Tastes Great! Less Filling!

[Stormonu]

A little bit of fun helps the game go down. I enjoy a mostly serious game, but a good one-liner or comedic misstep can be an entertaining twist or bit relaxing. After all, we are playing the game for fun, not to simulate the lives of our alter-egos (or at least, most of us aren't).

 

[Bullgrit]

For those of you who remember BD&D/ 1E does 3E and 4E seem like it has a more "sewious bizzness" attitude?

I see nothing in the books of any edition to support a serious or silly attitude beyond what the DM and Players themselves want for their game. I don't see that later D&D has become more serious, or that earlier D&D was more silly as presented by the game books.

Bullgrit

 

[Herschel]

For those of you who remember BD&D/ 1E does 3E and 4E seem like it has a more "sewious bizzness" attitude?

Very much so. I miss the Wand of Wonder and other such fun.

 

[Kzach]

So I guess my half-orc monk whose name sounds like "Grasshopper" when spoken with his thick Russian accent and his master, 'Lo Hung', wouldn't be welcome in your game.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I see nothing in the books of any edition to support a serious or silly attitude beyond what the DM and Players themselves want for their game. I don't see that later D&D has become more serious, or that earlier D&D was more silly as presented by the game books.

Bullgrit

It's true that the feel of the game relies on the participants, one could play a lighthearted and silly Cthullu game if desired, there are design elements that shape the presentation feel of game a certain way. We bring the silly to our 4E campaign, there are no wands of wonder, nilbogs, or other silly crunch to aid in this.

One aspect of modern systems I see this serious influence on is magic items. Even if silly items were available no one is going to spend good gold on them, it would be inviting disaster to not "keep up" with the gear requirements that demand you keep your stuff upgraded.

This all ties into game balance being held as more important than random wacky fun.

 

[Mallus]

I see nothing in the books of any edition to support a serious or silly attitude beyond what the DM and Players themselves want for their game.

You mean other than items like the Girdle of Involuntary Gender-Reassignment Surgery?

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

For those of you who remember BD&D/ 1E does 3E and 4E seem like it has a more "sewious bizzness" attitude?

Not really. I've run into "D&D is serious business" throughout my time playing. More of a player issue than a rules issue.

And you don't need wacky monsters to have silly fun. Some of the biggest laugh-until-you-hurt moments have come when we're fighting nothing more interesting or wacky than a bunch of orcs.

IME, if you have a "serious bidness" person at your table, things like the belt of gender reassignment is just going to lead to pouting and temper tantrums, and is no more likely to lead to hilarity than anything else. In fact, blatant silliness within the game rules tends to create headaches and endless kvetching that no one wants to deal with. On the other hand, if you have genuinely funny people at your table who know how to blow off steam, the most generic Tolkienesque encounter can become a riot.

 

[Stormonu]

I distinctly remember Basic/1E/2E having a "camp" feel to it and that the designers didn't seem to take themselves too seriously (especially in the pages of Dragon magazine). I mean, just glance at some of the cartoons in the old DMG.

Several modules (beyond Castle Greyhawk) have in-jokes in them and how can you take Dungeonland and Land Beyond the Magic Mirror seriously? Then there is Fizban from Dragonlance. Old Man Katan and the Mushroom Band is from Dungeon magazine is far from serious.

The game had a sense of humor before it changed hands to WotC, and it seems like it became "serious" afterward (not that WotC is teh evilz, but the "funny" seemed to fade away). The recent 4E book with cartoons from Penny Arcade seems to be a stab back towards an aloof look at the game, but folks don't seem to appreciate that approach any more.

I think that may be one thing that I like about Piazo. They still design a bit of humor into their games (pickles anyone?).

 

[Bullgrit]

wouldn't be welcome in your game.

So y'all read wanting a game "a little more serious" than reenacting a silly (and very funny) 80s beer commercial, as no humor at all, must be "serious business"?

If one doesn't prefer Benny Hill silliness in their game, then they *must* prefer all grim and gritty seriousness?

Come on, guys. Do you really see things in this dichotomy, one extreme or the other, with no scale or range of humor and silliness to grim and serious?

Bullgrit

 

[Herschel]

When silly happens, I'm all for it. I like light-hearted romps with occasional deep, serious plot development, not really the other way around.