Did I discover the Left Wing and Right Wing of D&D gaming styles?

[Captain Tagon]

To actually contribute something, I prefer the melting pot approach. If i want soemthing historical I'll go read a history book. If I want exciting and fun I'll play a game that worries more about fun and recreating a certain time period in our own past.

 

[Captain Tagon]

Well he's being intentionally silly, I think. In traditional French style.

Yeah, I just prefer subtle satire instead of over the top silliness.

 

[Evilhalfling]

Trolling are we?

I would say that I run a homebrew that tries to maintain internal logic, and sometimes the PCs are travlers from foriegn lands, or I fill in a blank space in the world so they can have an appropriate culture. For instance in my group of six, someone always wants to play a monk. So creating a world with no monks (my prefrence) wont work, So I create a rational for mystic unarmed warriors and walla - no discrepencies.

In one case you give a example of pandering and in the other only published settings
most of us prolly fall between the two.

 

[Mystery Man]

Also, I eat omlettes with salsa....!

Is there any other way? I dont think so.

 

[Evilhalfling]

5 points for the first person who can tell me where Pure Strain Human comes from -- it's pretty easy if you're an old fool from the old school.)

Gamma world - either the actual race of non-mutant humans or the secret society dedicated to killing mutants. TMNT - after the bomb had a similar organization

 

[Turanil]

I think you need to redefine the Traditionalist. Traditionalist says that characters, NPCs, monsters, etc. follow some sort of consistent logic. If that is how we define it, then I am a traditionalist. Pretty lax when it comes to players characters. I don't like using the big hammer of DMing. But, in my game, you would not find a minotaur in an ancient tomb unless there is an expalanation for why it is there and how it survived.

Is this what you're talking about? Logic versus fancy?

Yes logic, coherence, and also a true flavor versus fancy. I am not very happy with the term "Traditionalist" but couldn't think of a better one.

 

[EricNoah]

Gamma world - either the actual race of non-mutant humans or the secret society dedicated to killing mutants. TMNT - after the bomb had a similar organization

Cool, good work, here's your 5 points. You can spend them on extra skill ranks, use them as Eberron-style action points, or bump up your stats with them. Don't spend them all in one place!

 

[Von Ether]

I'd have to say that most RPGs are "World Cuisine" style. If anything DnD pioneered the idea to the point that it's sort a separate genre. Btw, I've been referring to this style as a "cosmopolitan fantasy world" for ages.

When someone uses such broad strokes, I don’t see much difference between Forgotten Realms and Eberron, other than FR has a façade of traditionalism with faux historic cultures while Eberron runs out and gives its World Cuisine style a big “Where have you been all my life” bear hug. Personally, I don't know if Dragonlance really fits in my definition of a “Traditionalist” campaign.

In addition to that, lots of the old sword and sorcery stuff had a faithfulness to style not accuracy. I don’t remember any of my Conan stories reaching for historical authenticity.

When I think “traditionalist,” I go for the in-depth stuff like Pendragon and Ars-Magica (which came out back in the days of TSR), where you can’t find a picture of a chain mail bikini … “evar!!!” LOL! I’m not saying you can’t do Traditionalist with d20, though you might have to throw out half the magic system to do so. Before WotC and OGL, TSR’s main focus didn’t seem to be any real effort for historical accuracy, though there were a few “green books” that touched on it within the company’s history. As noted, all of Turanil examples are all 3rd party support.

 

[Kerrick]

That's funny...

But seriously. I think the folks who don't play something like Nyambe, or Conan, or whatnot DO have a specific, internally consistent view of their world(s). I'll use Robert Jordan's WoT as an example, because I recently reread the first couple books and found a huge FAQ on the net. He uses mixtures of several (real) cultures to form the cultures in his world. Frex, the Aiel are a blend of stuff from the Berbers, Zulu, and a couple of the nomadic Amerind tribes. The Tairens are based on Spain in the time of the Moors; Illian on Renaissance Italy (the city of Illian itself bears a suspicious resemblance to Venice, neh?). Anyone familiar with the world could look at something and say, "No, that doesn't belong" or "Yes, that fits perfectly - I'll use that."

So to answer the question, I reside in the "World Cuisine" camp. We borrowed styles of dress, architecture, etc. to distinguish some of the cultures of our world, which makes it easier for the DM and the others of us who create stuff for the world to make things fit in their proper places, and make everything mesh. Yes, we have monks - the Order of the Black Lotus, the oldest and deadliest assassin's guild in Shtar; we have beholders and dragons and even a tarrasque (the former are bioweapons from the Elder God War, and the tarrasque is a force of the universe, a little-understood creature that cannot truly be slain).

Which camp is "right"? Both of them. Now, for those who play something resembling that travesty in Turanil's post, shame on you. You should sit down and figure out SOME kind of internal consistency - you'll be a lot better off for it.

 

[EricNoah]

Now, for those who play something resembling that travesty in Turanil's post, shame on you. You should sit down and figure out SOME kind of internal consistency - you'll be a lot better off for it.

Or don't -- if you didn't care before why should you care now? Play how you want to play, as long as it's fun. There's no room for "shame" in D&D.

(Now, someone might reasonably argue that running a more culturally consistent game *is* more fun, and I'd like to see that argument played out -- what makes it more fun?)