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

[Raloc]

D&D has always been "World Cuisine," hasn't it? And not just the FR either. For that matter, so was Conan -- or did you not notice the transparently Norse and transparently Roman and Transparently ancient Egyptian that all co-existed in Howard's setting.

I think that you make a point, but your examples are all messed up.

My own personal preference is to actually create fantasy cultures; not extremely transparent analogues of real world historical cultures.

And I love my Peking Duck and Jamaican Jerk pizzas from CPK while I'm at it.

Just a pet peeve, it's Beijing. Peking is the horrible Wade-Giles form of the word (which never made sense hehe).

As for World Cuisine Crunch vs. Consistent Fluff, I DM the latter in FR. Yes, in FR. There are reasons for all the NPCs, what they're doing, why the PCs are there etc. Also, I don't let the iconified NPCs of FR interfere with the campaign. They *never* steal the spotlight. Does that mean I have to play in an Earth-based setting? I personally don't think so.

 

[Desdichado]

Just a pet peeve, it's Beijing. Peking is the horrible Wade-Giles form of the word (which never made sense hehe).

No it's not; I've got the take-out menu right here in front of me.

 

[Doug McCrae]

World Cuisine all the way, baby. I've always loved those kitchen-sink settings. I think Traditionalist is wrongly named though as since the beginning D&D has always been World Cuisine, as Joshua Dyal already pointed out.

If you want a more specific cultural setting, why don't you just go and play Empire of the Petal Throne?

 

[francisca]

As a player, I've done, and enjoyed, both extremes, and in various degrees of "middle ground".

As a DM, I prefer the Traditional style.

 

[Mythmere1]

One of the perks of being the DM is making the world you are most interested in. I think it is a copout for players to demand for a DM to allow anything they want. They are not trying to be a part of the campaign, they are trying to make the campaign revolve around them. Dungeons and Dragons is not about players having fun, it is about everybody having fun…that includes the forgotten DM.

I think that's true, too. The DM cops out by refusing to work with the players, and vice versa. "cops out" is obviously being taken as strong language, as is my characterization of such a DM as a "weak DM," and I'd also describe inflexible players as being "weak players."

I'm not trying to troll for arguments here - my point is that everyone loses if there's no DM-to-player communication about the nature of the setting. If you've got a lot of games available, then it's no big deal. But if you've got a long-standing group, I don't like to see strong-arm tactics on either side. As Hjorimir says, it's about everyone having fun, and it's a game. The DM should respect the players' wish-fulfillment, and the players should respect the fact that the DM goes to great lengths to create the setting for them to play in. If they don't, I call them weak players or DMs. I mean by that that they're missing out on a game that could be more enriching to all.

 

[Raloc]

No it's not; I've got the take-out menu right here in front of me.

I somehow knew you'd say that.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I'm probably more for kitchen sink.

In my experience, traditionalist games have a hard time keeping players' attentions and they aren't really true to the origins of fantasy.

I'm a big fan of Mennippean Satire myself so it's not a problem for me but I do know people who have traditionalist tendencies. There's a guy in my group who hates it when elves and dwarves dissapear.

Now that said, I think that traditionalist games develop some very good ideas, I just think that they aren't very realistic or faithful to the genre they're working in which tends to be fantasy adventure pulp.

So I suppose I am actually World Cuisine by way of traditionalism.

And I also like world cuisine, Chinese pizza is ggooooddd. And Tex-Mex itself is a form of world cuisine since it originates on the border. Burritos, for instance, appear to be an American, as in Mexican-American, invention.

 

[WayneLigon]

I fall more towards the traditionalist approach, I think. If the particular campaign supports it, there can be very diverse groups of people adventuring together, but the players will generally choose from what they know the world offers. I've never yet had anyone come to be an beg to play his ninja in a courtly knight setting, or his tinker gnome alchemist in a feudal Japan setting.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

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.

Now, why?

Is there an inherent reason monks and paladins can't be friends? It doesn't seem to me that martial artists in monastaries is any worse an 'explanation' than knights in shining armor.

I'd argue the only reason western monks didn't develop cool martial arts skills is because they had a slightly different idea of pacifism and developed tennis instead.

 

[Desdichado]

Burritos, for instance, appear to be an American, as in Mexican-American, invention.

Quite probably. Most native spanish speakers would wonder why you're eating a baby donkey anyway. Tacos may be the same thing; further south in South America the word is only used to refer to the heel of your shoe.