The whimsical element of D&D vs AD&D

[Orius]

BryonD, you represent the concensus view that has crept into the game's culture like a thief in the night. The founders of the game knew that D&D is fundamentally something of a lark, and that creativity came hand in hand with in-jokes and random madness "just because". You represent how far we've strayed from the oldschool ideal of a grab bag of fun, and towards codified attempts to create some live-play version of The Great American Fantasy Novel, with all attendant ego and pseudo-realism that entails.

Honestly, though I think some of the seriousness exists for good reason.

The whole element of whimsy seems to me to be something that's a bit harder to codify in the rules. Or at least when you're trying to keep the rules internally consistant. Sometimes it can be highly illogical, and there's always that group of players who just can't handle the illogic and go out of their way to nitpick it to death. Some players do prefer a more serious game, and the whimsical, strange, and funny stuff really sticks out to them, and not in a positive way. It also might be a measure of trying to keep things fair, though that can get into the whole "balance" argument that some long time players occasionally bring up. And you're right to some degree that sometimes WotC takes things a bit too seriously, but occasionally the whimsy ends up being quite geeky. That can be a huge barrier to new players and WotC has a vested interest in attracting new players.

And when you get into strange and/or humorous stuff, that starts becoming more subjective. Not everone thinks the same thing is funny or amusing. Some find it rather irritating. For example, some people think it's the height of comedy to quote Monty Python at the table; I think it's an excuse to drop a Great Red Wyrm on the offending party, or just have rocks fall so everyone can die. I think that's kind of the point ByronD was trying to make. It's like games that throw in occasional sci-fi flavor along the vein of Expeditionto the Barrier Peaks. Some people love it, others loudly insist it has no place in D&D whatsoever.

So while I do miss some of the whimsy, I admit that it's harder to pull off and it's something that probably needs to take player composition into account. That gives WotC some good reason to tone it down a bit in official products.

 

[rounser]

The whole element of whimsy seems to me to be something that's a bit harder to codify in the rules.

I don't think it's that it's harder to codify, just what proportion of your splat/monsters/rules/adventures/NPCs/setting it represents.

For instance, if you use the late 2E spell compendiums and encyclopedia magicas, there's many thousands of spells and magic items, and the fact that some are silly or offbeat is going to be another colour in your rainbow, not a sore thumb sticking out, because there's all this other stuff lying around as well to pay attention to.

I think that's another way it doesn't read as well as it plays, because when you read it it's the only thing you're reading. In the game, it will probably be a minor sideshow to some main event. A whimsical handful of spells in the spellbook, one setting site name on the map, just one monster in the dungeon, one or two in-joke treasures in the trove, or rules for the odd farcical fumble or over-the-top critical occurring in combat. I think this is easy to overlook.

Additionally, when you allow your creative side to indulge in whimsy, you're sort of opening the floodgates creatively because your inner critic has to take a step back and shut up for a change in order for this to happen.

 

[Stormonu]

While I feel that Castle Greyhawk is too whimsical/silly, I don't mind an occassional whimsy adventure, such as the likes of "Old Man Katan and his Mushroom Band". I suspect for a good many groups, even that would be too silly.

There used to be a lot of camp/silliness in the old game and I wish we could see some of it back, in small doses - perhaps even just sidebars.

 

[Hussar]

For instance, if you use the late 2E spell compendiums and encyclopedia magicas, there's many thousands of spells and magic items, and the fact that some are silly or offbeat is going to be another colour in your rainbow, not a sore thumb sticking out, because there's all this other stuff lying around as well to pay attention to.

See, the problem is Rounser, most groups didn't use spell components. I'd go so far as to say that it was actually extremeｌy rare for groups to use components except those with some sort of monetary cost (like, say, 2e ShapeChange). So, the whimsy from that was lost long, long ago.

And, it was pretty obvious that most of the joke items were just that. They weren't meant to be used. They were Dragon magazine filler that made people like me giggle and then forget. I mean, how often did a Cloak of Blending (Whirring 3 Speed) that purees the wearer actually get used. (well, beyond the one time I used it. )

I remember an editorial by [MENTION=2174]Erik Mona[/MENTION] that talked about how every "funny" April Fools edition was the worst selling issue of the year.

So, it's not too far off to think that most people don't want ridiculous stuff in their game. And never really have.

Me, I don't mind the odd bit and I'd like to see some of it come back. But, I can totally understand why people don't want it. It's just as jarring as a fart joke in a serious movie. Some people actually player RPG's for more than just and giggles. And that's totally fine too.

I mentioned earlier how Bullywugs give you hit points when you critical hit them in 4e. There's more than a few leader types that pick up a minion and try to beat you with it. I haven't been following 4e all that well, but, I'm very sure that there are all sorts of whimsy elements in there for those who actually take the time to look.

 

[rounser]

And, it was pretty obvious that most of the joke items were just that. They weren't meant to be used. They were Dragon magazine filler that made people like me giggle and then forget. I mean, how often did a Cloak of Blending (Whirring 3 Speed) that purees the wearer actually get used. (well, beyond the one time I used it. )

There's a sliding scale, as you well know, Hussar. An intelligent sword with a phobia of blood or an amulet which controls caterpillars is whimsy that is usable. The Cloak of Blending 3 speed is, as you say, not designed to be used. And of course it's subjective as to what is amusing to you, and what isn't. It's not some unified front. If you've played Baldur's Gate 2, is Minsc and his hamster named "Boo" anathema to you, or did it help make the game?

For instance, it's possible to like a good deal of the tongue-in-cheekness of Hackmaster and consider Castle Greyhawk to be vulgar and meanspirited, for instance, just as you can like Black Books, The Mighty Boosh and the IT Crowd and not like Russell Brand. Just because you like some of it doesn't mean you like all of it, although it's a useful way to dismiss it altogether by pretending whimsy is some conglomerate.

Look, I'm simply trying to point out something which is different about D&D culture, and not necessarily for the better. If just one person realises that we've collectively probably swung the pendulum too far in the opposite direction, then there is a point to this thread. It's just that the collective wisdom on this topic is faulty, because looking back, the stuff which stays with me and the anecdotes others share are related to farcical or whimsical situations which are built into adventure, setting, or rules (e.g. the mystery of the still-smoking boots in the mud, spear of backstabbing throwing competitions, Abyss tourism entrepreneurs, misfortunes involving "unfair" monsters, gods with stupid names and worshippers who chant odd things, Rolemaster crits where everything went very right or very wrong etc.).

And that the fantasy DMs have of how seriously their campaigns will be played IME often doesn't get borne out in reality, with players being less than serious at the table, as is normal for healthy social situations. Yet so many of us DMs strive on under the collective delusion that we're creating some sort of live play multi-author literary work, until game day, and the players remind us of the way things really are by squabbling over something trivial or trying something stupid because this is an RPG, and they can. I'm just trying to point out that D&D does whimsical and silly much better and more easily than it does horror, because it lends itself naturally towards that by default, as we all know. And if you design your campaign or setting or rules to reflect some of that, you might, you know, actually add to the fun and the memories rather than actively fighting it, as many a campaign is built for a scope of epic drama, and no further, like a novel, rather than a social occasion.

And if you can't see that a book reading as interesting is worthwhile, even if you don't use spell components, then you deserve the dryness of the current books.

I'd also add that the Grand Duchy of Geoff is a bad name, but I really like the Egg of Coot and can't get enough of anagrams like Drawmij. Boggy Bottom as the name of a town is borderline (apparently the locals have "heard all the jokes", and are sick of them), but places with names like that exist in the real world, and provide a nice antidote for all the Skullspire Peaks and Diredoom Castle type names around.

I've been in games where the DM arranges for a PC with a name or personality too silly for his campaign to end up killed. Now imagine a game where the DM doesn't have his ego stapled to the setting and campaign arc, and where a whimsical character fits in because the setting and adventures aren't totally without tongue-in-cheek elements themselves. That's arguably something of a novelty at many game tables, because a lot of DMs consider their campaigns sacred in their serious businessness factor, and opposed to the players' idea of what is fun, which may have nothing to do with the DM's plans...

 

[Hussar]

The problem you're outlining though Rounser, isn't a system problem though. It's a group problem. The DM is running one game and the players are playing another. If you want a whimsical game and everyone is looking for something more serious, or the other way around, there's going to be problems.

Pointing at the game designers for something that should be solved at each table seems a bit like passing the buck.

BTW, LOVED Minsc and Boo. But then, OTOH, there was Planescape Torment, which didn't have a whole lot of whimsy in it. Or the Ultima games which tended to be pretty straight. I liked them both.

That's the point I'm making here. If you want whimsy, go for it. If you don't, don't. That doesn't make one way right or wrong. It's much, much easier to add whimsy than try to pry it out once its there. Anagram names or whatnot are fine, if everyone at your table is groovy with them.

But, trying to claim it as the sort of "perfect" form of gaming that we've somehow strayed from seems a bit much.

After all, if whimsy was so great and everyone loved it and it makes for such better games, why did we move away from it? Is the "common wisdom" so delusional that we cannot tell if our games are more fun than they were before? Are we so stupid that we're incapable of realizing that it was better before?

And, how much before would you like to go? After all, there are loads of people that didn't grow up on Greyhawk, but on Forgotten Realms. Or Dragonlance, which doesn't have a much shorter pedigree than Greyhawk. Empire of the Petal Throne isn't exactly dripping in anagrams and whimsy.

I think there's a bit of nostalgia glasses going on here. That there was some sort of better past that we've lost in an attempt to gain something of little value. Cheap shots about editions notwithstanding, I'll easily say that 4e can do whimsy with the best of them.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think there's a bit of nostalgia glasses going on here. That there was some sort of better past that we've lost in an attempt to gain something of little value.

OTOH, some people have rose-coloured glasses for the present, and mud-coloured glasses for the past.


RC

 

[JediSoth]

I don't know about putting chocolate chips in apple pie, but I sure do like chocolate chips in my oatmeal cookies.

I think a lot of the feelings of wrongness over certain playstyles comes directly from players having different ideas about what the game should be like from their DM; it's a communications breakdown. I, for one, would like to be told if a game is going to be gonzo-weird silly stuff or super-serious story telling where everything said at the table in IC unless it's clearly meant to be OOC (like when you're describing your combat actions).

If someone goes into a game expected beer & preztels dungeon-crawling Monty Python references and they get a War of the Roses political saga with romance and angst, there's going to be some WrongBadFun feelings wrought there, I think.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Back in the old Basic/1E days I remember there being plenty of room for serious play and silly stuff in the same campaign, heck often in the same session. Is the problem perhaps that folks these days are just way more intolerant of any game time being not exactly the way they want it at every possible moment?

If that's the case then it is no mystery why finding a good group is difficult for some players.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Back in the old Basic/1E days I remember there being plenty of room for serious play and silly stuff in the same campaign, heck often in the same session. Is the problem perhaps that folks these days are just way more intolerant of any game time being not exactly the way they want it at every possible moment?

If that's the case then it is no mystery why finding a good group is difficult for some players.

Agreed.