Mundane vs. Fantastical

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

I like the fantastical. I play a fantasy game so I can encounter the fantastical. Too much insistence on things being mundane and there's no point in playing the game.

That being said my personal opinion is that the fantastical backfires on games like D&D because they concentrate it too much: the wrap it up in their monsters, magic items, fantasy locations, and their PCs and then expect everything else to stay normal. And so long as that concentration remains in those categories you can't add more without eventually creating a feeling of the normal stuff being loomed over by the fantastic like a bunch of tall trees.

Some people like to cut down the number or height of the concentrations of fantastic so they don't loom so much. That's a perfectly valid way to do it, but if you like the amount of fantastic but hate the looming there's another way: spread it out. Take the fantastic from the monsters and PCs and spread it out over the rest of the world: have people raise sheep with colored wool and ride horse-sized goats into battle; increase the range of natural hair colors; just little increases in the fantasticness of other stuff. Doing this it should be possible to keep the total level of fantastic constant but reduce the looming effect.

 

[takasi]

There's no right or wrong way here, there are only preferences. However, it's incredibly difficult to create a campaign with both preferences.

Let's say one person wants to play an everyman villager who found a strange arrow one day. He spends years carrying it around until one day his wife dies of the flu, he leaves his village and heads out to find the man who shot that arrow. He's built a simple fighter, but he's put a lot of backstory and thought into his character.

Another person has watched the movie Ninja Scroll and is inspired by a rocklike creature in the movie. He wants to play a character who has those powers, so he creates a goliath ninja/duskblade. He too comes up with an interesting backstory that involves revenge against an ogre mage.

While it's possible to satisfy these two players, sometimes if you try to please everyone you please no one. The same is true with a game system. 3.5 and prior had such a strange mix of the mundane and the fantastic that you had to do a lot of work just to explain what was and wasn't allowed in your game. With 4th edition it's very clear from the onset that using the default rules you're getting high fantasy and high powered action adventure. It does what it sets out to do very well.

Now this doesn't mean the mechanics don't allow for low powered campaigns. I'm sure we'll see more from 3PP, and at some point Wizards will probably release a 4E Greyhawk and show how it can be done too. But like a DM making a campaign, I think it's best to present a default campaign setting as either high or low. Mixing the two causes even more problems for the DM down the road as different types of players are attracted to the 'same' game.

 

[Masada]

#1 I agree with the sentiment that "this is too much."

But...

#2 I think we all sound like a bunch of old men complaining about these young gamers today...

There are about 100 systems out there from no magic fantasy to brand new "Hey my belt buckle is magic" 4e. No singular system is "right". If someone wanted to play Magic to 11, this is it. Of course, no one can ever take away our Rule Zero; "There are no rules, only guidelines." The best thing about RPG's is we can decide what to use, what to modify and what to ignore.

Some systems just have more to ignore than others.

 

[RangerWickett]

My largest setting-oriented gaming experience of late has been directing the War of the Burning Sky campaign saga. It's really hard to keep a consistent style and feel over the course of 20 levels.

The first adventure saw an army attacking a city. Yes, the army had wyverns who dropped 'bombs' of alchemist fire, but there wasn't too much magic.

The second adventure had a forest spirit keeping the woods alive despite a 40-year-old forest fire. Very high magic, but I felt it thematically appropriate.

Third adventure had a magically conjured hurricane, but it was a key plot point that we built to over the course of the whole adventure, and it tied into a villain later with a storm theme.

And so on and so on. There was a lot of powerful magic, but I believe we kept a consistent feel and tone, without 'lasersharking' (a term I now love). Sure the challenges had to increase as the heroes got higher level, but I tried to develop them organically from elements already in the setting, rather than adding new whizbang stuff. If there was amazing, powerful magic, it was firmly established that the person using that magic had to go to great lengths to gather and control it.

I don't know if we ever had a half- anything (except a couple half-elves).

Perhaps the most ridiculous thing we've had has been the scene -- when you're 16th level -- where some enemies animate a 90-ft. tall statue that appeared in the first adventure, and you have to fight it. But it didn't shoot lasers from its eyes or have ninjas with light-saber-nunchuks.

So it's possible to have fantastic fantasy without it feeling forced. I don't think 4e pulled it off, though.

 

[Walknot]

ninjas with light-saber-nunchuks.

Oh, yeah. May I please borrow that concept? But, they will need some sort of sturdy hand protection, ummm ... mirrored gauntlets?

 

[jensun]

So has D&D drifted too far from mundane into fantastical? Is it a bad thing?

Personally it still hasnt moved far enough and the move it has made is a good thing.

More Elric, Conan and Ffarhd please, less being mauled in the woods by common animals while you take a leak.

 

[Scribble]

There are creatures in the real world that are weirder then giant scorpions with electrified claws. Ever see a documentary on some of the crazy stuff that lives in the ocean?

It's not too much of a stretch for me to think in a reality that condeeds different planes of existance, gods, and magic to be true and taking an active role in the world would have weird creatures. Who knows how many are actually native to the prime material plane as opposed to some weird cross between the prime and some other random plane... That a creature could manage to exist WITHOUT some kind of weirdness is pretty amazing.

Aside from that... just make the electro claws do ongoing normal damage. It hurts you by crushing you instead of shocking. Voila... normal giant scorpion.

 

[Irda Ranger]

#1 I agree with the sentiment that "this is too much."

But...

#2 I think we all sound like a bunch of old men complaining about these young gamers today...

Heh. I'm glad you posted this before I did something grumpy.

There are about 100 systems out there from no magic fantasy to brand new "Hey my belt buckle is magic" 4e. No singular system is "right".

This is obviously correct.

I'm a 2E guy also, steeped in the "feel" of Ansalon, Barovia, Athas and the Rock of Bral, so when I look at the 4E MM I think "Whoa, this is even more bizarre than Spelljammer", which in my head is the litmus test for silly fantasy.

But the best thing about the MM is that it's all optional. I keep it there in my back pocket in case I ever need it, but for the most part I continue to make due with limited palettes so that nothing "looms" over the play experience. My players are readers of fantasy novels first, not D&D players, so this is the "right" dial setting for them. Oliphants and worgs? Yes, definitely. Nazghoul or Shelob? Occasionally. Half-Dragon Vampires with crystal greatswords? No.

I'm still a fan of 4E though. The mechanics (the hardest part of any game) work for me, and I can pick, choose and repurpose monsters and fluff as I see fit.

I should note though that what's a normal moster palette for "the world" doesn't apply in the Feywild, Shadowfell or Elemental Chaos. And of course if you are stupid enough to wander in the Abyss or some random Astral Dominion, anything goes. And an Epic Lich-template Aboleth is always nice when I feel like running a Cthulu investigation without telling my players ahead of time. "Here are your Sanity tokens. Don't lose them. (Ha ha - 'Don't lose your Sanity' Get it?) Seriously, this'll be fun. Guys?"

 

[Raven Crowking]

Needless to say, I agree with the OP.

Of course, I've seen grizzly bears in the wild (trip to the Yukon), and I sure as heck had no desire to get any closer.

Weird monsters are cool, but IMHO they are best in moderation....so that they actually come across as weird when used. YMMV.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

This:

Needless to say, I agree with the OP.

Of course, I've seen grizzly bears in the wild (trip to the Yukon), and I sure as heck had no desire to get any closer.

Weird monsters are cool, but IMHO they are best in moderation....so that they actually come across as weird when used. YMMV.

And This:

I love having magic and the supernatural spice up the background -- but like spice, too much of it and it becomes an irritant instead.

but also this

My group recently compare it to the video for Muse's "Knights of Cydonia". They meant it as a compliment.

Good stuff!

However it's all about balance.

In terms of the bear mauling a character... so be it. I invest quite a bit into any character I create so as long as the DM presented the bear as a significant challenge, huge bone crushing jaws are just as nasty as several flashes of electrical awesome. I'm not jaded by the mundane nor the fantastic quite yet.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise