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

[Sir ThornCrest]

About monks next to Palidons.....I kinda agree..Naaah!

The monk is by tradition a spiritually guided, inner inlightenment seeking, none combatant candle burning wise man...a sage so to speak...the little bald dude in a robe tending to his sand garden, full of wisdom and calming advise

Martial Arts using the body as a weapon w/ little to no weaponry, and 0 armor. MA created in china, poor peasants tought themselves how to defend themselves vs guards and invading forces. They would use common every day tools /items as weapons staff, sticks axes what ever...

In the D&D realm and in almost all other rpg's, Monks are a comination of the above. I guess to add a little variety for players to chose from.

In our games we have found the introduction of the Monk to be an easy one "he aint from around here!" problem solved. And as such his incredible abilities shine. However I must admit they are at best the second combatant in any group. By 10th level their AC is so bad when they attack we liken it to suicide & their ability to cause damage is second rate. We have usually found our players multiclassing with this class.

Sit ThornCrest

 

[Turanil]

That is very insulting, and implies that if we don't run a game that is buried in "traditional" standards of medieval fantasy then we are nothing more then power gaming number crunchers abusing the system to get the most powerful characters, while the high-brow real roleplayers are immersing themselves in a true game.


Actually it is a FAR more insulting way to phrase it.

I think you don't get my points.

1) I have been once an odious "power gaming number cruncher abusing the system to get the most powerful character" in a most traditional setting. I was a perfect Knight Templar in a near European middle-ages game, but using the best combination possible with a weirdo prestige class found in some d20 supplement to come up with a guy who could slay anything. However the character was pretty consistent in a consistent setting. (And as the DM was also consistent he didn't allow this character for more than one session. )

2) Nobody (or very few) seems to find my story-hour "The Princess Rescue" funny. Beyond the debate, is this funny?

 

[shilsen]

You phrase it much better than I did! And so much shorter! (even if also much less sarcastic; I am on these boards to have fun!). So lets use some of your designations:

World Cuisine Crunch versus Consistent Fluff.

Yes, I like this terminology much better.

I play World Cuisine Fluff with Consistent Crunch! With curry!

 

[Gundark]

And of course no insults please. We wouldn't want to close this thread don't you??

YOU SUCK!!!!!!!....oh wait you said NO insults......right sorry

 

[SWBaxter]

I tend to prefer a relatively coherent world when I run games, but I don't mind playing in a more D&Dish toss-everything-in-the-blender type of world. I think it comes down more to individual DM style and preference more than anything else; as always, a good DM will run a good game regardless of what style it is.

On the Monk question, sometimes it's just a matter of finding an acceptable interpretation. I've had rival philosophical colleges in some of my campaigns that each hold to particular worldviews such as Stoicism, Fatalism, etc., with an ancient Greek feel to them. These colleges are big fans of the "sound mind in a sound body" concept, and in addition to teaching their students to reason and debate, they also teach them forms of boxing and greco-roman wrestling in a mixed style similar to modern pankration. So voila, I have monks, but they're quite different from the Shaolin-style warrior-priests that inspired the class.

 

[Andor]

Now I'm not going to argue in favor of airtight dungeons that somehow contain 1100 orcs living in 10' X 10' rooms with no supplies or latrines, but...

Why is it thought to be realistic for the entire world to look like west sussex when in the real world we have celtic mummies in the taklamican dessert of china, and acupuncture on 5000 years old ice mummies in italy?

Consider Byzantium of around 800 AD. You would find in the same city (or maybe even tavern) legionaires from the remains of the eastern roman empire, viking mercenaries (from the kings guard), Christians, Jews, Pagans (of several stripes), Hindus, Confusians, Traders from China, India, Italy, Africa, and all over europe.

And this is an a world without other races, magic, dragons, gods or other planes.

Sure a small village is likely to be a monoculture. But a major city? A whole country? The entire world? Why would it be? Ours isn't.

-Andor

 

[shilsen]

Late last fall, there was a big meltdown in the D&D campaign in which I play on Monday nights over this very issue. Two Cosmopolitan players left the group because they found the other characters' values and behaviour absurd because they deviated so sharply from "basic human nature." Similarly, I have been frustrated in campaigns where all the people of good alignment share modern liberal democratic values and just wander around in medieval drag. What is worth noting, however, is that in both cases, it is all about credibility and suspension of disbelief. The only difference is whether one has a worldview that emphasizes universal and transhistorical qualities in human thought and behaviour or whether one has a worldview that emphasizes cultural uniqueness and specificity.

That's an good way to put it, but I'd add the caveat that all players/DMs don't necessarily bring their worldviews to their D&D (and other roleplaying) games. Somebody whose worldview emphasizes "cultural uniqueness and specificity" may quite easily throw it out the window and happily embrace what you call universal and transhistorical qualities in human thought and behaviour in the game, and vice versa. What/how people roleplay isn't necessarily what/how they live/believe. Good thing too, since being TPKed while walking to work would just ruin most gamers' day.

 

[Flyspeck23]

I play World Cuisine Fluff with Consistent Crunch! With curry!

World Cuisine Fluff with Consistent Crunch with curry for breakfast.
Now that's british cuisine as I like it

 

[Mallus]

World Cuisine Crunch versus Consistent Fluff.

Yes, I like this terminology much better.

Except the underlying assumption is wonky.

"Fluff" has nothing to do with a setting drawing from a single (or compatible set) of sources.

 

[Desdichado]

When the players are pushing for it, which is probably the case with your group, I've got no opinion one way or the other - it takes a good DM to create a world that meets particular specifications agreed upon by the group. Most DMs of long standing have done that exercise, and it's fun.

It's the DM who unilaterally sets lots of restrictions whom I think is copping out. If you're one of 'em, file my opinion in the round file along with my opinion that the tone of your post is unecessarily abrasive.

You've got a lot of very specious and unilateral opinions that you are claiming as "Truth" in your post. And you've got a lot of nerve say that an issue of taste is "bad DMing" and then complain about my post being abrasive.