Fantasy Tropes/Cliches that Annoy You

[Max_Killjoy]

Did you think of any of your favorites?

I owe you and a couple of other people responses still on related questions.

[Honest Tiefling]

Evil Advisor: It's not that I don't like it, it's just that it's usually so obvious. If it was more subtle, it would be good.

...In the games I've been in, the players will ALWAYS make a plan to off any advisers. This goes triple if he has a mustache. Sometimes a trope needs to die. And sometimes it just gets so distracting it becomes jarring.

...Or any person playing a violin. Those get put onto the list to plot their demise if they show signs of being antagonists...

[2D8HP]

...In the games I've been in, the players will ALWAYS make a plan to off any advisers....

"So it says here that your birth-name was 'Wormtongue' but you changed it to 'Puppylips', why?

"Guess".

This goes triple if he has a mustache....

...Or any person playing a violin....

How about if they're carrying a cat and say:
"Welcome to my humble abode"?

[Honest Tiefling]

How about if they're carrying a cat and say:
"Welcome to my humble abode"?

Hrm...Cat ownership isn't considered a sign unless its a persian being petted in a high back chair. The sign of refinement is a bit suspicious, however, better keep an eye on them.

[Segev]

Evil Advisor: It's not that I don't like it, it's just that it's usually so obvious. If it was more subtle, it would be good.

I've always been fond of the good advisor to the evil king. Subtly trying to maneuver the King's selfish, wicked desires to being ultimately good for the people, and trying to accumulate power for himself so he can do as much good as possible in this decadent court, while having to maintain a facade of decadent selfishness of his own.

[Amaril]

I've always been fond of the good advisor to the evil king. Subtly trying to maneuver the King's selfish, wicked desires to being ultimately good for the people, and trying to accumulate power for himself so he can do as much good as possible in this decadent court, while having to maintain a facade of decadent selfishness of his own.

So...Tyrion Lannister?

[Alcore]

History books are always right. The setup is thus;

Kingdom A has peasents and nobles and stuff.

Kingdom B has a mercantile based society with slaves

Kingdoms A and B are at war. About the slaves from A's perspective.

PCs start in A or an ally of A.

----------

PCs are given a quest by a noble from A to free slaves from B. PCs start researching B while in A and receive details from the perspective of A. None have a backstory to indicate any time in B so it goes unhinted that B has its own side of the story.


PCs often cry foul when; most of the slaves try to cross the boder to return to slavery (to escape the barbarians). When they learn peasents are treated as well as the slaves (which also means the slaves are well treated by normal standards). That B has slightly better technology and has slaves learn to read and write; something A does not.



Setting is often treated as sacred. If orcs are considered always evil brutal raiders from a humans/elf/dwarf perspective then that is how they are. When they get to orc lands and find an artistic and militant society where liberal ideas are taking root the PCs come to two conclusions; 1. The DM messed up somewhere or 2. these specific orcs are deviants. It doesn't occur to them the DM lied and if they find out it changes from "incompetent DM" to "bad DM".

[Deepbluediver]

History books are always right. The setup is thus;

Kingdom A has peasents and nobles and stuff.

Kingdom B has a mercantile based society with slaves

Kingdoms A and B are at war. About the slaves from A's perspective.

PCs start in A or an ally of A.

----------

PCs are given a quest by a noble from A to free slaves from B. PCs start researching B while in A and receive details from the perspective of A. None have a backstory to indicate any time in B so it goes unhinted that B has its own side of the story.

PCs often cry foul when; most of the slaves try to cross the boder to return to slavery (to escape the barbarians). When they learn peasents are treated as well as the slaves (which also means the slaves are well treated by normal standards). That B has slightly better technology and has slaves learn to read and write; something A does not.


Setting is often treated as sacred. If orcs are considered always evil brutal raiders from a humans/elf/dwarf perspective then that is how they are. When they get to orc lands and find an artistic and militant society where liberal ideas are taking root the PCs come to two conclusions; 1. The DM messed up somewhere or 2. these specific orcs are deviants. It doesn't occur to them the DM lied and if they find out it changes from "incompetent DM" to "bad DM".

It seems like that's a problem with your players- they are demanding a very high level of racial consistency, and don't want a gameworld that's more complicated than strict adherence to black and white.

[Frozen_Feet]

Not actually the issue.

What really seems to be the crux is that the players expect the GM to act as a font of objective information, and not realizing when the GM is instead providing them information from a specific viewpoint, or even that the GM can do that.

Hence the perception that the GM is lying, as opposed to a specific character lying, or specific piece of information being erroneous. If you equate "not all information provided is factual or accurate" with "GM is lying", it's easy to leap to conclusion such as that the GM is playing "Gotcha!" with you.

[Max_Killjoy]

Not actually the issue.

What really seems to be the crux is that the players expect the GM to act as a font of objective information, and not realizing when the GM is instead providing them information from a specific viewpoint, or even that the GM can do that.

Hence the perception that the GM is lying, as opposed to a specific character lying, or specific piece of information being erroneous. If you equate "not all information provided is factual or accurate" with "GM is lying", it's easy to leap to conclusion such as that the GM is playing "Gotcha!" with you.

Actually an important point for new GMs -- make it clear when you're speaking as the omniscient "3rd-person narrator", and when you're speaking as the limited "1st-person character".

[Alcore]

Actually an important point for new GMs -- make it clear when you're speaking as the omniscient "3rd-person narrator", and when you're speaking as the limited "1st-person character".

Or the fabled;

I roll knowledge. What does my chasracter know?

[Deepbluediver]

Not actually the issue.

What really seems to be the crux is that the players expect the GM to act as a font of objective information, and not realizing when the GM is instead providing them information from a specific viewpoint, or even that the GM can do that.

Hence the perception that the GM is lying, as opposed to a specific character lying, or specific piece of information being erroneous. If you equate "not all information provided is factual or accurate" with "GM is lying", it's easy to leap to conclusion such as that the GM is playing "Gotcha!" with you.

Ah, I see- that makes sense. My GMs were always pretty good about that, I think, making it clear when a CHARACTER was saying something like "the drunken old main claims his daughter was carried off by gnolls", etc. I feel like the only time I might object is if something classes with what we were explicitly told about the setting. Omitting certain bits of information is perfectly valid in my book though- it should be up to the PCs to clarify things.

[8BitNinja]

...In the games I've been in, the players will ALWAYS make a plan to off any advisers. This goes triple if he has a mustache. Sometimes a trope needs to die. And sometimes it just gets so distracting it becomes jarring.

...Or any person playing a violin. Those get put onto the list to plot their demise if they show signs of being antagonists...

There is a video about this on The Spoony Experiment called "Beware the Woman, for They Come from Hell."

To be honest, that statement is correct in a literal sense 8 times out of 10

[Segev]

Or the fabled;

I roll knowledge. What does my chasracter know?

It's actually pretty fair to have grades of success here. Low thresholds - especially where those who are untrained or barely trained are likely to roll - can have erroneous info and rumors as "fact." As the player's roll improves, so, too, should the quality, quantity, and accuracy of what he knows. This is often best achieved by having each lower threshold have at least one rumor that is not true revealed to be untrue at the next threshold up.

e.g., at 0 successes, you know that Empire B is a land of decadence and greed, where the merchant classes have hoarded all the wealth and enslave everybody else.

At 1 success, you know that Empire B's merchants actually derive their wealth from a patronage, mercantile system working with the emperor and his court, and that the slave class is not the only form of lower class. They also have freemen that are akin to peasants.

At 2 successes, you know that the "freemen peasants" and the "rich merchants" are actually the same class, just differing in how successful they are. And that the merchants are a lot like the nobles of Kingdom A in terms of their wealth.

At 3 successes, you know that the slaves in Empire B actually have as many rights as Kingdom A's peasants.

At 4 successes, you understand that there are peasants who move from Kingdom A to Empire B and sell themselves into slavery because the opportunities are better...but that there are also slaves escaping Empire B who have wealth enough when they arrive to buy themselves a rather rich life as a Kingdom A peasant or skilled artisan type (blacksmith, accountant, carpenter, etc.).


And so on.

[Max_Killjoy]

It's actually pretty fair to have grades of success here. Low thresholds - especially where those who are untrained or barely trained are likely to roll - can have erroneous info and rumors as "fact." As the player's roll improves, so, too, should the quality, quantity, and accuracy of what he knows. This is often best achieved by having each lower threshold have at least one rumor that is not true revealed to be untrue at the next threshold up.

e.g., at 0 successes, you know that Empire B is a land of decadence and greed, where the merchant classes have hoarded all the wealth and enslave everybody else.

At 1 success, you know that Empire B's merchants actually derive their wealth from a patronage, mercantile system working with the emperor and his court, and that the slave class is not the only form of lower class. They also have freemen that are akin to peasants.

At 2 successes, you know that the "freemen peasants" and the "rich merchants" are actually the same class, just differing in how successful they are. And that the merchants are a lot like the nobles of Kingdom A in terms of their wealth.

At 3 successes, you know that the slaves in Empire B actually have as many rights as Kingdom A's peasants.

At 4 successes, you understand that there are peasants who move from Kingdom A to Empire B and sell themselves into slavery because the opportunities are better...but that there are also slaves escaping Empire B who have wealth enough when they arrive to buy themselves a rather rich life as a Kingdom A peasant or skilled artisan type (blacksmith, accountant, carpenter, etc.).


And so on.

Yeah.

I'd say that in many cases, there are things we can assume a character knows without a roll, and then extra on top of that that depends on how successful the roll is.

If a character has "Knowledge Skill: History of the Southern Empire", I'm not going to make the player roll before assuming the character knows the names and lineages and so on of most of the rulers of the Southern Empire. I will make the player roll to know exactly how some cousin was related to specific rulers; or which 3 of the 28 previous rulers took the throne on election by the nobility, and which 2 were named heirs, rather than simple primogeniture.

[Alcore]

It's actually pretty fair to have grades of success here. Low thresholds - especially where those who are untrained or barely trained are likely to roll - can have erroneous info and rumors as "fact." As the player's roll improves, so, too, should the quality, quantity, and accuracy of what he knows. This is often best achieved by having each lower threshold have at least one rumor that is not true revealed to be untrue at the next threshold up.

If your directly responding to me then your comicly missing the point.


I know all that. I never implied otherwise. What i have said, or implied, is that whatever is given is treated as 100% correct. Problems with continuity fall under DM negligence or Gotcha!

[Max_Killjoy]

Actually an important point for new GMs -- make it clear when you're speaking as the omniscient "3rd-person narrator", and when you're speaking as the limited "1st-person character".

Or the fabled;

I roll knowledge. What does my chasracter know?

If your directly responding to me then your comicly missing the point.


I know all that. I never implied otherwise. What i have said, or implied, is that whatever is given is treated as 100% correct. Problems with continuity fall under DM negligence or Gotcha!

In fairness to Segev, I didn't get your intended meaning from your first statement either.

[Segev]

If your directly responding to me then your comicly missing the point.


I know all that. I never implied otherwise. What i have said, or implied, is that whatever is given is treated as 100% correct. Problems with continuity fall under DM negligence or Gotcha!

I...think I understood what you meant. Maybe I was unclear as to what I was getting at.

The idea is that you demonstrate to the player(s) how (un)reliable their information is by telling them each of the lower-grades and working your way up to where they actually are.

This works especially well if more than one PC rolls for it.

So Alice gets enough successes to know that the merchant class essentially runs the empire and that they hoard all the wealth and abuse their slaves. Bob rolls better, and knows that the "hoard the wealth" thing is a bit of a misnomer; they're more like the kingdom's nobility, but with a little more social mobility based on their fluctuating wealth. Charlie rolls well enough to even get that the slaves have rights akin to the kingdom's peasantry.

And Charlie gets informed of Alice and Bob's results as well, because he's informed enough to know of the false rumors...and that they're false.


By having the more knowledgeable person informed that "some people think XYZ, but you know that's wrong," you can suggest strongly that his own information may be incomplete.

[Satinavian]

I use "You know" for stuff that is simply true and "You heard/You read" for less reliable information. If i want to stress that even the character knows that the information is probably wrong i use "There is a rumour/ You once heard a story stating that/You once stumbled over that name in a textfragment of a theatre work/ a novel".

Works so far pretty well. I give out incomplete or wrong information all the time and players use it but are aware of the risks.

[BRC]

I use "You know" for stuff that is simply true and "You heard/You read" for less reliable information. If i want to stress that even the character knows that the information is probably wrong i use "There is a rumour/ You once heard a story stating that/You once stumbled over that name in a textfragment of a theatre work/ a novel".

Works so far pretty well. I give out incomplete or wrong information all the time and players use it but are aware of the risks.

Yeah, this is the best technique I know of.

"You Know that", or without alteration: means that this is as close to certain as you can be, barring some sort of secret known only to very few. "You Know That The City of TradePort is an important Trading Port". "You know that the Duke of Tradeport is sickly". You could get that second one even if the Duke was only pretending to be sick.

"From your Studies/Travels, you learned": This information is Generally Held to be True. Something like "From your Studies you've learned that the Jungle Trolls are savage cannibals". This implies the information is only as good as your character's sources, so the Jungle Trolls may or may not be savage cannibals, but you've certainly heard that they are.

"You've heard Rumors/Stories/Legends": The source itself is unreliable. "You've heard stories that the ghost of the Champion stalks the Colosseum, seeking new challengers".

Mix and match these as you see fit.
"You Know that Tradeport is an important trading port. The Duke of Tradeport is sickly, but you've heard rumors that he's faking his illness"= The Duke may be faking his illness.

"From your Studies you've learned that the Jungle Trolls are savage cannibals, but Legends say that they were once a peaceful people, before trollhide hats became fashionable, and hunters invented the story about cannibalism to justify the trade". = From your perspective, the Jungle Trolls are probably savage cannibals, but there's a chance they might have once been peaceful.

"You've heard rumors that the Champion's Ghost stalks the Colosseum, but you know that the Champion retired and died of old age on a sprawling estate in the countryside under an assumed name."= The character is aware of both the Rumor, and the truth about how the Champion died.

[NovenFromTheSun]

"Warrior" gods whose doctrine seems centered around hampering his worshippers combat effectiveness.

[Agrippa]

"Warrior" gods whose doctrine seems centered around hampering his worshippers combat effectiveness.

Would you please give me some examples? By the way, it's spelled "worshipers".

[Floret]

Would you please give me some examples?

Not Noven, but Rondra from The Dark Eye immediately comes to mind - as well as every other warrior god that also transposes a code of honor.
It gets worse (If you consider this bad) if the god of fighting fair is also the only god of combat, or the most relevant by far at least. (Dark Eye does have Kor (Mercenaries, fighting for glory), and Swafnir (Vikings; does have a code of honor, but one not easily recognized as such); and technically Brazoragh (Orc god of fighting) and Shinxir (More Military drill) (And the demonic Belhalhar (Bloodlust)), but the god of honorable combat; almost chivalry more than fighting, is still front and center, and the only one actually a "full" god.)

I haven't come across it too often; but somehow got annoyed by it a bit as well. One of the reasons I like Dark Eye's Myranor-setting Pantheon better (Having Shinxir as the central god of combat); and really loved Guild Wars 2's take on a "god of war". Human god of fire and mass murder indeed.

[Mr Beer]

Would you please give me some examples? By the way, it's spelled "worshipers".

The double p is an accepted spelling of the world.

[Lord Raziere]

Not Noven, but Rondra from The Dark Eye immediately comes to mind - as well as every other warrior god that also transposes a code of honor.
It gets worse (If you consider this bad) if the god of fighting fair is also the only god of combat, or the most relevant by far at least. (Dark Eye does have Kor (Mercenaries, fighting for glory), and Swafnir (Vikings; does have a code of honor, but one not easily recognized as such); and technically Brazoragh (Orc god of fighting) and Shinxir (More Military drill) (And the demonic Belhalhar (Bloodlust)), but the god of honorable combat; almost chivalry more than fighting, is still front and center, and the only one actually a "full" god.)

I haven't come across it too often; but somehow got annoyed by it a bit as well. One of the reasons I like Dark Eye's Myranor-setting Pantheon better (Having Shinxir as the central god of combat); and really loved Guild Wars 2's take on a "god of war". Human god of fire and mass murder indeed.

yeah, codes of honor are basically a really bad idea to outright suicidal in war. historically speaking no knight ever followed a consistent code of honor, they all fought pragmatically to survive. realistically things like "chivalry" and "honor" are whatever your lord says you should do if you want to keep your job. and god of war holding you to a code of honor is pretty stupid, because combat is arguably the time a knight is most free to act, because all those codes of honor? not something they themselves followed, it was more of a social expectation from the people around them and warriors and knights in fact did whatever they could get away with. warriors should worship a god of war not to be honorable but to say "please help me survive and get lots of kills on my enemy" because thats all you can hope for in war.

[Deepbluediver]

Not Noven, but Rondra from The Dark Eye immediately comes to mind - as well as every other warrior god that also transposes a code of honor.
It gets worse (If you consider this bad) if the god of fighting fair is also the only god of combat, or the most relevant by far at least. (Dark Eye does have Kor (Mercenaries, fighting for glory), and Swafnir (Vikings; does have a code of honor, but one not easily recognized as such); and technically Brazoragh (Orc god of fighting) and Shinxir (More Military drill) (And the demonic Belhalhar (Bloodlust)), but the god of honorable combat; almost chivalry more than fighting, is still front and center, and the only one actually a "full" god.)

I haven't come across it too often; but somehow got annoyed by it a bit as well. One of the reasons I like Dark Eye's Myranor-setting Pantheon better (Having Shinxir as the central god of combat); and really loved Guild Wars 2's take on a "god of war". Human god of fire and mass murder indeed.

Have you ever studied any Greek Mythology? I was quite the fan when I was younger, and while I've heard there are competing interpretations, one of the things I read about and wanted to bring up was Ares. Most people will tell you he's the god of War, but at least some authors write that he's the god of BATTLE, and yes there's a difference. At least one description read something like "he could be found wherever the fighting was the fiercest", and whenever he'd get injured, he'd run home to Zeus, crying. There's another story where a pair of giants want to challenge the gods for supremacy, and Ares rushes out to fight them- and promptly gets stuffed in a jar.

It's more like he's a spoiled brat who's better described as the god of SLAUGHTER, and a far cry from the usual depiction he's gotten in a lot of recent videogames and cartoons. Also, Nike, the spirit of victory, tended to accompany Athena, the goddes of Wisdom, so there's that, too.

[Max_Killjoy]

yeah, codes of honor are basically a really bad idea to outright suicidal in war. historically speaking no knight ever followed a consistent code of honor, they all fought pragmatically to survive. realistically things like "chivalry" and "honor" are whatever your lord says you should do if you want to keep your job. and god of war holding you to a code of honor is pretty stupid, because combat is arguably the time a knight is most free to act, because all those codes of honor? not something they themselves followed, it was more of a social expectation from the people around them and warriors and knights in fact did whatever they could get away with. warriors should worship a god of war not to be honorable but to say "please help me survive and get lots of kills on my enemy" because thats all you can hope for in war.

To follow up on this, the really strict, high-minded "codes of honor" such as chivalry and bushido often come from after the heyday of the warrior class in question, when they've transformed into less war-centric aristocracy and they're trying to hold on to their martial renown and raison-d'etre.

[Honest Tiefling]

It's more like he's a spoiled brat who's better described as the god of SLAUGHTER, and a far cry from the usual depiction he's gotten in a lot of recent videogames and cartoons. Also, Nike, the spirit of victory, tended to accompany Athena, the goddes of Wisdom, so there's that, too.

I...Don't disagree with what you are saying, as even Aphrodite's parentage varies depending on source. But then again, I can't remember a single myth of Ares that portrays him as competent in any regard. He's not a very good god of slaughter to be honest.

Also, if your warrior class has a code of 'honor', it makes a lot more sense when trying to keep those dirty peasants from joining you. Begone, worthless peon!

[Lord Raziere]

To follow up on this, the really strict, high-minded "codes of honor" such as chivalry and bushido often come from after the heyday of the warrior class in question, when they've transformed into less war-centric aristocracy and they're trying to hold on to their martial renown and raison-d'etre.

Yup, they didn't exist in the actual era they were about, those codes are pure creations of nostalgia and attempts to say that they're still relevant. so any formal code of honor? probably someone trying to just make them sound more important than they actually are. all it ever was.

[2D8HP]

Ares....
.....who's better described as the god of SLAUGHTER, and a far cry from the usual depiction he's gotten in a lot of recent videogames and cartoons. Also, Nike, the spirit of victory, tended to accompany Athena, the goddes of Wisdom, so there's that, too.

IIRC, Athena was the goddess of skill including strategy and tactics in war.

Since Aphrodite, goddess of romantic passion, would step out with Ares as a lover, I'd describe Ares as a god of blood lust.

It's interesting to me that the Greeks didn't seem to think highly of Ares, but the Romans esteemed Mars, their equivalent.