The whimsical element of D&D vs AD&D

[Lanefan]

How has it been purged entirely?

I've already posted an example in my current 4e game where PC's gain hit points for critting bullywugs, simply because bullywugs are so hideous that you actually feel good about killing them.

That's hillarious.

Question: is this "ability" something you added to Bullywugs, or is it in their RAW MM writeup?

If it's in their MM writeup, I like it.

If you added it, then good on ya; but it does nothing to counter rounser's point about newer editions losing whimsy by design. In this case, you've added the whimsy yourself.

Lanefan

 

[Hussar]

I believe this is RAW. I'm not the DM, but, I'm pretty sure this is by the book. Someone else can look that up.

Actually, if you go through the 4e MM, there's a fair bit of that kind of stuff. Balors beating you with their minions, literally causing minions to asplode. That sort of thing.

What you generally don't have is the really out there stuff that can really break the game. Stuff that kills you with no saving throw (Green Demon Face, I'm looking at you) or stuff that creative players can fiddle with to exploit in sometimes very game damaging ways - Item spell (turning stuff to bits of cloth is pretty whimsical - turning large barrels of burning oil into bits of cloth to later use as grenades can be game breaking) comes to mind here.

 

[Sunseeker]

True, but that's great fantasy novels, and as another form of media it is different to RPGs in subtle yet critical ways.

An author has total control over every. word. on. every. page. (That is, before the external editing process begins, obviously). He or she doesn't have other people gathered around a table attempting to interact with each other in an unscripted, un-premeditated fashion and stay amused, meanwhile juggling their true personality and OOC comments with staying in character (if they're bothering to roleplay at all, since we all know some players just play aversion of themselves with pointy ears and a funny name).

A D&D game is essentially hosting a sort of social gathering, and everything that entails. In practical terms, a LOTR equivalent would require a party of NPCs. Real players would fall asleep at all the descriptions of terrain and weather. I almost did as a reader, thank goodness for the movies.

I get all that, but to an extent I disagree. D&D comes in many flavors, and depending on who you're gaming with, it could come in a very linear, story-like flavor. Your plot progresses from the Lands of A to the Forests of B to the Mountains of C to the Volcano of D...oom.

Some are more like those RL Stine, "choose your own path books", in which you have a variety of options, and most will lead to the same, or similar conclusion. But you have a lot of ways to come about to that conclusion, and the choice, however much an illusion, makes it interesting.

And of course, some D&D games are very much the "social sandbox". Where you are given a world, in which danger may exist, but you have to go out and find it. You're told nothing unless you look for it and at the end of the day, you could spend all night in a tavern drinking until you turn green.

The DM however, always maintains control over the game, and through the use of NPCs, plot events, "wanted posters" or what have you, can move the game along. Yes, there is some "democracy" to the game, which allows players to have control over what they do, but there is also some dictatorship that allows the DM to push them out into actually doing something. So in some ways, D&D is like a book, and in other ways it isnt.

 

[Hussar]

A D&D game is essentially hosting a sort of social gathering, and everything that entails. In practical terms, a LOTR equivalent would require a party of NPCs. Real players would fall asleep at all the descriptions of terrain and weather. I almost did as a reader, thank goodness for the movies.

LOTR is perhaps a bad example because it does suffer from an over abundance of description. Great as a novel, probably not as much fun as an RPG (as DM of the Rings so funnily points out). But, I do disagree that you can't play D&D in character most of the time.

It requires a fair degree of player buy in at the outset and at the very least a tacit agreement that you aren't going to be deliberately disruptive of that, but, it's certainly not impossible. Granted, it's probably not the norm at the majority of tables, and it isn't the norm at mine either. We're not the amateur thespian bunch at all (my last campaign ended with the players covering a small planet with the scrotum of a giant invisible whale - my games tend to have a bit of nonsense in them ).

But, by the same token, as I said earlier, a player can make or break a scene. Trying to do something like horror is virtually impossible if the players don't buy into the idea that you're trying to create a particular mood. A sign of a good player is recognizing when the DM is trying to go for a particular mood (or not) and being able to work with the DM rather than against him.

 

[rounser]

Double post

 

[Orius]

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.

Though one could ask, who'd want to use it? Some players don't like the bag of tricks, they think it's stupid and useless. Imagine what would happen if you gave them this thing? Though to be honest, that thing was in Dragon, and the magazine has published all sorts of things over its run from great to crappy.

Though honestly, there is a lot of strange and crazy stuff from the old days that has been left behind because it's just damn hard to fit under the structure of 3e and 4e. Some of it may have been crap, there was a lot of stuff from the old days that was just plain metagamey and amateurish, but some of the stuff had a definite coolness factor. I wonder how much of the stuff was just lame and how much might have been ahead of its time or at least didn't really fit with the spirit of the time in which it was published.

 

[rounser]

The DM however, always maintains control over the game, and through the use of NPCs, plot events, "wanted posters" or what have you, can move the game along. Yes, there is some "democracy" to the game, which allows players to have control over what they do, but there is also some dictatorship that allows the DM to push them out into actually doing something. So in some ways, D&D is like a book, and in other ways it isnt.

I don't see how that's going to stop someone quoting Family Guy, or choosing a "me stooopid barbarian, duh" roleplaying style for their half-orc, or even just a pun-based name. Even the players that are onboard with your plans may find themselves in a mischevious mood and play up, and so forth. Just like in normal social situations, the DM has limited control over the details of what comes out of player's mouths, short of using gaffer tape to shut them up, threats, bribery etc. It's not a matter of democracy. For many groups - if not most groups - it's herding cats.

Tolkien never had to worry about Merry and Pippin temporarily getting bored and talking about World of Warcraft, stacking dice into towers, or how the stock market was doing. Even if you ban all OOC talk and distractions, you may have attendance issues etc. This is the real world, and gaming sessions occur there with all of it's quirks, not in Middle Earth. Besides, do you really want to miss out on all that interaction with your mates?

 

[rounser]

Though to be honest, that thing was in Dragon, and the magazine has published all sorts of things over its run from great to crappy.

Let's be honest here - official stuff in core rulebooks also runs that gamut from great to crappy. "Official product" status is no guarantee of quality, just as "homebrew" is no guarantee of crappy. It's all in our heads.

In fact, rumor has it that the TSR periodicals department used to fear submissions from the regular TSR staff because a lot of it wouldn't be up to snuff for their magazines, and they'd have to reject it.

As far as the Amulet of Caterpillar Control goes, I'd say it has purpose as colour. Like the dubious utility of the spell Auntie's Bath (which fills a bathtub with hot bubble-bathed water or something) or the style of the spell Bard's Cabinet (which summons a cabinet containing your instruments), gather enough of these detail trinkets about and you have a rich and fascinating world.

Failing to see that, and requiring everything to have combat purposes reminds me the quote which talks about how "He knew the cost of everything but the value of nothing."

 

[Hussar]

This is the real world, and gaming sessions occur there with all of it's quirks, not in Middle Earth. Besides, do you really want to miss out on all that interaction with your mates?

The thing is, this isn't an either/or situation.

There's any number of ways you can do this. Game time is game time for one. Shooting the breeze with your friends, talking about the stock market, whatnot, is something people can do all the time. For some people, they want to get immersed in the game.

Or, you can break it up. Sometimes the players goof around and whatnot, but the players are mature enough and on the ball enough to get with the program when the DM is trying to set a mood. It really does help to have good players here.

Or you can use good old peer pressure. If it's just one guy cutting jokes and making inappropriate comments, that stops when no one laughs.

Or, not. Every table is different. Some tables are not into a more immersive game. That's fine. I've certainly played that way and will do so again. Sometimes, I want a more immersive game though and that's fine too. The same group of people, if they're mature enough, can switch between the two modes pretty easily.

I reject the idea that it's impossible to do unless the DM somehow beats the players about the head and shoulders for every infraction.

 

[rounser]

I reject the idea that it's impossible to do unless the DM somehow beats the players about the head and shoulders for every infraction.

That's fine. The thread is at least partially about "why would you want to ban whimsy, anyway, when it creates a lot of the memories people cherish." I think that when it comes to whimsy in D&D, the accepted wisdom (ban it, purge it, not in my campaign itz iz being teh serious business mang) is wrong.