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

[Turanil]

Yes, we have monks - the Order of the Black Lotus, the oldest and deadliest assassin's guild in Shtar.

But that's a pretty consistent way to add the monk class in a medieval fantasy game (so lean toward "traditionalist" in my terminology; may be "consistent" would be a better term?). Shaolin monks are okay in an Asian game. What irritates me is when the monk is available in a setting along a paladin in shiny armor, just because it is available in the book. Or the explanation for their presence as "martial artists in monasteries" (so read Shaolin) is very poor.

 

[Belen]

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

Boiled bacon. 'Nuff said.

 

[Aaron L]

Having unarmed monks alongside armored paladins does not mean a setting is inconsistent.

 

[Sir ThornCrest]

Being a "conservative" gamer I still have an imagination

If the world cuisine style is "good" why then naturally the "other" must be representing the opposite side of the bell curve; bad. However the "other" isnt really defined to give a good comparison, after all a full page was dedicated to one side;the world cuisine side. While a mere paragraph if that for the other. You should in shorter summary, better define your thoughts, creating a clear distinction on the contrast of gaming styles, and respond. In short "YOU FAILED YOUR DIPLOMACY CK!!!"

Now in answer to what I believe your question is, yes. I have found that most DM's , players and whole gaming groups that I have met, mix it up a little. They try to liken their scenary to a euro castle and (silly English Kiniget) Knight flare with a arcane and/or divine base. While in these lands most customs will be the same.

In our group we play a "combo pack" "go big" "supersize me" style. After all variety is the spice of life. We play The Empire (simply known as the Empire) is dominating all they can, Roman esk' lawful evil govt, with a Nazi like no magic policy, unless your part of their clericy. Any other cleric, warlock, wizard, soceror, psion, anything with supernatural abilities will usually find them selves hunted down and thrown into the gladiator pits.
Outside of the repressive empire there is the Lawfull Good Kingdom of Albion (castle, knights, Palidons, Clerics, wizard euro setting), there is Hybernia a fey setting with a mix of Scottish warriors/barbarians and the insane blue picks or bezerker clans. Midguard with a Nordic/Viking setting...complements of a on line game caIled dark ages of camelot.

If you were to travel a bit, you would find a continent that represents LoTR with Halfling shires, plains horsemen and a CH Evil power hungry demon summoned by a wizard whom the demon now controls. He has mind controlled mages doing his bidding thruout these lands with Ork armies to boot! - A few fight with the Empire have recently happened....and another continent that represents the oriental adventures setting.

So there you have it, a dominately conservative gaming group with wide variety in there world......some tradition...some not....like a earlier reply most gamers are in the middle of the football!
Sir ThornCrest

 

[Turanil]

Personally, I would add the caveat to the categories:

World Cuisine: Crunch heavy- RAW remains most important piece of the game

Traditionalist: Fluff heavy- RAW is a guideline for the game.

You phrase it much better than I did! And so much shorter! (even if also much less sarcastic; I am on these boards to have fun!). So lets use some of your designations:

World Cuisine Crunch versus Consistent Fluff.

Yes, I like this terminology much better.

 

[Mythmere1]

Uh... yeah. One could also argue that it's the DMs JOB to provide a coherent setting, and the players have to take what's presented from the setting and adapt their character concepts from that. One could easily push your idea to absurd extremes. I had the husband of a girl that gamed with me in college say he wouldn't play a Lord of the Rings game unless he could be an ent and sit around philosophising. You may claim that I'm a bad DM for saying, "no thanks" but I'll file that claim in ye olde rounde file.

Depends on how flexible you are (the player's ent idea is stupid, but it's stupid because it's a non-playable concept, not because ents shouldn't be allowed). I think that DMs who require players to adapt their character concepts from a setting that the DM produces without consultation with the group are weak DMs (in terms of world creation) unless the players are also totally into the idea.

When the players are pushing for it, which is probably the case with your group, I've got no opinion one way or the other - it takes a good DM to create a world that meets particular specifications agreed upon by the group. Most DMs of long standing have done that exercise, and it's fun.

It's the DM who unilaterally sets lots of restrictions whom I think is copping out. If you're one of 'em, file my opinion in the round file along with my opinion that the tone of your post is unecessarily abrasive.

 

[Aaron L]

That is very insulting, and implies that if we don't run a game that is buried in "traditional" standards of medieval fantasy then we are nothing more then power gaming number crunchers abusing the system to get the most powerful characters, while the high-brow real roleplayers are immersing themselves in a true game.


Actually it is a FAR more insulting way to phrase it.

 

[billd91]

I like both styles, depending on which game I'm currently running/playing. I prefer to keep my OA game relatively traditional and culturally focused. My Greyhawk game is a bit more world cuisine. Different styles work better for me with different campaigns.

 

[Ibram]

The "adventure" used as an example for the left wing style could just as easily be used in a Conan game (just replace the orcs with Picts or some such).

I honestly dont see how the two styles are all that different. the point seems to be more historical/fantastic then anything else, and both styles have their strong/weak points.

Personaly I prefer things on the Historical side rather then the Fantastic side.

As a DM I try to keep everything relativly consitant, and as such I restrict my players somewhat. For example: In an orental game I'd restrict characters to orental characters, in an Iron Age game I wouldnt allow players to use greatswords.

 

[fusangite]

I find your terminology a little curious but I sort of see where you are going. I think "traditionalist" might actually be the wrong term for the faction I am part of because it falsely implies that we are somehow closer to original D&D. I would argue that the opposing style of play might actually be closer to traditional D&D. So, if it were up to me to retitle things, I would call my faction Cultural and the other Cosmopolitan.

Ironically, I think both playing styles arise from concerns about believability and suspension of disbelief. And I think both play styles are successful attempts to solve these problems.

People like me who enjoy Cultural RPGs tend to assume that if people exist in a different, place or time; if they exist in a different culture or have different material conditions than we do, they will think differently. Not only will their values, goals and beliefs be different; their very thought processes will be different than ours. Even such universal things as love, marriage and politics will be exhibit sharp culturally-defined differences.

People who enjoy Cosmopolitan RPGs tend to assume that, minor details aside, people are always people. In the most recent argument about this on the magic shop thread, the Cosmopolitan faction has invoked a phrase I find common in a lot of their arguments: "basic human nature." Thus, although culture helps to add a little flavour to these campaigns, it is not very important because the characters will think and act much as we do today.

Late last fall, there was a big meltdown in the D&D campaign in which I play on Monday nights over this very issue. Two Cosmopolitan players left the group because they found the other characters' values and behaviour absurd because they deviated so sharply from "basic human nature." Similarly, I have been frustrated in campaigns where all the people of good alignment share modern liberal democratic values and just wander around in medieval drag. What is worth noting, however, is that in both cases, it is all about credibility and suspension of disbelief. The only difference is whether one has a worldview that emphasizes universal and transhistorical qualities in human thought and behaviour or whether one has a worldview that emphasizes cultural uniqueness and specificity.