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

[Belen]

Well, I disagree with your Traditional definition, but I would say that I am in the traditionalist camp. My world has to be logical and while the players should feel free to play PCs that they will enjoy, they should also follow the stricture of the setting.

ie. If we are playing in a medieval setting, then they should not expect to play a Samurai unless they have a darn good reason for it.

Personally, I would add the caveat to the categories:

World Cuisine: Crunch heavy- RAW remains most important piece of the game

Traditionalist: Fluff heavy- RAW is a guideline for the game.

 

[Von Ether]

I warned I would be biased. I don't know if I will foster real discussion here, but I should foster some discussion.

As for Dragonlance, what I do like is the coherence and unity, unlike the FR melting pot.

Now you just muddied the water, my friend.

If you want "traditionalist" to represent internal consistancy then Eberron is actually a traditionalist campaign since it tries to provide a timeline and situations that provides a logic of why all the traditional DnD stuff exists in the world. i.e. anything with an abberation template was creation of the Deylkers, etc. You could also include Earth Dawn as a Traditionalist game since it provided reasons why dugeons existed (town-sized magical fallout shelters) and PC had character classes (innate magic use vs. a wizard's deliberate manipulation).

On this definition, FR is World Cusine since it tries to provide a melting pot of cultures for players to embrace and enjoy.

And now I'd have to agree with some sword and sorcerery rpgs if the original author tried to be consistent.

 

[Captain Tagon]

World Cuisine: Crunch heavy- RAW remains most important piece of the game

Traditionalist: Fluff heavy- RAW is a guideline for the game.

That's where we'd have to disagree. I think both styles are defined solely by flavor and both could be crunch heavy or lite.

 

[Desdichado]

D&D has always been "World Cuisine," hasn't it? And not just the FR either. For that matter, so was Conan -- or did you not notice the transparently Norse and transparently Roman and Transparently ancient Egyptian that all co-existed in Howard's setting.

I think that you make a point, but your examples are all messed up.

My own personal preference is to actually create fantasy cultures; not extremely transparent analogues of real world historical cultures.

And I love my Peking Duck and Jamaican Jerk pizzas from CPK while I'm at it.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I don't understand how you can claim that "traditionalist" is somehow "more realistic" or something than the melting pot.

Looking back at a group I played with in college - in the real world, mind you - we had Indians (some of whom did wear "traditional garb"), Goth chicks and dudes, Mid-west Americans (in the "American Uniform" - jeans and t-shirt), a couple people into "gangsta style", Asians, Europeans ...

Do you see where I'm going with this?*

Hell, go read Leo Africanus for an idea of just how cosmopolitan Europe was during the time of the Crusades.

* - Granted, this was a LARP group at MIT (Go Assassins!), but I find it hard to believe that we were any more eclectic than your standard D&D adventuring group.

 

[Desdichado]

* - Granted, this was a LARP group at MIT (Go Assassins!), but I find it hard to believe that we were any more eclectic than your standard D&D adventuring group.

But that's eclectic than your standard D&D player group. The closest we get to diversity is that one guy is half-Jewish.

 

[Henry]

I'm a moderate. That is, I like a consistent world, but I will also go out of my way to see if someone's oddball campaign/character idea will fit in my game. If someone wants a samurai in traditional Western Europe, fine! There were emissaries from one land or another who visited on trade or religious missions. Alternately, if someone wants a samurai in an Eberron game, the ancient goblins did have a militaristic culture that could be very similar to samurai - If the player is willing to work with me on terminology and culture, I'm willing to work with him on game mechanics to give him the type of character he wants.

 

[Belen]

But that's eclectic than your standard D&D player group. The closest we get to diversity is that one guy is half-Jewish.

Everyone had diverse groups in college.

 

[maddman75]

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?)

Well, I guess I would be a traditionalist. What makes it more fun?

I guess fun for me is at least partially dependant on the verisimilitude of the setting and background. If the players have a clear idea about their character's culture and background they can more easily slip into those roles.

I also find that a campaign is made as distinct by what you take out as what you put in. One campaign for instance had the PCs as part of a civilized fuedal society. They practiced monotheism and were very intolerant. I banned barbarians and druids from play, as they were inappropriate. The characters did eventually meet the barbarian tribes and their druidic leaders, and even managed to befriend them. The barbarians and druids were most definately *foreign*. Their way of looking at the world was utterly different. If there were druids or barbarians in the party this would have been lost.

Some may argue that players should be able to play whatever they want. I agree, to an extent. I don't just declare what a given game will be and what kind of characters are appropriate. I have ideas for a campagin and talk to my players about it, see if they are interested in it. Its a collaborative effort, and everyone gets to put their two coppers in.

 

[Mythmere1]

World cuisine, as much as I can manage to retain enough of a coherent explanation to maintain willing suspension of disbelief.

It's the DM's (Castle Keeper in my case - I switched to Castles & Crusades) JOB to allow the players to be who they want to be. Otherwise, you're restricting their fun. So, you have to be creative enough to tie it all together in such a way that the world around them has an internal logic into which they fit.

The DM's role is to take what the players give him and mesh it into a campaign world. I think FR does a pretty decent job of providing the DM (CK) these tools - about as well as a product for general consumption can manage. There are things to dislike about FR, but in terms of providing the DM/CK with options, it's well done. Stretched, but internally consistent.

Telling a player that he MUST play something that works with a Viking or Celtic or whatever culture? Meh. Bad DMing - I don't care how much you think it adds to the willing suspension of disbelief, it's a cop-out as far as the game's concerned.