An Examination of Differences between Editions

[shilsen]

One could depict St. Stephen as a 1956 Chrysler 300 impaled with road signs, but that is most definitely not how the scene is "supposed" to look - it takes the genre conventions in a different direction entirely. The artists referenced above respected the genre conventions while exercising their creativity within those boundaries.

Perhaps, but I think you're underestimating exactly how flexible, porous and nebulous genre conventions can be, and how constantly they get reinterpreted and reworked. And some of the best work can be done by pushing genre conventions or sometimes even standing them on their head. To use an example closer to my own expertise/taste, Kyd's "The Spanish Tragedy", Marlowe's "Dr. Faustus", Shakespeare's "Hamlet" and Webster's "The Duchess of Malfi" are all working within the conventions of Renaissance tragedy, but each of them adds to, stretches, and reworks those conventions to a significant degree.

Plus, where this issue (what DMs and players do in a D&D game) is concerned, appropriate genre conventions don't really exist in some clear and objective sense that everyone agrees about, but needs to be worked out by the individual group. Heck, the very nature of D&D messes with genre conventions from a lot of fantasy literature. It's not exactly a common fantasy genre convention for someone to jump off a cliff and walk away, for someone to be killed and raised from the dead on a regular basis, for a halfling to kill a dragon with a weapon smaller than its toenail, and a myriad other things that are common in D&D.

In short, I figure genre conventions is so nebulous a term as to be almost useless in this form of discussion. YMMV, and apparently does.

What you're advocating ignores how the scene is "supposed" to look: "It's our doughty pirate band! And a robot."

You say that like that's a bad thing

 

[The Shaman]

Perhaps, but I think you're underestimating exactly how flexible, porous and nebulous genre conventions can be, and how constantly they get reinterpreted and reworked.

Except this isn't literary criticism we're talking about. Genre conventions are not nebulous in this context at all - they are the purview of the referee running the game.

Plus, where this issue (what DMs and players do in a D&D game) is concerned, appropriate genre conventions don't really exist in some clear and objective sense that everyone agrees about, but needs to be worked out by the individual group.

Sure they do - the players accept the genre conventions when they agree to play the game the referee is offering to run. There may be some negotiation back in forth, but ultimately the referee has the final thumbs-up-or-down on what's in and what's out, and the players can choose to accept that or find another game in which to take part.

Heck, the very nature of D&D messes with genre conventions from a lot of fantasy literature. It's not exactly a common fantasy genre convention for someone to jump off a cliff and walk away, for someone to be killed and raised from the dead on a regular basis, for a halfling to kill a dragon with a weapon smaller than its toenail, and a myriad other things that are common in D&D.

Those are all genre conventions specific to D&D - as others have suggested, and I agree, by-the-book Dungeons and Dragons is its own genre. Attempting to emulate other literary fantasy often means changing the genre conventions of D&D.

You say that like that's a bad thing

I'm guessing it's silly to some, awesome to others - I don't have a strong opinion one way or another.

I've thought about a Classical Greek steampunk setting a few times, and I would have no problem with clockwork automata in that game. On the other hand, a warforged-like character would've been totally out of place in my 3.0 game.

 

[I'm A Banana]

One could depict St. Stephen as a 1956 Chrysler 300 impaled with road signs, but that is most definitely not how the scene is "supposed" to look - it takes the genre conventions in a different direction entirely. The artists referenced above respected the genre conventions while exercising their creativity within those boundaries.

What you're advocating ignores how the scene is "supposed" to look: "It's our doughty pirate band! And a robot."

No, in the part that you quoted I was specifically mentioning how players could play along with how the game is "supposed" to look, catering to a DM who limits the selection, without limiting their creativity. And you showed how that can happen: just as renaissance artists didn't limit themselves to the subject matter to give them voice, players can "look the part" while saying something unique about it, still. Renaissance artists commented on modern events by how they depicted the past, D&D players can still make players that are new twists on "doughty pirate" while looking the part of a "doughty pirate."

I'm not advocating anything, really. I'm just describing what happens in different games. Because in some games, the players are bored of playing "doughty pirates," or have no real interest in playing "doughty pirates," despite what the DM may want. Which is what a player wanting a warforged ninja may be saying: Renaissance art bores me, here's something new! And the creativity of that player is still working within the "doughty pirate" setting, giving a believable story given the constraints of the world. That's still creative, it's not a "flight of fancy," it's just applied in a different direction, pushing the bounds of what a setting can contain into new and interesting directions.

A DM who is creative might take that boundary-pushing and run with it, developing his world under the constraints the player has given, just as artists could create their commentary under the constraints society had given. "Okay, here's a character with elements of a a classic story, let's creatively challenge them."

Dismissing a warforged ninja in a doughty pirate setting is dismissing some creativity. The DM is telling them: "It can't work in a way that will satisfy me." That's not a failure of creativity on the player's part (trying to make a warforged ninja work in a doughty pirate setting is certainly a very creative exercise), but it might be on the DM's part.

Which is fine. DM's don't have to be very creative to be entertaining, and neither do players have to be very creative to be entertained. A lot of creativity can be fun, but it can also fall flat -- there's only so many times you can be a warforged ninja in a doughty pirate game before it becomes the same path re-treaded. People don't usually mind mild limitations on what they can do, because those limitations, while dismissing certain types of creativity, can never silence it entirely and can even give new ideas for it.

 

[The Shaman]

Dismissing a warforged ninja in a doughty pirate setting is dismissing some creativity. The DM is telling them: "It can't work in a way that will satisfy me." That's not a failure of creativity on the player's part (trying to make a warforged ninja work in a doughty pirate setting is certainly a very creative exercise), but it might be on the DM's part.

Here's where our premises diverge: you keep referring to this as a lack of creativity on the part of the dungeon master, whereas I simply see it as a matter of taste.

My tastes run toward low fantasy, swords and sorcery, so if I'm running a game set in Sanctuary and a player presents me with some Mercedes Lackey knock-off character appropriate for Blue Rose, I'm gonna take exception. It's not a lack of creativity on my part so much as the game the rest of us are sitting down to play isn't romantic fantasy, so your talking fox friend needs to take a hike or have the hounds set on his furry ass.

 

[Celebrim]

That was in reference to keeping track of a 1,000 NPCs at a time. If you are statting up more NPCs than you can reasonably expect to use in a year, then you are probably doing too much prep. Heck, if you are statting up lots of NPCs you don't expect to use in the next four or five sessions, you are probably doing too much prep.

I don't think you are following me. The DM in question had a totally different style than mine, leaning toward almost pure extemporaneous. The 1000 NPC's in his folder where the ones we'd RPed with enough over the course of the campaign that the NPC had needed a name. The 1000 NPC's grew organically, and his fastidious book keeping was his way of dealing with freeform gaming while still maintaining continuity, plot lines, etc.

So, you are prepping, generally, three brand new NPCs with stat work ups per hour of expected gaming? That just seems excessive. That seems to me like you are engaging in a lot of wasted effort.

I can tell that there is simply not going to be any consensus with this on you. In my experience, any good preplanned scenario requires some significant wasted effort because otherwise you run the risk of railroading. You figure that at least part of the map will never be visted, some side quests will never be attempted, some NPC's will never really connect with the players or even be met, and so forth. But, it is I think important to understand the whole if you are to understand the peices.

But that doesn't change with the system now, does it? If all you are doing is coming up with a sentence or two of description, it doesn't matter if you are playing using the rules for 3e D&D, OD&D, GURPS, or Yatzee.

In earlier editions of D&D, the mechanical issues of a character could be dispensed with in a single parenthetical note and still be a reasonably complete note. You are correct to assert that you can still have the single parenthetical note and cover just about anything likely to come up, but you can't be nearly as complete. And in GURPS for example, I became disatisfied with the system for precisely this reason - NPC design to any standard was too time consuming.

What he really needs to come alive in the setting is a nervous habit of rubbing his eyes and an overly talkative nature.

On that I agree.

My rule of thumb is "don't plan out more than you have to". Because it gives you the flexibility to fill in stuff as you need it. If Joey or Bob become more important later, they can be filled in. I don't usually stat out my big bad evil guys until the PCs are going to confront him - because they usually have only a vague idea what he can do up to then anyway, and until then it gives me the ability to throw stuff in if I think it would be interesting. Just like Burlew doesn't tie himself to particular stats in OotS, until an NPC actually shows up "on stage" I don't tie myself to a particular NPC design.

I've had experiences with DMs that do this that have led something of a bad taste in my mouth, because when you leave something blank the temptation is to conform the thing to fit the circumstance, and in particular, to conform it to make a particular challenge. The temptation is there for the DM to metagame, and in my experience even good DMs that lean to heavily on extemporaneous creation tend to do this even unknowingly. For example, the DC of opening a lock inflates to conform to how much emphasis a character has placed in being good at opening locks, leaving him with no net advantage over having not been good at opening locks. Or NPC's mysteriously acquire levels and defences appropriate to facing or defending himself from a particular PC, or whatever. I'm not saying that a good DM can't govern himself, I'm just saying that based on my experiences as a player, I'd rather have a DM that leaned more my direction that didn't - and my guiding rule as a DM is to be the sort of DM I'd want as a player. And, in my experience, I do a better job over preparing than under preparing. YMMV depending on your particular strengths as a DM.

 

[Reynard]

Here's where our premises diverge: you keep referring to this as a lack of creativity on the part of the dungeon master, whereas I simply see it as a matter of taste.

I sgree. There's no issue of creativity here, jst preferences and playstyles. Thinking that you're more creative than the GM because you can instantly think of -- and request -- a character concept that runs entirely contrary to what the GM just sat down and explained the campaign was supposed to be about isn't creativity: it is being a pain in the ass.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Here's where our premises diverge: you keep referring to this as a lack of creativity on the part of the dungeon master, whereas I simply see it as a matter of taste.

Creative DMs and creative settings can co-opt almost anything for their own purposes. You brought in Renaissance artists working under the strictures of the attitudes and desires of the time, and told how they can creatively turn the familiar into something new. Just as the Renaissance artists co-opted biblical scenes to say something perhaps about society or human nature, a very creative DM can co-opt warforged ninjas to live a life of sea shanties, courtly repartee, and swashbuckling adventure.

Look at Planescape. The setting was about philosophical meaning and political and mental power, and it co-opted everything from the Seelie Court to 1980's ecology to Ramones lyrics to Eastern mysticism to Vikings and made them all serve that purpose above all.

You're right in that it's something a matter of taste. I'm sure Renaissance audiences didn't always appreciate modern commentary and I know not everyone likes the idea of fiends running store fronts from Planescape. Not everyone likes the idea of mostly divorcing something from its origins in order to use it in a new way, and people can get hung up on odd specifics of mental imagery.

But saying "no" is never very creative. No matter how many times someone says "no," you can still *be* creative, but saying "No, that can't be," is exactly the counter-force to creativity. It says you cannot create, what you imagine cannot be, your ideas cannot be realized. So a setting that is narrowly focused on, say, a low fantasy feel, with a lot of specifics about what creates that feel will, by necessity, be of limited creativity. It will be saying "no" a lot.

That's not to say that creativity is impossible or that it's a bad setting or that it's badwrongfun that no one would enjoy or anything. I've certainly run creatively limited campaigns like that before, because I had a very specific vision of what I was looking for. But it wasn't a campaign that enabled a lot of creativity. It was limited. It was fun and dramatic and passionate and even innovative (the one I was most limited on was a post-apocalyptic setting where I invented some d20 tech rules), but it wasn't very creative as a setting, because it rejected a lot of possibilities.

So if your tastes tend to be specifically defined and immutable, they're not necessarily very creative. They can be a lot of fun, I'm certainly not intending that as a negative judgment. Just a reality of the nature of the campaign. You can still invent new rules and have cool ideas and have compelling villains and rich, detailed histories and all sorts of goodness. But the setting, because it's limited, can't be very creative. It won't generate much as a setting.

My tastes run toward low fantasy, swords and sorcery, so if I'm running a game set in Sanctuary and a player presents me with some Mercedes Lackey knock-off character appropriate for Blue Rose, I'm gonna take exception. It's not a lack of creativity on my part so much as the game the rest of us are sitting down to play isn't romantic fantasy, so your talking fox friend needs to take a hike or have the hounds set on his furry ass.

It's a lack of creativity to assume that a talking fox set in a romantic mold is inherently harmful to a low fantasy, swords and sorcery archetype. It would be using creativity to find the myriad ways in which that does work. That wouldn't necessarily make the game any better, but it would be more creative. Creativity certainly isn't the holy grail of playing D&D, however.

 

[molonel]

It's a lack of creativity to assume that a talking fox set in a romantic mold is inherently harmful to a low fantasy, swords and sorcery archetype. It would be using creativity to find the myriad ways in which that does work. That wouldn't necessarily make the game any better, but it would be more creative. Creativity certainly isn't the holy grail of playing D&D, however.

If a player told me I was being uncreative because I didn't want a warforged ninja in my 7th Sea campaign, honestly, I'd shrug and say, "Oh well, I guess I'm uncreative. I readily concede the point."

Then I'd turn my baseball cap around, get my books, and say, "So! I guess that means I'm playing a warforged ninja in YOUR 7th Sea campaign. Let's go!"

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Thinking that you're more creative than the GM because you can instantly think of -- and request -- a character concept that runs entirely contrary to what the GM just sat down and explained the campaign was supposed to be about isn't creativity: it is being a pain in the ass.

QFT.

(IMO, there's not much "creative" about requesting a warforged ninja, in any case, regardless of campaign setting. No more so that requesting a human fighter.)

 

[DungeonMaester]

If a player told me I was being uncreative because I didn't want a warforged ninja in my 7th Sea campaign, honestly, I'd shrug and say, "Oh well, I guess I'm uncreative. I readily concede the point."

Then I'd turn my baseball cap around, get my books, and say, "So! I guess that means I'm playing a warforged ninja in YOUR 7th Sea campaign. Let's go!"

Truth.

Also..My sides hurt now..and every one in the coffee shop is looking at me like I took the 'Half Retard' template for suddenly bursting into laughter.

---Rusty