Did I discover the Left Wing and Right Wing of D&D gaming styles?

[Eosin the Red]

First, it is amazing where people are finding insults. I keep reading and looking for them but?

Second, I have another proposal for naming this syndrome – inclusionary vs exclusionary styles of gaming.

I am in the exclusionary camp – meaning that in my games there are X pre-defined races, classes, templates, monsters, and ½ breeds. Players may not choose to play anything outside of those boundaries but are free to exercise their choices within them. FREX: You may not play a monk or a gnome in my BIRTHRIGHT campaign. They just don’t exist. Why? Because the campaign is not set up to absorb their history.

My first and most beloved DM was an inclusionary type. His campaigns were rollicking fun with a capitol F. We had mystic ninja/assassins, wolf-men bounty hunters, Lenny the Squid a six armed crossbow king, and Teleth Andar knight of some renown.

Now, I would like to expand this a little bit. This is not just an RPG type of thing fantasy books contain the same issues. Some books are character driven; they pay much less attention to the lands, customs, and societies than your typical 6,000 page epics that are so popular right now. Other books derive the story from the setting; cultures and histories are elaborately detailed and all of the characters are shaped by the society that spawned them – neither style is inferior but all folks will not enjoy both.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Katana and trenchcoat are optional, of course.

No. Just... no.

I was totally with you up to this point, but katana and trenchcoat are NOT optional.

Especially when you voice the minotaur with your best Wesley Snipes as Blade impression.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

What makes you think that the societies I study and the societies I model in game lack these characteristics? But the fact that there is a vast level of complexity and contradiction, some consciously noticed, some not, in every society, does not mean that people live in societies that do not make sense to them; they might feel that their society is failing to be what they want it to -- but that does not mean that the social order does not make some kind of sense to them.

You seem to be dangerously close to the postmodernist position that we cannot make any meaningful generalizations about societies in other places and times. I think we can. Are those generalizations "the truth"? No. Are they complete? No. But I believe we can actually know enough to make educated guesses about the thought of people in societies other than our own.

I would suppose that that would depend on where you and I place the proof of meaningful. My overall point would be that I think it works better for positive proofs, I can demonstrate through Aquinas that this was thought, than negative ones, I cannot demonstrate through Aquinas that this would not have been thought.

I would argue that there are plenty of people for whom society does not make sense, indeed perhaps most people, the bridge between 'society is not what I want it to be' and 'I understand it and think it 'makes sense'' seems to me to be pretty tenuous. There's a world of argument underlying the term 'makes sense,' but regardless I think the application for it in terms of role-playing games is pretty simple.

Once you have entered the realm of the speculative, I think that the argument that 'I can make educated guesses about the thought of people in other societies' is a far cry from the argument that 'Monks don't make sense.'

I mean adventurers of their very nature have a great deal in common with the dissident and the outcaste at the very least they should be near insanely idiosyncratic and odd, particularly given the intrusion of the Fantastic, and for that we need look no further than Aragorn and Bilbo. So to me it makes little sense to make an educated guess as to the thought of a society and then apply it as a limitation to the very segment of society that will most logically, by the best knowing models of society, be delimited.

In the end the default assumption of adventuring is that one is not so much a customer in the marketplace of ideas as in its center, supplying it, or making do with homecreated resources. And if you assume that the adventuring world is a world in its own right then you have a world that's going to opperate by kitchen sink rules by its very nature.

IRL, I must admit that the Traditionalist viewpoint has always smacked to me of prejuidice and bullying. All too often a tool by which one may take pleasure from others rather than enjoying the pleasure they provide. And though that may be my own prejuidice, I would submit that it has some real merit.

And since, for me, the narrative matters more than the content it's far more important to me that the players are willing to run and jump and play around than it is that they do so in the perfect playground. And an emphasis on the running, jumping, and playing around should be kitchen sink.

Conan had plenty to play around with and brought some good games, but in the end it was built to make you play a version of REH's game. And you need a very specific sort of game dynamic to really make that pay off. I don't have that dynamic, and based on the joy brought by the players I have I wouldn't want it. I have it, we used it, and in the end the kitchen sink was just too necessary. We are a collection of book readers, not a collective effort. On the other hand, it might not have been so awesome a book had it not been so traditionalist.

I got aesthetic reasons for thinking the way I do as well. I think my distaste, for instance, stems from the fact that all too often DnD is a theatrical or cinematic game, inherently satirical or kitchen sink genres, run by people who love novels, which are the corruption of satires into bad history, but I can't complain too loudly since theatre, cinema, and satire profit SSSOOO much from the ideas that novels develop.

Overall, I don't think it matters one way or another as long as someone isn't going to be a jerk about someone else's well intentioned efforts as a means of preserving his or her overarching ones.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I should say, though, Fusangite, that I really do approve of the idea of the premise.

That is that you go in and present to your group a premise and see what they come up with, and that that is probably the best aspect of the traditionalist perspective that it can develop some frighteningly cool permises.

The difficulty is negotiating the ground between the premise proposed, the group dynamic, and the various implicit premises - everything from we're adventurers to there has to be loot - that may be present in the situation.

 

[ptolemy18]

Hello Turanil,

I basically agree with you -- I prefer more "tightly knit campaign worlds" -- but like Henry, I think that a certain amount of moderation is good.

I like very specific settings. But at the same time, I think that, no matter what the setting, it's important for the DM to try to be open to PCs' character ideas. In most campaigns I've seen, the PCs' characters are *always* sort of out of place in the world to some extent, even if they're not intentionally trying to play the weirdest characters possible. The point is, you want the campaign world to make sense and not just be a stupid jumble of silliness, but you also want the PCs to be happy. Nothing sets a bad start to a game more than "No, you can't play that! No, you can't play that either!" :/

On the other hand, I admit that a lot of it is a question of the personal tastes of the DM and the players. When my coworker asked if he could play a "half-machine" in my Ancient Egypt game, I felt it was too ridiculous so I had to deny him (partly 'cause they have some high level adjustment and it was a 1st-level game... I should've suggested he play a warforged!). And after that, he never did join the campaign. Oh well.

I can understand why the core D&D books are basically done in the style of "world cuisine"... they HAVE to stuff in as much weird stuff as possible, if only to give the DM and players the maximum possible options.

I also think that, particularly for beginning roleplayers, the "world cuisine" style is more fun and easy-to-get-into. It's only in the last few years that I've started getting into "historical" campaign settings and so on, but when I was running my Ancient Egypt game, I kind of felt that my historical research was actually intimidating one of the players. When that player dropped out of the game, one of the things he said in his e-mail was "I know you've put a lot of work into this setting, but"... :/

I think that very specific campaign settings can be VERY fun. They are, frankly, the true purpose of RPGs. It's just that, as DM, you have to hope that your players are having as much fun as you are.


Jason

 

[ptolemy18]

Here, I think, is the crux of the matter...

It's FUN, as a DM, to make up an interesting and distinct campaign world. It's a similar kind of creative activity to writing a story.

However, most players play RPGs for escapism, so most players don't like having to "learn" too much about a world to play in it, and they don't like to obey too many "role-playing rules" along with the rules of the game. Most RPG players role-play to some extent, but it's undeniably FUN playing characters who either:

(1) aren't role-played; don't really care about what's going on in the campaign world aside from XP and treasure, or
(2) are role-played, but are totally silly and bizarre, and exist in some sort of weird space all their own ("Hey! Mr. flute-playing bird-headed Hengeyokai Shaman! This is a European medieval monastery, quit messin' around...!")

Any RPG campaign has to involve compromises between the DM and the players. Inevitably, certain aspects of the campaign world are going to be compromised by the players' choices. This doesn't mean that the DM should just give up and run a "world salad" game, but it does mean that the DM will have to adjust the campaign a bit to fit whatever weird characters the players come up with. The DM shouldn't have to accept things that'll TOTALLY wreck their game, but it's the player's right to contribute at least a small amount to the DM's world.

Jason

 

[ptolemy18]

...run by people who love novels, which are the corruption of satires into bad history, but I can't complain too loudly since theatre, cinema, and satire profit SSSOOO much from the ideas that novels develop.

Not to mention RPGs.

Jason

 

[eyebeams]

The first post was certainly badly weighted. I'll chime in about the flaws in self-consciously "consistent" campaign settings:

1) Many of these settings have a stereotyped view of the history (or traditional stories) they model or draw inspiration from. Here are some examples:

*Contemporary racism was extremely rare in precolonial times. Bigotry was based on national and religious lines instead of physiology -- the idea that inherited ethnic traits were the basis for discrimination was almost alien. People of colour travelled throughout Europe and Europeans travelled throughout Africa. But most games use contemporary racism as the model for species conflict in D&D.

*More democratic alternatives to feudalism were known and attempted in multiple instances and in many cases nobles were elected by proxy or even directly. But most games only give feudalism and despotism a place in the campaign.

*Europe and China have had self-conscious, vigorous trade since Roman times. But most games treat an Asia analogue as being separated and mysterious.

*Mordred as the son of Arthur is a later invention. Previously, he was a rival lord from the Orkneys. Also, Guinevere used to be a villain. But most games use the later tales of Arthur.

2) Setting-conscious games fail to deal with the existence of magic and the supernatural, or even the heroic bias of the rules. To wit:

* If studying a fighting method in a contemplative environment gave people supernatural powers, there would probably be monks.

* Flight and the ability to deliver devastating ranged attacks (like spells) rationalize dungeons quite well. Afghanistan and Iraq have plenty of such complexes.

* In a world where a strong warrior can defeat dozens of enemies, combat between champions takes on a greater role.

* In a world where teleportation and plane travel exist, societies become more cosmopolitan.

* In a world where magic items can be manufactured, an economic system arises to take advantage of buying and selling them -- magic shops, in other words.

Instead, many "realistic" settings are self-consciouly ignoring the variety that real history, historical myth and the supernatural offers.

 

[Turanil]

I think that very specific campaign settings can be VERY fun. They are, frankly, the true purpose of RPGs. It's just that, as DM, you have to hope that your players are having as much fun as you are.

That is indeed a good point. In order to please everyone around the table you are going to have to include many ideas that probably have nothing to do together and finally make a World Cuisine. Those who are here simply for the fun of bashing stuff* but don't care for setting are happy. But if you like a specific ambiance, this is probably lost.

Also: a silly world of World Cuisine could be playable (not too many game sessions for me though) if it is clear from the beginning that it is a funny mish-mash of everything intended to be comical. I did once began to create such a world clearly inspired by Jack Vances' novels: Cugel and Riahlto the Marvellous. It had only mimics, beholders, giant insects, and like creatures, weird magic, and intent for hilarious effects (just my players didn't like Jack Vances' novel so we didn't play it). But here also, the world had its own consistency.

(*: Don't get me wrong: I do like bashing stuff, and I want my character gets level quickly. Nonetheless, I personnally like it with an ambiance, a consistent world, be it Medieval Europe or Futuristic Cyberpunk.)

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

That is indeed a good point. In order to please everyone around the table you are going to have to include many ideas that probably have nothing to do together and finally make a World Cuisine. Those who are here simply for the fun of bashing stuff but don't care for setting are happy. But if you like a specific ambiance, this is probably lost.

But that depends on what ambiance you're going for, and what process you use to create your campaign world.

If you design every last nook and cranny before the first game session, and don't bother to put in a logical explanation for, say, the ranger class, then either fans of that class will be disappointed or you will be.

If, on the other hand, you leave areas and details of your world open, you can probably find a logical reason to have rangers there after the player comes to you and asks to play one. They're the border force of a little-known kingdom in the mist-choked west, a secret order of rebels operating in the woods, or just fighters who spend a lot of time in the woods.

You can do this with more stark differences, too: where did that minotaur PC come from? He's a reaver come ashore from the minotaur pirate bands that plague the eastern seaboard. He's an exiled prince from the minotaur empire across the great passes to the north. He's a freak of nature, shunned by ordinary folk, who seeks acceptance through heroism. He's a test subject, victim of science or magic run amok.

About the only way I can't see this working is when a player's character concept clashes with a mechanical limitation (no-ECL races, no PrCs, no spellcasters) or the overall level of fantasy (no non-human races).