D&D - Thinking outside of the box

[Dr Simon]

There's sort of two issues in one here:

1) Sticking to the D&D tropes when creating a game world. Good - everyone knows what to expect, and dwarves always make a game fun. Bad - when there is *always* a range of mountains where the dwarves come from and *always* a forest full of elves, etc.

2) Unimaginative GMing/playing, usually where GMs do their utmost to veto the more creative ideas by their players. Good - sometimes players come up with the most stupid stuff! Bad - well, reducing everything to a fight to the death gets dull.

Both are issues where imagination isn't used as well as it could be. Point One, I think, is less of a problem since setting is entirely a matter of taste. Point Two, germane to the original paladin/succubus situation, can be more problematic.

 

[Kapture]

A few weeks ago in my game, the PCs were trying to locate a missing villager who had wandered into a fey forest. When they found her, she was a centaur. The story was that she had been torn in half, and her legs had been eaten by the fey, but one fey felt sorry for her, and so used magic to attach what was left to a horse and bring her back to life.

Then one player asked, "Can she teach me how she did that?"

I pondered for a moment, then said, "Sure."


Flash forward a month. The party tried to bring back the pet dog of one of the PCs by fusing it with a summoned creature (a lemure! brilliant idea!), creating a demon dog vaguely similar to the blood fox from Sagiro's campaign. One PC has died, and the party brought him back by fusing some dragon bits with him. They're 4th level. Sure, there have been some unforeseen side effects, but that's part of the fun.

This will be a fun campaign.

So. Cool.

What mechanics do you use? Do you just kludge it up?

 

[jdrakeh]

Well, let's not be narrowminded ourselves

By "realizing" I meant "adventuring in imaginary worlds" -- can you honestly tell me with a straight face that this isn't a defining feature of most RPGs? At any rate, limiting the definition of a very broad genre to one set of very narrow tropes is sad and unfortunate no matter why one actually sits down at the table.

 

[Umbran]

By "realizing" I meant "adventuring in imaginary worlds" -- can you honestly tell me with a straight face that this isn't a defining feature of most RPGs?

My point being that we can point to as many defining features as we like, they won't change why folks play the game. And some modes of play really don't care too much about exactly which fictional tropes are available. They may be willing to give up some of the fully available tropes in exchange for other things. An who are we to say that's wrong?

At any rate, limiting the definition of a very broad genre to one set of very narrow tropes is sad and unfortunate no matter why one actually sits down at the table.

The trick is to keep an open mind, but not so open as to allow the brain to fall out on the floor. A game that allows literally anything that sounds good at the time would probably not interest me, as the result would lack cohesion.

What do we gain in passing judgement on how narrowly defined a game someone else wants to play?

 

[jdrakeh]

And some modes of play really don't care too much about exactly which fictional tropes are available.

I'm talking about a very specific thread where a great many people very specifically said that any non-Eurpoean, non-medieval, fantasy isn't fantasy at all. Not that they prefer playing in such setting, but that their own, personal, definition trumps the common literary definition and that anybody who indugles in non-European fantasy is some sadly misguided idiot who doesn't understand real fantasy.

You're building a strawman, talking about play styles and then tryign to attribute yoru remarks to me. I'm not talking about play styles. I'm not talkign about hypothetical "what if" situations. I'm taking about genres, literary standards in place for the better part of a century, and the need that some people have to define those standards to exclude things that they don't personally like.

They may be willing to give up some of the fully available tropes in exchange for other things. An who are we to say that's wrong?

Again, I'm talking, not about people making trade-offs in actual play to satsify a certain play style, but people who staunchly refused to recognize anything outside of European-derived fantasy as fantasy in any context (novels and film, as well as RPGs). I'm not saying, nor have I said, that people who play games a certain way are "wrong" -- I'm not talkign about actual play. You are.

A game that allows literally anything that sounds good at the time would probably not interest me, as the result would lack cohesion.

And again -- I'm talking about genre classification and very specific statements that were made in regard to such, that had nothing to do with play styles, but with specifically limiting the definition of a well-established literary genre to include only "what I like" (as opposed to what it actually encompasses, per literary standards). I'm not saying "anything goes" is fantasy, nor have I said this -- that's more of your straw.

What I'm saying is that the long-standing literary genre known as "Fantasy" doesn't limit itself only to medieval European settings. If it did, The Dying Earth (a game that D&D draws influence from) wouldn't be Fantasy (it showcases computers, among other things). Nor would Odysseus. Or The Chronicles of Narnia. Or thousands of other things recognized widely as being Fantasy.

What do we gain in passing judgement on how narrowly defined a game someone else wants to play?

AGAIN. I'm not talking about play styles. I'm talking about genre. And genre classifications. As they've existed for the better part of a century. Not play styles. Not in-game goals. None of that.

Me: "I'm dismayed that many people choose to redefine the genre Fantasy to include only medieval European fantasy, because that's all that they have an interest in".

You: "You're attacking how other people play D&D and you're sayign that Fanatsy incluses everything!"

I bow to your obviously superior scarecrow stuffing skills and mastery of circular logic. Now, if you want to actually address what I've been posting about, I'd be happy to discuss it via email.

[Edit: I just realized that you're a mod, so I guess you're not going on my ignroe list. But please, by all means, feel free to add me to yours.]

 

[Dykstrav]

I have to say I'm kinda disappointed with alot of players viewing D&D as a blend of Tolkien and generic European fairy-tale fantasy. The directions that the game can take are only limited by how far players want to push the boundaries. But instead of viewing the generic D&D world incumbent in the core rulebooks as a starting point, it's often viewed as a set of strictures.

One of the things that has always stuck in my craw has been the Tolkienesque races. I originally didn't have elves at all in my ancient-world setting, I had dwarves living in volcanos who were forgemasters in the Hephaestian vein. But the players that weren't happy only playing elves and halflings in Greyhawk kept bitching and moaning about it that I put in an elf race modeled after nymphs and dryads. I stuck by my guns on halflings, I won't let them in until someone gives me a firm classic mythology basis for it.

Still, I hear about how this particular game isn't D&D because there aren't elves living in places like Lothlorien and dwarves with Scandanavian helms and battleaxes. These particular players usually get red-faced as they wax poetic about how I need to play in Burt's game from 1983 to see how dwarves are really done.

Screw all that. D&D is supposed to be a set of rules supplemented with options. It's not supposed to be some checklist of what's fantasy and what's not.

 

[helium3]

The issue is that D&D is its own genre

This is . . . errr . . . cow poop? Fantasy is a genre. Greyhawk is a particular universe within a genre. It'd be like saying that science-fiction literature can only be set in the Dune universe

The issue is that Greyhawk is (from what I can tell) the original work that helped generate the "genre" that is fantastic/dice-based/role-playing-games. So, the work tends to get conflated with the "genre." That doesn't mean that said conflation is right. To say that f/d/r can only be gygaxian fantasy is like saying that science fiction can only be Jules Verne.

If D&D must equal Greyhawk then I guess I play d20 fantasy and I should stop reading this message board.

But whatver, it's all subjective anyway.

 

[Odhanan]

All this to me seems to be rather close-minded. Why not expand your ideas about what is possible and what not in gaming, instead of fretting about what is "true" to any supposed "core ethos" of D&D?

Indeed, why not. I agree with you, Jurgen. Thinking in terms of the "one true way" is a bummer. Sure, playing core only can be appealing some times, but I wouldn't like it to be all the time. Having stimulating ideas and thinking "outside the box" is part of the appeal of RPGs IMO.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

I think I may have offended some people with the way I wrote my initial post, and in retrospect, I could have worded this better. To those who I offended, I apologize - it was late and I was tired when I wrote this.

I guess my point is ultimately this: There is a whole world of gaming outside of the "standard" D&D worlds of Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, and so on, and it is worth taking a look at it even if you continue to play "standard" D&D. Because then, you will have made an informed choice about what kinds of settings and play styles you prefer, instead of simply not knowing about the alternatives.

And reading other, non-d20 games helps you look at your D&D campaigns in new way and come up with fresh, new adventure and campaign ideas. Most D&D books are written very well, but most of them come from similar perspectives since they need to work within the D&D framework - but non-d20 games can come from completely different perspectives, and those perspectives can be very interesting and illuminating indeed.

Some of my best Forgotten Realms adventures were inspired by Delta Green: Countdown, a sourcebook for modern conspiracy horror set in the universe of the Cthulhu Mythos. And speaking of horror, GURPS Horror is probably the best gaming treatment of horror out there - not for its stats and rules, of which there are quite few, but of its through analysis of what has scared humans throughout the ages, and how to use that in campaigns. In fact, the whole GURPS line is a neverending source of inspiration and High Weirdness that's deeply plunderable for almost any campaign - and its Transhuman Space setting has allowed me to write the essay "Elves: A Case Study of Transhumanism in Fantasy Worlds", which takes a look at the ordinary D&D "sylvan races" through a very warped lens indeed. Then there is the Exalted RPG which for the first time made me understand what high-powered play should be all about - much more so than the Epic Level Handbook or the 9th level spells in the Core Rules.


That's what I was trying to get at: Only by gaining new perspectives on role-playing is it possible to bring your gaming to the next level.

Pun intended.

 

[Elk_Weaver]

I grew up on Forgotten Realms

Well, all Hiss fit's asside, I would like to say I played the game when It was just about going deep into the depths of the earth, killing everything and then finding out a way to drag all the treasure back and spend it. Then forgotten realms came out and opened my eye's to all kinds od possibilities that we were not exploring. Now Forgotten Realms has run it's course. 90% percent of my GMing is out of Forgotten Realms so it is comfortable to me, so I would find it hard to pull away from it. However, I am not be apposed to being a player in some bizzare new world. The biggest problem I think you are running into is you are associating the common style of D&D as not being at the same calibure of play as these other worlds. Sounds to me like your fighting your own boredom MR. Hubert.