P&P v2 [Was: Re: Idea bounce]

[Wout Broere]

>|| 2) The names of dwarfs, elves and faerries have been changed. Now I
>can see
>|| who is who from the descriptions, but why the change of names?
>Actually, I like the name changes.  The other names seemed too generic,
>and the Perilous lands are not a generic world.

In P&P I always wonder about the mixture of creatures available. We have
dwarfs from Norse mythology, faerries from Irish myths, Elves from middle to
late English Mythology. Vampires from Transsylvania, with descriptions for
vampires (under different names) from India and East-Africa. The Jinn and
Peri, as well as a large chunck of the gods are from Old-Persian myths. The
crossbreed creatures as pegasi and such mostly taken from western european
myths in the early Middle Ages. The unicorn is a creature from the 18th or
19th century, most probably Romanticism in Germany, in the description given
by p&p. I do miss the ancient greeks Harpy, but it is probably in the rules
somewhere and failing in my memory only. Now saying that the creatures are
world specific seems a bit strange. They are a mix from Earth history and
myth and a fine mix as such. Someone not only compiled a list of faerry atle
creatures, but studied different mythologies and created a very diversified
list.

There is a drawback to the great diversitude of beasts. When playing a game
with new players and the first ever rabbit appears, it needs hardly any
description other than 'a rabbit'. Dwarfs and Dragons are mostly known
concepts to new players, so with little description they can be portrayed by
the players as they appear in faerry tales. But the Peri for example
although they are creatures from Persian myths, are mostly unknown in these
days and need an elaborate description and even then it seems impossible to
give all details about their possible behaviour.
But the players will assume that the rabbit can be chased away by running
towards it, or shot by a single arrow. The dragon probably has scales and
breathes fire and above all hoards a treasure. No need to tell a player or
its character. The Peri are a different story. It will need some general
explanation, size, weapons, behaviour, well known facts/myths etc, before
the players know it as well as they do the rabbit and can react to it.
That this can turn into a problem is my opinion, and may not be shared by
others. But do remember the little white furry creature with the white
pointy ears and the two small white teeth from Monty Pythons King Arthur.
"Death awaits you all, with nasty big pointy teeth .. it is just a harmless
little bunny isnt it." We do take a lot for granted when reacting to the
creatures in the Lands.

So giving the playable races recognizable names will help players imagine
how they look and behave, using known myths and tales and not having to
resort to the rule books for a description. On the other hand, changing the
creatures names will make them instantly unrecognizable and keep the world
exciting and new. And the names given are good choices for that. It is my
opinion that both names should be used in a basic system, with the generic
names to help new players and game masters get a feeling for the world and
the characters.

There may be a reasonable explanation to use both. The 'new' names do sound
more like they are the names the creatures give to themselves (Dvaallinn),
whilst the generic names are how the humans refer to them (those bloody
dwarfs). So both terms are used, but by different people. Like the
Inuit/Eskimo problem.

Ft