeat them and ruin their plans.
>>47909326
>Another good is one is "why don't we get a face to face meeting, unannounced, with a king/lord, even though we're just a bunch of unknown sellswords? "
See, I never understood this either.
Why should we go from dirty sellswords to meeting the highest authority in the land? Whatever happened to climbing the ladder? Sellswords take orders from the Alderman, they then move up to the knight, and then the baron, and then the count's courtier, and then the count himself, climbing up until they reach the king... Well, the King's steward; you never get to meet the king directly, at least not until the very end of the campaign.I'm still keeping muh chivalric knight though, he's been a blast to play and the DM's gone through efforts to make his nymph woman an important NPC.
>>47909150
Knights, not peasants. Knights were at the bottom of nobility's ladder, but still above commoners.
>>47899689
Technically my evil sewer cult lived in a disaster bunker CONNECTED to the sewer. They also worshiped Nurgle.
>>47908524
Plus Gawain beheading a woman, Tristan threatening to kill Dinadan if he doesn't fight 30 men at once, the whole entire Grail arc and how the majority of knights are destroyed by mortal passions and suffering, Lancelot cutting down Gareth and Gaheris, Sir Meliagaunt, just all of Mordred and Morgause and Arthur's sins coming home to roost. Arthurian myth is not particularly light-hearted at the root.
>>47908839
France and especially Russia used the peasant levy.
Incidentally both saw the monarchs overthrown.
>>47909382
I wouldn't mind that last part really
>>47909389
>Sounds like you forced an artificially difficult monster on them solely to browbeat them and ruin their plans.
>>47909363
>I'm reminded of the time I wanted to torture one of my PC's
I think you have him figured out Anon.
asking here because i want to avoid being too cliche and because i don't really think it deserves its own thread:
how would you guys go about writing motives for a warlock character to become a warlock?
i was thinking something along the lines of political revenge, to invoke a curse, or making a pact to bring someone back from the dead, but the specifics elude me
>>47909740
He wants power to help him be selfish and petty every day, and this was the easiest way to get it.
>>47909740
The last warlock I played married into it. You know, a "death do us part" vow that also signs you up to selling your souls together.
>>47909755
i could do that, and it makes the most sense, and makes the most badass warlock, but it's also kinda boring
>>47909398
I'm mean, there were famous mercaneries, privateers, and venture captains that hobnobed with lords and even kings at court. But the emphasis is on "famous", and most of these guys were company captains and the sons of minor nobles to boot
>>47909740
Being a warlock is about cheating your way to power. Whatever the character wanted to achieve was out of their grasp, so they turned into selling their soul. That makes a warlock either obsessed, desperate, or stupid, no half-assing his motivations.
Ya'll niggas need some Pendragon in your lives. It's a great change of pace to darker fantasy and the system does a great job of encouraging actual chivalric behavior right out of a medieval romance.
>>47909314
It doesn't matter if you don't care about meat shields getting rekt you don't sent your peasants to do it, it's a waste of resources to depopulate your fields that you need so your people don't starve. The peasantry isn't everyone who isn't noble it's a specific social position whose duty is growing crops.
>implying there aren't literally secret cults living in the sewers
the finders
google it
don't say i didn't warn you
>>47909569
To be fair - by the time Tsar Rag and his family went downstairs for a photo shoot, Russian army was THREE reforms away from a peasant levy, as it was replaced first by mostly hereditary professional Streltsy, then by Peter the Great's recruit system, and by WWI that one got replaced by modern draft (although draft is essentially a modern equivalent of peasant levy).
>>47908762
DIGGA YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND
Tight ass isn't da best. It's not that unique. Yea, it can be accompanied by a nice intelligent gal/boi (depends on your fetish set), but still...HOW CAN IT BE BETTER THAN IMMORTAL GLORY AND BEING REMEMBERED AS THE MOST BADASS FUCKER IN THE REALM?
NOW WE WILL FIGHT FOR THE KINGDOM, FIGHTING WITH STEEL
KILL ALL OF THEM, THEIR BLOOD IS OUR SEAL
FIGHT TILL THE LAST OF THE ENEMY IS DEAD
RIDE THROUGH THEIR BLOOD THAT WE GLADLY HAVE SHED
>>47909025
Fuck this old senile chivalry. I'm goin' Chaotic and do Good as I see right.
>>47909740
Tradition. There may be families or whole civilizations that rose to prominence due to someone shepherding the fiends. No one asks to be talented at brokering with devils, but your family or your country relies on you to do what you do best.
>>47910249
that is a very cool idea. thank you
>>47909740
Revenge is powerful motivator. I could easily see a warlock in a count of Monte Cristo scenario, but Instead of a mentor teaching him swordplay he bargains with a demon for magical powers
>>47909799
Also, correct me if I'm wrong but you're talking about the New Age when just bringing a fuckton of gold to your crown bought you titles anyway
>>47910301
Privateers and venture captains definitely, but i think the mercenary angle goes back to the middle ages. It definitely went back to the reneisancce era, that age was swimming with mercs.
>>47910301
>>47910404
Ok, I just found this. Free companies or "venture companies " go back to the 12th century
>>47910507
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_company
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Routiers
Jean Bureau was a commoner artillery nut, son of a merchant who rose to generalship in the 100 years war and was ennobled and knighted after bombing the English out of Gascony, not quite as early as >>47910507 but still noteworthy if you ask me
