The whimsical element of D&D vs AD&D

[MerricB]

As for the beholder, how can you take seriously a monster that has one eye that puts people to sleep, and another that disintegrates things at will?

If something can disintegrate you, I take it seriously!

Cheers!

 

[I'm A Banana]

Listen, this is a game wherein a significant portion of your Saturday afternoons (or whatever) are taken up with pretending to be a sparkling elf, talking in funny voices, walking puns like Beholders are deadly enemies, and dragons come five delicious fruit flavors.

Frickin' whimsy is party of the whole big goofy bag of devouring, my friends.

I think the game's better for it. Darker And Edgier only takes you so far, and gnomes will always trump dragonblargs and emoflings in my book, largely because of it.

Please let us not take our game of make-believe too too seriously, my droogs.

 

[Hussar]

Rust monsters? But, beyond that, you've got Land Beyond the Magic Mirror - a module based on the ultimate in nonsense, Through the Looking Glass. The massive fight scene at the dinner at the end of that module is about as nonsensical as it gets. Although the house that eats you comes a close second.

But, AD&D had loads of whimsy. Basic/Expert had lots of it too. French wolf headed people FTW.

 

[rounser]

Agreed...both D&D (pre-WOTC varieties) and AD&D are whimsy city.

I was reading up on an Amulet of Caterpillar Control last night (for when you need to control 4-24 caterpillars, naturally), and the penny dropped on just how much has been left behind in the road towards codification. It's like we have the wild and woolly D&Ds (e.g. 0e, Hackmaster, or some DIY edition-spanning houserule hybrid) at one end, and the "game design theory informed" D&Ds at the other end (3E, 4E).

There are many reasons why the Amulet of Caterpillar Control would be left on the cutting room floor given the current D&D design philosophy. In fact, I'd venture that it may not even be conceived in the first place under such a mindset. This is a shame in some ways, and cutting through the cruft in others.

For me, there is a disconnect between how people imagine their campaigns (epic, Shakespearian even) and how they eventually get played (at least one silly player bringing the tone to another place entirely, and everyone having fun through that anyway). In some ways, then, whimsical D&D is the more honest D&D, reflecting how many or most of us actually play the game, rather than reflecting the ego of the well-intentioned (yet arguably deluded) DM in presenting an epic and photorealistic world and campaign arc, doomed to be brought down by bored players quoting Monty Python.

 

[MerricB]

Rust monsters?

They are amusing to us because they're drawn with a propeller. In-game, they aren't an amusing monster: they're a downright dangerous one. (Not in terms of killing you outright, but leaving you defenseless for the next monster).

The flumph has no such defense.

But, beyond that, you've got Land Beyond the Magic Mirror

You have read my initial post, haven't you? Which specifically mentions the "Alice" duology?

Ya. I guess if you were looking for a difference you could argue that B/X is lighter. Not necassarily sillier or with more whimsy, just a little less dense, detailed, with slightly broader themes. Lighter.

That might well be a better description of it.

I'll note that I generally think of the AD&D era as being from 1979-1985, when Gygax left. After that, you have the proto-2E era; from 1986-9, there isn't all that much being released that is worthy of the name. A few products, but a very few.

The less said about WG7 Castle Greyhawk the better.

Cheers!

 

[rounser]

there isn't all that much being released that is worthy of the name.

April DRAGON Magazine issues, and many a DUNGEON Magazine adventure (e.g. singing ambulatory mushrooms, crabmen romances etc.) picked up the slack for 2E in this area, I think.

And of course there was Dragonmirth in every issue...

 

[Hussar]

You have read my initial post, haven't you? Which specifically mentions the "Alice" duology?

Heh, see this is what happens when you just go to the latest post in the thread and forget to reread the OP. Oops. My bad.

For once, I think I actually agree with Rounser. I don't think that 3e or 4e D&D would handle whimsy very well. The codification of the rules makes things too predictable to easily handle the ridiculous.

Although, to be fair, we've been playing 4e recently and our DM has chucked bullywugs at us. These things are freaking hillarious. A critical hit scored on a bullywug actually heals the hitter. You feel good about killing things that are this loathesome. At least one of the bullywugs gets bonuses on its attacks if it includes other bullywugs (and possibly hurts them) in its attacks. And they have this potion that makes the explode when they die.

It's been absofreakinglutely hillarious.

 

[Stormonu]

Let us not forget Fizban and some of the epitaphs from the crypts in Castle Ravenloft.

Heck, there's even a bit of whimsy back in the dreaded Tomb of Horrors where several of the trap teleport you back out naked...

 

[rounser]

In-game, they aren't an amusing monster: they're a downright dangerous one.

The riddle of the rust monster is that a lot of things that are fun, aren't fair, and a lot of things that are fair...aren't fun.

But then, a lot of things that are unfair aren't fun, and a lot of things that are unfun aren't fair.

It doesn't make sense. Wookiees living on Endor just does not make sense. And if it doesn't make sense you must acquit.

 

[Jhaelen]

Heck, there's even a bit of whimsy back in the dreaded Tomb of Horrors where several of the trap teleport you back out naked...

I don't think any player ever found that funny - but as a DM I thought it was hilarious