Gypsy accents

[phedre]

As far as I can tell, as long as you don't violate the national portions of the packet, you can do whatever you want within a race. I've seen Dark Elves and Mystic Wood Elves raised by gypsies, characters that come from enemy territories where the race could theoretically be different, and characters who just flat out lie about their origins. Individual chapters get flavor by putting out race packets, but nothing says you *must* use one... in fact, if I wanted to start a MWE using the packet from most chapters, the character would have to be in their DB to get a copy.

Where you come from shouldn't be as easy to tell as what race you are, I think.

 

[markusdark]

Deadlands' sole standing nation is a fantasy version of a kingdom resembling Ireland. The vast majority, not minority, of gypsies in our game speak with something akin to irish or cockney accents. Only one fallen land was dominated by traditional "rom" accent gypsies. If we changed that one little section of the rule book it would completely trash two years of plot and screw up a very popular chapter flavor.

This happened to the SF chapter when Dwarves suddenly decided to hate all orcs as well as trolls with the latest ruleset. Our Dwarven city had worked out an alliance as well as an inter-working relationship with a native group of orcs. After the new rulebook came out, suddenly the majority of the city decided to go on a genocide spree.

a character doesn't have to originate in the land of their home chapter: i could play in California as one of the Chapter Specific characters from New Hampshire; or i could play in California as a character from their land but not from one of the pre-written nations; or i could play in California as a character from the Moon, or some other non-Chapter associated land, with its own cultural affectations and precepts. people make up their own history all the time and since the Mists allow for unfettered travel to regions both known and unknown, the sky's the limit (so long as the general outline for that race is followed)

Why do we get the mooninites? Truthfully though many of the PC's in SF come from other lands from defunct California chapters. They're called 'outsiders' and require a little more 'oomph' to progress politically than those that are naturally born. It's been interesting as many players played their old characters and there were perhaps only 20% of native born PC's - which wound up screwing up the social ways of the land. For example, Parna (the SF country) basically never had heard nor seen an undead as the populace venerate their dead and are all cremated. Along comes the adventurers killing everyone and leaving bodies behind in the woods and BLAMMO! suddenly there was an undead infestation and the local populace had no idea how to deal with them.

 

[Vazhi]

accent can be the best way to identify a person in the dark.

Wouldn't the fact that accent is specifically indicative of a race imply that having an identical accent in the dark violates the disguise rules?

If you are not playing a barbarian or a gypsy, for instance, you cannot dress, talk and act like one.

(Again, underlining mine)

Like I said, I'm not really pushing for one way or the other, just playing da on it right now.

Seems kind of silly to expect to know what race someone is in a dark room if you don't have low-light vision and aren't touching them and haven't met them before. That said, if there is a rule saying other people can't talk like a gypsy or barbarian then there is a serious problem here, I agree. If They can use any accent willy nilly then no one can have an accent at all who isn't a gypsy, so what about people who have an accent? Is someone who moved here from Ireland and has a thick Brogue to be expected to disguise their accent when they're in a chapter with irish gypsies? I'm starting to agree with your points more and more.

I think this may be a situation where, no matter what, if you have rigid rules in place as to specific accents allowed by who then one way or another you're restricting *someone* in a potentially unfair way. This may just be a situation where it's best to have a subscript stating that in situations where there is ambiguity due to similar accents it'd have to be addressed on a case by case basis. Obviously players should make an effort not to choose an accent knowingly used by any race packet of gypsy.

Although It would be easier if they didn't use any accents at all, as someone mentioned earlier people tend to create a voice for their character that isn't their own. It is no simple matter to change only the tone or timbre of one's voice and to achieve this differentiation between PC and Player, or even between multiple PCs, an accent or change in dialect may be necessary. Some may misinterpret an affected speech pattern as an accent even though it technically isn't; you wouldn't be able to obliterate confusion by restricting such differences to change of dialect.

I suspect the solution of having give and take between player and local chapter officials is likely already in place. I haven't been around much yet, but I trust intelligent people to come to these sorts of conclusions on their own without it being spelled out for them in a rulebook. It should of course be addressed and I find that allowing for wiggle room for judgement by officials goes a long way to smooth over things like this, assuming those people making the calls are fair. If they are not fair then perhaps they shouldn't be in that position and that is a different problem completely.

I'd like to add I've seen nothing except good things so far from those in the position to make judgement calls. Maybe I'm biased though. *shrug*

 

[Deadlands of Old]

Of course, we're NOT a Ren Faire, but I certainly would like to see the book be clearer that you should be doing a traditional gypsy accent, like real gypsies in the real world and every fictional gypsy ever seen in movies and plays and such.

Mike,

This is another one of those times when you're a little late with a partcular desire, and when it is helpful to look into trends that have been going on in other chapters for years.

Yeah, how dare I have an opinion about what the game should be like.

Yes yes, for shame.

Did I write that? Because what I thought I wrote was "you're a little late," not that you shouldn't have a desire.

What I'm trying to say is that before structuring a vision of what the game should look like it's important to look closely at what it currently is, in each chapter, not just Ashbury.

People put in a lot of time and effort to come up with inventive and interesting alternatives to the typical plot and atmosphere of the game world that are still within the boundaries of the rules, and it would behoove us all if before wanting to "clarify" something in the rule book we do a little research of our other chapters, to make sure we are not simply erasing the product of their hard work, simply because we have some idiosyncratic idea of what something should look like.

This is one of the reasons I push for cross-chapter plot, Mike. I think it benefits all chapters if we know what's going on with each other, and feed off each other’s strengths and ideas.

Who knows? If you hung out in our chapter's lands, or some other chapter's lands in which something different is being done with gypsies, maybe you would actually like it. Maybe you might even start to think pikey gypsies are something you'd like to see more of in other chapters.

I will never tell anyone they shouldn't have an opinion. What I would ask of people is that they consider first how expressing that opinion affects others. That's all.

Gary

PS. I happen to agree with your opinion of what the game should look like the vast majority of the time. Our tastes have never seemed very divergent, IMO, and I’d bet you $10 that were you to meet them, you’d think our pikeys are pretty friggin rad.

 

[Mobius]

Because the term GYPSY is perjorative, I wish we would just stop using it, and that we would come up with something else. ...This is one part of our game which really causes me distress.

i have to admit, i agree with much of you what you have to say. i've always had problems with both the "Barbarian" and "Gypsy" races for just the reason you suggest. in Chi, where i used to play, we were trying to create a local meme to call Barbarians "Tribesmen" mostly because the term "barbarian" just has such distasteful connotations. and, since "Scavengers" were redubbed "Wylderkin" in the most recent ARB, i'd see no reason why "Gypsies" couldn't receive a similar treatment. ¿what do you think would be a better moniker which wouldn't have the same derogatory connections? "Travelers"? "Wanderers"?

JP - wow, i'd forgotten that section of the ARB. though i still don't think one should have to change character affectations when one travels, i guess i have to stop people from writing backgrounds which aren't found in either the National or the Local packet. dang - well, so much for personal creativity

 

[Deadlands of Old]

If you wore bright colors and the accent was one that was in common use for the local gypsies, would you feel slighted if you were asked not to use that accent while at that game?

Nope, because with the bright colors and the accent I would confuse the hell out of people. That's one of the reasons I'm careful not to wear anything gypsy-ish, by the common standards.

 

[Robb G]

JP - wow, i'd forgotten that section of the ARB. though i still don't think one should have to change character affectations when one travels, i guess i have to stop people from writing backgrounds which aren't found in either the National or the Local packet. dang - well, so much for personal creativity

that doesn't jive. plot trumps all. LCO wins. end of story.

 

[jpariury]

JP - wow, i'd forgotten that section of the ARB. though i still don't think one should have to change character affectations when one travels, i guess i have to stop people from writing backgrounds which aren't found in either the National or the Local packet. dang - well, so much for personal creativity

Honestly, I hadn't remembered it when I started the conversation, I've just been browsing around through it for stuff. Creativity is not a binary function, though, so I think "so much for personal creativity" is a bit overstating it. When you agree to play, oh, say, Dragonlance, you don't start coming up with a city that's right next to Solace. And by the same token, you don't start coming up with your own gods, unless the GM is willing to expand his own universe to accommodate it (and face, it's probably just another name for Takhisis). This doesn't eliminate creativity, it provides a framework or canvas on which to paint your history.

would anyone like there to be a race in our game called the WHITEES, or maybe the DAGOES or the MICKS?

I'm with Carlin on this one - "Hey, I know I'm whitey, the blue-eyed devil, paddy-o, fay gray boy, honkey, ------ myself. Don't bother my ***. They're only words." (See Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics) Context and intent is everything. That said, if a significant amount of the Roma community wanted to make a complaint, I'd give it some consideration.


MODERATOR NOTE: Edited to remove profanity.

 

[evi1r0n]

So a normal human can't pretend to be a gypsy to fool someone (speaking in an accent to implicate someone else)? Is it that normal humans don't have the vocal capacity for the gypsy accent?

 

[jpariury]

Pretty much. The sentence prior to the not-talking-like one reads as follows:

You cannot wear makeup to disguise yourself to appear as a race you are not, nor can you act in such a way as to mislead others as to your race.

Underlining, yeah yeah yeah.

 

[Shandar]

that doesn't jive. plot trumps all. LCO wins. end of story.

Isn't this the sort of thing a national alliance is supposed to prevent?

By my understanding I'm supposed to be able to pick up a rulebook and go to any game and play, knowing soundly that whatever is in the book/addendum/etc is going to hold true in all chapters. Wherever I go I will see some chapter flavor, but I can expect that it will be supplementary to the rulebook, not contradictory.

 

[Robb G]

i disagree. the national rule book is a guidline to how the game should be played but not the end of it. lots of chapter have LCO items, LCO artifacts, LCO plot arc, LCO rules for LCO monsters, LCO effects, etc etc.

 

[Mike Ventrella]

All chapters obey the rules, but each chapter can have its own feel, with its own monsters and cultures and in-game politics and such. Even the variations we are discussing here do not violate any rules.

My personal opinion is that things would be much simpler if gypsies and barbarians were just human cultures, and then we wouldn't have to worry about whether they are playing them correctly or using the accent right. But as long as we want to have racial skills bought with BP, they have to be races.

 

[Shandar]

Rob, what exactly do you disagree with?

I don't disagree with you that there is a lot of chapter by chapter stuff, but the single basis for transferability between chapters is that the rules remain constant. Are you advocating that chapters should be able to alter the rules any time they see fit, as long as they can say it's for a plot reason?

Mike, I tend to agree with you on the point of humans, barbarians, and gypsies. Unfortunately the only way I see to correct the issue is to look at the overall design of the race system, something I imagine is not too high a priority (or desire) for the owners at the moment.

 

[Robb G]

yes i do.

example: LCO plot effect... control humans by voice: blah blah fill in the blank some monster found the secret to contorling humans... sux to be us.

 

[Shandar]

Your example does not answer the question asked. I am not debating the existence or 'okayness' of rules written to supplement those already existing in the rulebook.

Do you feel that chapters should be able to alter *existing* rules that would be found in the book or create new ones which directly contradict existing rules?

I'm talking about long-term unresolvable alterations, such as

"Love elixirs are not allowed to exist in our game, because the herbs to make them do not exist here!"
"All gypsies in our game must wear pointed ears to symbolize the local racial requirement of ritual mutilation"
"A special property of the land on which this campaign's kingdom exists makes all Purify spells also grant a Bless."
"Our kingdom is run by Barbarians and Biata; as such Celestial magic is illegal and you will be put to death for casting it."
"Chaos magic is legal here as long as you do not raise undead."
"In our campaign Mystic Wood Elves are beings of magic, and gain the ability to make any weapon do magic damage for 10 minutes once per day."
"Sarr never gained the color blindness mutation in our campaign."

and the like.

Do you feel that the above rules are ok for plot to implement despite being directly contrary to the rulebook?

 

[Pantzike]

Your example does not answer the question asked. I am not debating the existence or 'okayness' of rules written to supplement those already existing in the rulebook.

Do you feel that chapters should be able to alter *existing* rules that would be found in the book or create new ones which directly contradict existing rules?

I'm talking about long-term unresolvable alterations, such as

"Love elixirs are not allowed to exist in our game, because the herbs to make them do not exist here!"
"All gypsies in our game must wear pointed ears to symbolize the local racial requirement of ritual mutilation"
"A special property of the land on which this campaign's kingdom exists makes all Purify spells also grant a Bless."
"Our kingdom is run by Barbarians and Biata; as such Celestial magic is illegal and you will be put to death for casting it."
"Chaos magic is legal here as long as you do not raise undead."
"In our campaign Mystic Wood Elves are beings of magic, and gain the ability to make any weapon do magic damage for 10 minutes once per day."
"Sarr never gained the color blindness mutation in our campaign."

and the like.

Do you feel that the above rules are ok for plot to implement despite being directly contrary to the rulebook?

Having played in a chapter that had the first rule implemented for many years (banned love elixirs)... I can easily say that the removal of certain effects is grossly different then some of your other options: (adding of racial prosthetics for example)... a quick 2 cents breakdown of your points:


"Love elixirs are not allowed to exist in our game, because the herbs to make them do not exist here!" - Chapters can choose to not allow any any production they want and not put out the recipie/spell that they want. I've been in games where certain spells were unavailiable... and certain effects are unavailiable, or LCO only (potion/elixir <x> can only be made with LCO components so plot can better control the number of effect X that enters the game... the same "regular" version of X cannot transfer in from the mists) I enjoy the flavor of the game this brings to those lands.

"All gypsies in our game must wear pointed ears to symbolize the local racial requirement of ritual mutilation" - Wouldn't play this game.

"A special property of the land on which this campaign's kingdom exists makes all Purify spells also grant a Bless." - Interesting plot effect idea... at the APL that the chapters I play exist on this effect is almost negligible so I can see it happening if it furthers plot for a time.

"Our kingdom is run by Barbarians and Biata; as such Celestial magic is illegal and you will be put to death for casting it." - Fine with me for a weekend or two, but I feel extended use unbalances the intended structure of the game.

"Chaos magic is legal here as long as you do not raise undead." - Fine with me for a weekend or two, but I feel extended use unbalances the intended structure of the game. (Those who utilize said loosing of laws will be faced with some interesting RP if they get caught) (I NPC'd an event a few years ago where HQ visited a city where necromancy was merely a "fine-able offense" for a weekend- Interesting RP ensued... )

"In our campaign Mystic Wood Elves are beings of magic, and gain the ability to make any weapon do magic damage for 10 minutes once per day." - As a permanent flavor, I'm opposed, but only slightly.

"Sarr never gained the color blindness mutation in our campaign." - Seems to go against the standard of the rulebook.


If all of your examples were meant to make me feel "why would a chapter ever do that"... It didn't work. I've played/play in chapters that currently use such examples or examples similar to them. LCO effects are a wonderful addition to the game as long as the supplement the core of the game: the story. The rules support the story, the story does not support the rules.

Every chapter I play "feels" the same in terms of "rules" even though each chapter may have a few LCO quirks to it.

 

[Mike Ventrella]

Chapters can choose to not allow any any production they want and not put out the recipie/spell that they want. I've been in games where certain spells were unavailiable... and certain effects are unavailiable, or LCO only (potion/elixir <x> can only be made with LCO components so plot can better control the number of effect X that enters the game... the same "regular" version of X cannot transfer in from the mists) I enjoy the flavor of the game this brings to those lands.

And in fact, the Rule Book even specifically allows that. Page 12: While each Fortannis game abides by the rules listed in this book, this does not necessarily mean that every single spell or elixir or magic item is available in every chapter. For instance, you may discover upon entering a specific Fortannis chapter that your Vertigo elixirs are useless there. This allows each game to provide variations that can affect their local plotlines.

 

[Shandar]

My hypotheticals were completely random, the first things I came up with that were contrary to the rules I can purchase.

In any case, I wasn't trying to make you feel anything, since I was asking Robb a question.

Mike, thank you for the correction. The rest still stand, and the question stands as asked.

 

[Robb G]

Your example does not answer the question asked. I am not debating the existence or 'okayness' of rules written to supplement those already existing in the rulebook.

Do you feel that chapters should be able to alter *existing* rules that would be found in the book or create new ones which directly contradict existing rules?

I'm talking about long-term unresolvable alterations, such as

"Love elixirs are not allowed to exist in our game, because the herbs to make them do not exist here!"
"All gypsies in our game must wear pointed ears to symbolize the local racial requirement of ritual mutilation"
"A special property of the land on which this campaign's kingdom exists makes all Purify spells also grant a Bless."
"Our kingdom is run by Barbarians and Biata; as such Celestial magic is illegal and you will be put to death for casting it."
"Chaos magic is legal here as long as you do not raise undead."
"In our campaign Mystic Wood Elves are beings of magic, and gain the ability to make any weapon do magic damage for 10 minutes once per day."
"Sarr never gained the color blindness mutation in our campaign."

and the like.

Do you feel that the above rules are ok for plot to implement despite being directly contrary to the rulebook?

overall, yes.

your examples:

1) yes
2) yes, as long as you allow gypsies from other chapter to NOT wear them
3) yes, and awesome.
4) yes, and I am going to visit this chaper in my golem.
5) yes, and I am going to visit this chapter with my necromancer
6) yes, i will make the tags necessary and hand them out at logistics.
7) yes, go sarr!