Rpg story cliches you hate?

[gstv87]

I know who those are. I'm not 5.

then why the rant?
if you know about them, then you understand they're different styles.. you can't just drop a Bugs Bunny into an RPG populated by mostly humanoid characters and expect it to work.

Zootopia works, because it is it's own thing.
Cars, The Lion King, Antz, A Bugs Life.... they're all fables.

the style of RPG fantasy will always have humanoids as main characters, because it stems from human folklore.
like, *real* human folklore, told by actual humans, witnessing actual humans, living actual human lives.

 

[KenKrath]

I can't think of any off the top of my head, but religion as a force that pushes the characters forward in the story is pretty stock standard. Especially the previously mentioned 'religious organization is actually evil (at least the leaders are)'. Another variant that is a bit overused is the 'religion pushed the characters forward at first, but now they see the truth, the religion is wrong and must be abandoned, and it ceases to be relevant in the story'.

Funny thing is the story I'm working on has a religious component, too. But it doesn't play a huge role. There are a few tense moments between people who believe different things, and certain actions are not considered by characters because of religious teachings, but it really isn't central, it just contributes to the main theme: 'Everyone is doing their best to do good, but their mutually exclusive ideas and solutions to problems drive them into conflict with each other anyway'

Actually, a lot of the components of my story are cliche-adjacent, but I feel that I have spun them in a new way. There are ones I'm more self-critical about, though, and they are as follows:

Floating land of powerful beings
Tribal people are very nature-oriented
Villain and heros happen to gain strength in relative balance
Ancient advanced technology in ruins

Thankfully, I don't hate these cliches. Hopefully, there aren't a lot of other people out there that do hate them.

It's kind of like a type of indoctrination where the character doesn't want to be indoctrinated anymore I guess? Yes I see that as a bit of an eyerolling and annoying "going against the grain" cliché.

I've tried to incorporate some of today's "questions" into my project, for instance, "Why do we have a 'god' that allows suffering?" Granted I don't have a bunch of holy folks wandering around and shoving it in the our throat reminding the "player" to continuously pray. Faith questioning as posed in the former question is a basis leading to severe conflict in my project however.

How cliché or annoying is to have the deities or gods of said religion act directly with the plot? I'm not referring to the adage of "The gods cannot interfere" type trope (i.e. Immortals - 2011) nor one where the gods interfere/assist and religion is not a factor (like Shining Force II) in the plot.

I also am critical about 3 of the 4 items you listed. Tribal folks being the exception.

Wanted to add another cliché I despise is "love conquers all."

I'm honestly fine with most clichés, but to list a few that bother me:

When teenagers with practically no experience in anything are somehow more gifted than veterans doing the same stuff for most of their lives.

When the game tries really hard to make the bad guy who obviously looks like the bad guy not like he actually is the bad guy, and then treats it like a big plot reveal when they finally admit to being the bad guy.

When the religion (or the people at the top of that religion) is evil. This is probably at the top of my list of most annoying cliché's, because literally every time it's done it's treated like it's a big reveal, but I can't even count the time a seemingly good religion that played even the slightest role in the story was actually good. The evil religion cliché is so cliché, I can see it coming before I even played your game, LMAO.
(And no, I'm not religious, so it doesn't like personally offend me or anything...)

Yes this is annoying. It's like you have someone who never played baseball or basketball suddenly become better than Mike Trout or LeBron James. How in the RPG does this happen??

 

[Benny Jackdaw]

then why the rant?
if you know about them, then you understand they're different styles.. you can't just drop a Bugs Bunny into an RPG populated by mostly humanoid characters and expect it to work.

Zootopia works, because it is it's own thing.
Cars, The Lion King, Antz, A Bugs Life.... they're all fables.

the style of RPG fantasy will always have humanoids as main characters, because it stems from human folklore.
like, *real* human folklore, told by actual humans, witnessing actual humans, living actual human lives.

Because everything you've said is optional. There's no reason that you can't have characters besides humans in an RPG or tell different stories. RPGs have in the past, and I miss when having non-humanoids was more common, plus games like Shining Fource, Breath of Fire and Suikoden. And I'd honestly rather not turn this into another argument, so can we leave it at that, please?

 

[gstv87]

games like Shining Fource

played it..... and always thought it was odd to have rats, birdmen, and slimes among humans.
it just doesn't work.
but I can excuse it if I consider SF a Japanese product, knowing how Japanese art goes all over the place.
it's a matter of understanding the media.
if you can make that determination, of knowing which is which, then you can't say that you're fed up with characters having cat ears or tails.
it's just how that style of art depicts it's characters!

 

[Benny Jackdaw]

played it..... and always thought it was odd to have rats, birdmen, and slimes among humans.
it just doesn't work.
but I can excuse it if I consider SF a Japanese product, knowing how Japanese art goes all over the place.
it's a matter of understanding the media.
if you can make that determination, of knowing which is which, then you can't say that you're fed up with characters having cat ears or tails.
it's just how that style of art depicts it's characters!

I have no difficulty at all accepting the existence of anthropmorphic animals in a fantasy world. Evolution, genetic mutations, magic, or even just because. I still find it more believable than a very precise mutation. And maybe I don't understand nekos and such, but are you seriously going to tell me humans with very precise mutations are more believable? Regardless, I still don't like the cliche, and I miss when games would have rat men or armadillo men and whatnot.

 

[bgillisp]

RPG parties with the collective IQ of a turnip. I'm tired of games where 99% of the problems are self caused by the party or characters being too dumb to think anything through.

To give an example I played a game where the entire 2 game series you are told to not do x or something bad will happen. Guess what you do in the final battle with the villain? Yep, that very item you were told all of 2 entire games to never do. and then they acted all surprised when something bad happened. I just went duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh at that point.

 

[ericv00]

I've tried to incorporate some of today's "questions" into my project, for instance, "Why do we have a 'god' that allows suffering?" Granted I don't have a bunch of holy folks wandering around and shoving it in the our throat reminding the "player" to continuously pray. Faith questioning as posed in the former question is a basis leading to severe conflict in my project however.

I get it. 'Is a god that punishes with torment worthy of worship?', 'Who watches the watcher?' type stuff. Yeah I don't see that particular angle a lot.

Mine is more: Three tribes of people have their own origin stories involving the same deities, but each have notable differences. And each are correct in ...their own way, but there are mutually exclusive aspects of them and those cause problems. Meanwhile, there is a real other-worldly threat that everyone needs to address, and somehow they need to reconcile their differing religious interpretations to fight against it. Of course, that is just one barrier to cooperation. There is also distrust between them because of other historical events, and conflicting philosophies that have developed from their religion, their histories, and their attributes (the three tribes do have distinct origins that give them very different attributes). So the religion thing is just one piece in the theme, not a major component. In fact, the people in this world aren't super active in their religion. It doesn't compel them to action, it more prohibits certain actions.

How cliché or annoying is to have the deities or gods of said religion act directly with the plot? I'm not referring to the adage of "The gods cannot interfere" type trope (i.e. Immortals - 2011) nor one where the gods interfere/assist and religion is not a factor (like Shining Force II) in the plot.

I also am critical about 3 of the 4 items you listed. Tribal folks being the exception.

Dunno how I feel about directly participating deities. I suppose it depends on the manner of their participation, power level, origin, limitations, etc. Things that aren't actually gods but are worshiped as gods is pretty stock standard in the 'religion is actually evil' cliche. This is going to come down to execution, for me.

 

[Benny Jackdaw]

RPG parties with the collective IQ of a turnip. I'm tired of games where 99% of the problems are self caused by the party or characters being too dumb to think anything through.

To give an example I played a game where the entire 2 game series you are told to not do x or something bad will happen. Guess what you do in the final battle with the villain? Yep, that very item you were told all of 2 entire games to never do. and then they acted all surprised when something bad happened. I just went duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh at that point.

World of Final Fantasy succumbs to a LOT of these cliches. You spend half the game trying to fulfill the Crimson prophecy, even though there is several Clues within the game saying that that's wrong, but every time anyone tries to tell them that it's wrong, plot convenience prevents them from doing so.

 

[ericv00]

I have no difficulty at all except in the hands of amorphic animals in a fantasy world. Evolution, genetic mutations, magic, or even just because. I still find it more believable than a very precise mutation. And maybe I don't understand nekos and such, but I still don't like the cliche, and I miss when games would have rat men or armadillo meb and whatnot.

I've seen your posts relating to this topic around the forum. They do seem particularly singular-focused, and you seem a bit excessive in your harshness against what you criticize. You do you, but I do want to express why you see humans and human-like creatures in abundance.

Humans have human-like intelligence, obviously. And human-like intelligence serves humans well because of the needs and attributes humans have. In real life, we do not see this type of intelligence in other creatures because they AREN'T human, they have different needs, and they have different goals. I'm not alone when I observe the cliche of giving non-human things human-like intellects. It doesn't make sense and the entire concept of human-attribute amalgamations a double-edged blade.

Now us, being human, relate best to the trials and tribulations we have as humans. We don't relate much to 'temperature is wrong, dig down, move eggs', 'egg-layer smells of needing food, bring food', 'smells like sister ant, follow scent'. Actual animals with their animal concerns are not very relatable compared to the complexities of human society and existence. Most people want to connect with things in a human way, we even do this with our pets. So when people create characters that we are meant to connect with, they are given varying degrees of human characteristics, leaning heavily towards human. Even if you have an ANT in your party, and it does ant-y things, it will also do them in a HUMAN way and with a human-like perspective.

TL;DR Humans relate to humans, so characters will always gravitate towards human characteristics by design.

Now, I LIKE when people are creative enough to make a character that is truly unconventional. And an ant certainly fits this. But it is a little odd to complain that humans are creating too many things that they relate to as humans. There ARE a lot of games out there that are pure mechanics with an animal skin on it. Ant colony sims, click-on-flies-to-make-the-frog-eat-them mobile games, and the like. What this thread refers to is RPGs, and the very nature of RPGs lend themselves to gravitating toward human-centric experiences.

Someone could make a game where you play as a wolf. You could hunt down deer using a scent system. You have no visual indicators, just a general move around the map and smell more or less deer scent. When you track down the mother and fawn you enter combat and attempt to damage the fawn until the mother runs away, then eat. Instead of MP, you have a hunger meter that continuously drains. And your HP gradually restores, so long as your hunger isn't drained. You could even acquire a pack, each with their own needs for these resources. ...and so on and so on. But...
It will not resonate nearly as much as a murder mystery, political intrigue, crime thriller, or any other human experience story. So expect them. ...And make the kind of game you want to make.

 

[Benny Jackdaw]

I've seen your posts relating to this topic around the forum. They do seem particularly singular-focused, and you seem a bit excessive in your harshness against what you criticize. You do you, but I do want to express why you see humans and human-like creatures in abundance.

Humans have human-like intelligence, obviously. And human-like intelligence serves humans well because of the needs and attributes humans have. In real life, we do not see this type of intelligence in other creatures because they AREN'T human, they have different needs, and they have different goals. I'm not alone when I observe the cliche of giving non-human things human-like intellects. It doesn't make sense and the entire concept of human-attribute amalgamations a double-edged blade.

Now us, being human, relate best to the trials and tribulations we have as humans. We don't relate much to 'temperature is wrong, dig down, move eggs', 'egg-layer smells of needing food, bring food', 'smells like sister ant, follow scent'. Actual animals with their animal concerns are not very relatable compared to the complexities of human society and existence. Most people want to connect with things in a human way, we even do this with our pets. So when people create characters that we are meant to connect with, they are given varying degrees of human characteristics, leaning heavily towards human. Even if you have an ANT in your party, and it does ant-y things, it will also do them in a HUMAN way and with a human-like perspective.

TL;DR Humans relate to humans, so characters will always gravitate towards human characteristics by design.

Now, I LIKE when people are creative enough to make a character that is truly unconventional. And an ant certainly fits this. But it is a little odd to complain that humans are creating too many things that they relate to as humans. There ARE a lot of games out there that are pure mechanics with an animal skin on it. Ant colony sims, click-on-flies-to-make-the-frog-eat-them mobile games, and the like. What this thread refers to is RPGs, and the very nature of RPGs lend themselves to gravitating toward human-centric experiences.

Someone could make a game where you play as a wolf. You could hunt down deer using a scent system. You have no visual indicators, just a general move around the map and smell more or less deer scent. When you track down the mother and fawn you enter combat and attempt to damage the fawn until the mother runs away, then eat. Instead of MP, you have a hunger meter that continuously drains. And your HP gradually restores, so long as your hunger isn't drained. You could even acquire a pack, each with their own needs for these resources. ...and so on and so on. But...
It will not resonate nearly as much as a murder mystery, political intrigue, crime thriller, or any other human experience story. So expect them. ...And make the kind of game you want to make.

I've heard every single argument in the book, I've made it clear how I feel and I don't even know why I bother complaining anymore.

 

[HexMozart88]

My dude. No one's trying to argue here except you. People are giving you perfectly reasonable explanations as to why you might see more humanoids and you're just brushing them off and getting angry. If you don't want to hear differing opinions, maybe don't go on long tirades on a public forum?

 

[ericv00]

I've heard every single argument in the book, I've made it clear how I feel and I don't even know why I bother complaining anymore.

But you do. And you do a lot. And your topic focus is a lot more than most people focus on a topic.

And you seem to be more interested in expressing your disdain for this trend while dismissing a thought out response, than to engage with the thought out response. Why complain if you aren't interested in exploring the reasoning for the thing you are complaining about?

Ultimately, I responded to you because I find that being hyper-focused on a topic can be detrimental, so I was hoping to give a polite little nudge into introspection. As I said, you do you. Like what you like and dislike what you dislike. But it's going to cock an eyebrow or two when anyone complains about the same topic every other conversation without any recognition for the logic of the thing you don't much care for. It's good to step out from one's self every once in a while and see how you are presenting yourself.

That said, I won't bother you anymore about it. Have fun, and best of luck on your creative endeavors.

 

[Arrowgantt]

Agreed! I don't care for fetch quests/work orders/whatever else you want to call them. I'm going to go out on a limb and declare that if a game's "side quest system" feels like each quest was instantiated from one of several templates, then that game probably would have been better without side quests at all. Failing that, they could have just created one quest from each template and fleshed them out with tailor-made story content.

 

[BK-tdm]

I've come to accept the chosen kid from startertown who is the only survivor along his childhood healer female friend that will have some romantic interest along the way thanks to the evil overlord who wanted the mcguffin sealed in startertown and had to destroy the entire village exept for the chosen kid and friend who were out picking 20 pristine bear arses while re-learning the basics of combat that day.

That i have no problem to be honest.

What i do have a problem with? Villain/punk/edgelord enemy you will battle smacktalking you like you have no chance when i will pretty much one turn kill him, phantasy star online 2 episode 1 is super guilty of this, bad guy (Gettemhart) keeps menacingly waving his starter gear weapon i can buy in shops while telling me i dont stand a chance, cue 2 seconds battle where sneeze and delete him, Its not the part where i destroyed him in combat, its the part that I KNOW i will erase him as soon as he stops talking, just for him to get back to "ha, im super powerful, you barely scratched me!" yeah bud, keep thinking that.
Guess gameplay and story segregation have their limits for everyone

 

[ericv00]

out picking 20 pristine bear arses while re-learning the basics of combat that day.

I never had THAT opening quest, and now I feel deprived.

 

[watermark]

@Benny Jackdaw I totally agree with you that there should be more original races. It's refreshing and interesting when done well. The problem is that it's hard, or at least much harder than taking a cookie cutter race that everyone's familar with.

I think a good example is from the manga "The Promised Neverland". Theres humans and this other race that literally needs to eat humans to survive. Later in the manga you meet characters in this other race who are kinda nice in their own way...but they still want to eat you. It makes you think.

I think a new race should definitely have a trait that's completely alien to humans. For example, I own a rabbit. So if I were to make a rabbit-people race, their houses would all have a chewing area or chewing pole in their living room so when guests come over instead of smoking they have some flavored wood to chew on while they talk...cause that's what rabbits do. XD

 

[gstv87]

So if I were to make a rabbit-people race, their houses would all have a chewing area or chewing pole in their living room so when guests come over instead of smoking they have some flavored wood to chew on while they talk...cause that's what rabbits do.

I was thinking I once watched something like that in a TV show or movie.... I thought it was The Simpsons (still have the feeling it is the case, I just can't remember for sure), but then realized it was Stuart Little: these two mice come and take Stuart (a speaking mouse living with humans, Mickey Mouse style) claiming it's their kid, and take him to *their* interpretation of the world, a rusty sewage pipe somewhere in the low boroughs.
Stuart goes from somewhat high-class living style (his own full size bed, decent clothes, plenty of food) with humans, to this forgotten place in the middle of nowhere, with people who claim to be his family, and do things that mice do, like stealing food from the floor and running away at the first sign of trouble.
That's what it would be like, to have accurate depictions of animals as characters (they kinda do that in Zootopia too).... if they do things in the presence of humans in the real world, that humans find disgusting or unsanitary, they must still do them in their own universe for them to be believable as characters.... up to and including mating in complete freedom, hunting one another for food without remorse, and being slaughtered left and right if humans exist in the same universe.
it's ok for comedic relief as they do in Zootopia, but I doubt anyone would find that entertaining if it was the main plot of the story.

 

[Icelord888]

Trying to come up with a 100% unique race is like trying to imagine a new color, science tells us that the light spectrum is much wider than we can see so it should be technically possible.
However we cannot understand it and we tend to have an adverse effect to what we cannot understand, so in truth no story or character that is made by a human will truly be outside our understanding, unless maybe it was made by an mentally ill person , but even then.

So think of it this way: The more physically unique a species/entity the more you will struggle to give it a human relatable mind well that is without sacrificing believability. So your eldrich entity that thinks like a human won't be very belivable and in the end people will still think of them as a person, I think you should be able to see the problem here... You are trying to make something relatable and unrelatable at the same time, so every race will need to be balanced on the scale of relatable to unrelatable.

 

[Benny Jackdaw]

Trying to come up with a 100% unique race is like trying to imagine a new color, science tells us that the light spectrum is much wider than we can see so it should be technically possible.
However we cannot understand it and we tend to have an adverse effect to what we cannot understand, so in truth no story or character that is made by a human will truly be outside our understanding, unless maybe it was made by an mentally ill person , but even then.

So think of it this way: The more physically unique a species/entity the more you will struggle to give it a human relatable mind well that is without sacrificing believability. So your eldrich entity that thinks like a human won't be very belivable and in the end people will still think of them as a person, I think you should be able to see the problem here... You are trying to make something relatable and unrelatable at the same time, so every race will need to be balanced on the scale of relatable to unrelatable.

Honestly, that's the fun of creating a new species is the challenge of it. I find myself constantly trying to create new species. So far it's been taking my favorite animals and incorporating what I know about them. Like, rodent and pig species have a good sense of smell, but ursines are even better. Rodent-likes also chew on wood blocks to keep their teeth short. Some species can fly. Some species can breathe underwater. Some species are good at climbing trees. Some species have enhanced intelligence that allows for magic. Etc. Honestly, I actually kind of enjoy trying to create new species based on animals, and sometimes I even like to go outside of animals and take inspiration from Monsters or even start from scratch.

True, it is virtually impossible to create a new species without adding some Human traits to them, but personally I don't find that to be the problem in and of itself.

 

[Ninjakillzu]

The 'chosen' hero - I'm so sick of this one.

I think it has potential if you do something different with it. I've been tweaking a fantasy rpg project for years, and the main hero will technically be "the chosen one" or "a chosen one", but that will basically ruin their life and be an extremely heavy burden from which they can't escape.