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

[ptolemy18]

(a bunch of interesting stuff)

This is definitely one of the most high-level D&D conversations I've ever read...

I'm certainly misunderstanding or oversimplifying someone's position, but.... In my opinion, RPGs are an attempt to create a sort of escapist simulation of reality, and I don't think that any particular area should be "off limits"... nor is any particular subject necessarily foolhardy to tackle. (I'd say that intensely personal or graphic material might be a mistake, but then again, RPGs share something in common with psychological "encounter groups", and even the most confrontational subject matter is probably acceptable to *some* groups, so long as it's agreed upon by the DM and the players. On that note, I wonder if anyone really *did* buy the BOOK OF EROTIC FANTASY... :/)

There's nothing wrong with someone trying to run a simulation RPG set in the "real world", any more than someone writing a book or filming a movie set in the "real world." The same applies to attempts to capture a particular historical period, time or place... with the caveats, of course, that the farther you step outside your personal experience, the more likely you are to make glaring mistakes. Any depictions of an alien culture, a different time and place, are invariably tainted by one's personal experiences and biases. But again, the only expectations a DM has to meet is the expectations of the players (unless they publish their adventure, in which case other DMs will get to take shots at it). If your gaming group is satisfied, you've "succeeded" in the most fundamental way a RPG can succeed, whether you're trying to describe 10th century Byzantium or the alley on the other side of town. Or an alley in 10th century Byzantium infested with neo-otyughs. :/

Of course, in the case of a fantasy game like D&D, the addition of fantastic elements inevitably turns the "real-world simulation" elements into mere set-dressing for the fantasy. But all science fiction and fantasy relies on a mixture of recognizable real-world elements and genre stereotypes. Adding a certain amount of real-world elements keeps things from getting boring and generic, keeps every spaceship from looking like every other "Oh, it's just a spaceship" spaceship.

Genre fiction keeps itself fresh by cannibalizing from the real world. Some genre fiction is merely more of a real-world simulation and others is more openly fantastic. It's the same way with RPGs. Neither way is perfect, IMHO.

Jason

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I am a "World Cuisine" gamer in that I embrace the weird, with all limbs/appendages/tentacles/pseudopoda at my disposal, but I also like consistent worlds.

For instance, I was designing a campaign city with a political structure based around the Late Republican period in Rome, set on a recently-colonised archipelago, featuring a mixture of D&D and Arcana Unearthed character classes, but from which I excluded all of the feudal knightly trappings of D&D including the paladin class.

(Obviously paladins can be done without the feudal knight-in-shining-armour flavour, but I preferred champions anyway.)

The current campaign idea running around in my head like a frightened rabbit on speed is a gothic-tinged undead-fighting campaign lightly seasoned with pulp, in which I'd be perfectly willing to include weird character concepts like the Green Star Adept (which would actually fit very well in with the tone I envisage).

I like choices - but I also like strong themes. One of the failings of the "historical" D&D campaign settings when it comes to appealing to me is that their themes are thin and their flavour is dull. I always liked Planescape better than Greyhawk.

 

[GrumpyOldMan]

How come nobody ever claims that the British have the best food?

We're just naturally modest.

GOM

 

[Belen]

In theory, that's how it should be.

It seems that most games end up with the GM saying he's running something and then the players all stat up something that they want to play without even asking (or having the GM provide) a context of how that PC may or may not work.

Hell, most players don't even talk to each other to figure out the PCs will work as a team. No one communicates and each work as they are in a vacum.

This may actually be the type of "World Cusine" mentioned in the first post, which is actually the chaos caused when everyone is just thinking of themselves instead of trying to work with each other to make sure everyone will have a good time.

Well, the easy way to solve this issue is to have the first session be character creation session. I started doing this with my last game. It works far better when you have everyone create characters in a group fashion, helps bring the party together before the first session, and allows the GM to promote PC consistency.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I like fusangites division of cosmopolitan vs cultural, and barsoomcores consistency/incoherence as a background for this dicussion.

Personally I've never liked the world cuisine type of setting, which I'd probably categorise Greyhawk and FR as (although I'm by no means expert on those settings). Certainly the PHB and DMG expect and support a very cosmopolitan setting (species proportions in conurbations, thorough mixing of racial types, free access to all classes everywhere).

I greatly prefer to run and play in campaigns where there is geographic disparities in appearance, clothing, culture. I used to love playing a Bushido campaign which was set entirely in feudal Japan. My current campaign is actually set up so that certain classes are associated almost exclusively with certain nations; PC's of a certain class will by necessity have a certain national background and stereotyped characteristics. That isn't the way that I'd do all campaigns, but it is the way that this particular one is set up - a world which doesn't deliberately owe anything to any particular historical or fantasy setting; although it draws inspiration from all kind of things it is designed to stand on its own.

The campaign that I play in at the moment is set in Erth, a fantasy where geography and culture loosely parallels our own. In this case I asked if I could play a monk and the answer was "sure, he'll come from Xinghua, he must have arrived in central europe via the spice trade routes. Give me a bit of backstory on why he's here instead of back home" and off we went. I liked that better than if the DM had said "sure, theres a Shaolin monastry in thrace, you came from there".

One of the things that I really like about the Eberron setting is that "everything has a place". This seems quite distinct to me from "everthing is anywhere" which is the extreme of World Cuisine as lampooned by Turanil in the initial post.

I find it interesting how many people on this thread prefer/are completely happy with World Cuisine - it is more than I would have guessed, and it suggests that WotC market research is working

And despite the above - if I had a choice of a world cuisine game or no game at all, I'd clutch to the world cuisine like a drowning man to his lifebelt

Cheers

 

[Seeten]

This is a great discussion. Kudos to Fusangite and Dr. Strangemonkey for the high level socio-political breakdown on what may or may not be possible as far as cultural typing.

My own point of view: When I am creating PC's, which I do exclusively, as I am far more interested in the POV of the single individual responding to the world around him/her than I am with how the world lives and breathes, I am very interested in a living breathing culture to consider when making my PC's, the less real world analogous it is, the better, really, but I want to know the stereotypical thoughts and views on a variety of subjects, and the typical viewpoints, so I can both differentiate, and be typical, in a variety of ways, while staying mostly within the particular societies norms. Creating an interesting character from FR is difficult not because the societies arent already understood, but mostly because they arent terrifically different from the real world, and mostly, they arent particularly well thought out, in their ideology, beyond "This is our Arabian Nights Schtick Zone".

I love when a DM says, "I want to run a 7th Sea campaign, I'd like the PC's to be treasure hunters/Tomb Raiders, from any Country, but they should all be in the explorer's society, or on retainer to someone who is" Its a frame of reference to work from, and yet, nearly infinite variety is still available. It limits options, in some ways, but it makes the frame of reference more fulfilling if everyone works together, then a Witch, Swordsmen and a Scholar, with no rhyme or reason for existing, who meet in a bar, where I want to say, "Well, I dont go over to meet them, they look like lamers, I leave and dont return."

That said, I see nothing wrong with people liking the other style. I'd rather collaborate, and collaborate on being inside the world, a breathing, living character, from the world, with little touches from their society who is more than just a stereotype.

This is not to say I am a highbrow roleplayer, by any stretch, nor that those who dont go to these lengths are to be ridiculed, but I agree with Fusangite that this is the sort of thing to strive for in a game, for the characters to "work" within their unique frames of reference, and together.

And you guys rock for inspiring me to write this as well. Normally, I lurk and make fun of peoples foolish arguments on message boards. I'm inspired to contribute to a meaningful discussion. Heh.

 

[barsoomcore]

he is a Spanish though raided in Mexico

He raided in Mexico? Wow, you play with a Spanish pirate!!!? Your group is cooler than my group.

Oh, wait, I play with stewardesses.

Pirates vs. Stewardesses. Hm. Talk about potential...

 

[Remathilis]

He raided in Mexico? Wow, you play with a Spanish pirate!!!? Your group is cooler than my group.

Oh, wait, I play with stewardesses.

Pirates vs. Stewardesses. Hm. Talk about potential...

You think too small... PIRATE STEWARDESSES! The raiders of the skie who also bring you coffee.

My kinda woman...

 

[Seeten]

Coffee and Salsa.

 

[D+1]

-- Conan d20
-- Black Company d20
-- Dragonlance
-- Nyambe

Never even looked at, much less run any of those, but...

-- Anything that tries to reflect with some consistent degree of accuracy a European (or Arthurian, or Oriental, or Antique, etc.) medieval setting. In this case, ahem: no magic shop, no out-of-place class, no riddles on the magic gate, etc., etc.

Don't know anything at all about Black Company, but I know a few things about the others. Nyambe may be an "historically accurate" setting but IIRC it mixes a lot of time/space so that African cultures from different periods of history and which never had meaningful contact with each other IRL are thrown together. Conan, as has been mentioned, freely mixes VERY diverse cultures that are, historically speaking, unmixable. Dragonlance is no different. Few fantasy settings ARE any different because they generally are FANTASY.

In which camp do you reside. Tell us why your game style is the good one, and why the other side doesn't understand anything to the game.

Well it should be reiterated that the two camps are NOT as polarized as you say. It's my experience that people who DO run a "traditionalist" campaign, as you call it, very often participate in one or more additional campaigns that are not "traditionalist". My guess would be that this is because D&D always has unthinkingly promoted your so-called "World Cuisine" style and the much more rigid "traditionalist" game is a fun, though uncommon game, and people still want an outlet to be in a more "anything goes" type of setting.

In America the more appropriate descriptive term would be "kitchen sink", as in: "These type of settings often include everything but the kitchen sink." Naturally, this is just the kind of campaign that I tend to run (and participate in since the highly inaptly-named "traditionalist" game is FAR from the traditional, or typical campaign.) It can get too junky though. In previous games I've actually TRIED to include everything under the sun and it never gets used in the game making most of it a waste of time TRYING to ensure that it's there. What I do always try to make room for are traditional European mounted knights; crypto-Oriental monasterial fighting monks; appearance of anachronistic technology, artifacts and relics; and a little gunpowder. Cultures tend to be a mix of Norse, Medieval Europe, Middle East, ancient greco-roman, and lesser amounts of Polynesian and Oriental (no African, South American, or SE Asian).

Is the kitchen sink style the good one? Well, it's not a matter of it being good/bad or being inherently superior to the other style. The two, as I said, are not arch-rival "styles" of gaming. They are not the left wing/right wing of gaming. That designation would FAR more appropriately go to "role vs. roll". For general purposes the kitchen sink style is obviously more adaptable to desires and requirements of DM and players. But more and more options is not always the most desireable setting. Sometimes just having a tight, efficient, limited set of options - the sort of thing most often seen in this so-called "traditional" game - is what you want and need. But playing such a game doesn't mean that you don't like and won't play a "kitchen sink" game as well.