Has D&D become too...D&Dish?

[Geron Raveneye]

That gets to the heart of what I was talking about when I started the thread. To me anyway, standard D&D is starting to look suspiciously similar to the parodies of itself. And I don't really think that's a good thing. :\

As always, YMMV.

Well...if you turn it around and view it from the other side, you could say that the parodies become more and more like the thing they are targeting. Dunno if that helps, though. Or you might say that D&D is flexible enough to portray totally silly fantasy stories right beside epic world-shattering ones if the players know how to use it.

And do you remember the cartoon strips that used to be in the 1E Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide? D&D always had a bit of self-parody going back then...and I think that's perfectly fine. We're in it for the occasional laugh as well as for all the rest, right?

 

[Numion]

That gets to the heart of what I was talking about when I started the thread. To me anyway, standard D&D is starting to look suspiciously similar to the parodies of itself. And I don't really think that's a good thing. :\

From what I've seen most of the parodies don't deal with the issues brought up in this thread. The bread and butter of parodies are adventuring group dynamics and PC-NPC relations.

Like if you look at OotS, Nodwick or KoDT it's mostly about those things. OotS makes more fun of the rules, but has shifted towards topics I mention above.

So I don't really agree with you there. One central theme of both Nodwick and KoDT, the abusing of hired help, has got to be as old as D&D itself. So is another central theme, the adventurers actually causing more harm than good, and then being mostly oblivious as to why the townsfolk aren't grateful to them.

YMMV, but I think D&D itself has matured* away from those prospects, mostly because the players have matured (as in being older nowadays).

* I know, the word ..

 

[Hussar]

*thinks Hussar is ignoring him...* You're allowed to disagree Hussar. I just will disagree with your disagreement.

Btw that page only said "consorters with Slacerians". It didn't say "Wizards were taught by Slacerians." Just that they "infringed on" the power of druid-sorcerers and sorcery in general.

Heh, I'm not ignoring you. I thought you agreed with me.

There's a pretty strong suggestion there in those few pages, that the slarcians were the ones to teach wizard magic to the world. True, there are other interpretations, but, IMO, it sounds like the Slarcians were the ones.

 

[Hussar]

That gets to the heart of what I was talking about when I started the thread. To me anyway, standard D&D is starting to look suspiciously similar to the parodies of itself. And I don't really think that's a good thing.

Those parodies exist because they have existed in the game. If no one in game ever did anything like the things that OOTS or Nodwick parodies, then they wouldn't be half as funny.

And, yes, I do believe that if a setting is designed from the point of view that the RAW is the physics of the world and the world grows out of those physics, then the existence of low level permanent magics would have a large impact on the design of that world. Even if that impact is the idea that the state actively attempts to squash magic.

My beef is with settings that simply ignore the implications. Taking raise dead and remove disease as an example. If these spells exist and the setting is RAW in demographics, then it makes zero sense for the king to die of syphilis. Any adventure which is based on this, makes no sense.

On the point of Keep on the Borderlands. I love that module. I really do. But, I also realize that there are some serious problems with it as well. Considering most of the races in the Caves actively hate each other, why are they living side by side? Given the rather large numbers in the Caves, where are they getting their food from? Sure, they have a couple of store rooms, but, within a very short period of time, they will have depleted the local wild life. Who's supplying them?

Now, those make for great plot hooks. But, since the answers aren't in the text itself, there has to be some criticism laid. At the time, no one cared. You ran the module and the rest wasn't important. Now, we try to at least make a nod towards verisimilitude.

BTW, just as a point about continual flame and atmosphere. Continual flame gives EXACTLY the same light as a torch. The only difference being it's cold and not hot. So, from an atmosphere point of view, there is little difference. You still have the flickering of lights. Just less smoke.

Yes, I do believe that examining the effects of the RAW on a setting is a more seasoned (there's a MUCH better word than mature) approach to design than handwaving them and/or ignoring them. And, I believe that doing so results in a setting which has far fewer holes in it.

 

[RFisher]

I doudt the local thieves guild would be too happy about all these permanent lights everywhere either.

Actually, some studies have shown that better lighting actually increases the crime rate. Seems the thieves like to be able to see what they're doing. & that being spotted isn't so big a concern.

Although, I think your underlying point is still valid.

Besides...this is fantasy so no facts from the real world are applicable, right?

 

[rounser]

YMMV, but I think D&D itself has matured* away from those prospects, mostly because the players have matured (as in being older nowadays).

* I know, the word ..

Yeah, it does vary. I suggest we replace this misleading and inappropriate word with a much better descriptor for what's ocurring: decadence. "A decline in or loss of excellence, obstructing the pursuit of ideals."

The decline in excellence is making the setting a slave to the rules; the obstruction of the pursuit of ideals is the compromise of the setting dictated by overextending the rules, such that we lose sight of what they're there for in the first place. It's the monkey on 3E's back, IMO.

 

[Hussar]

However, Rounser, that only applies if you think that settings with giant holes in them are excellent.

To me, consistency is the goal. If the setting is inconsistent, ie. allows for the sale but not the purchase of magic items, then it is not consistent. There's a giant gaping hole there that needs to be explained and not hand waved.

What you see as making a setting slave to the rules, I see as actually examining how those rules interact with the setting. By ignoring or handwaving that interaction, you create a setting which has glaring inconsistencies. You can either change the RAW, which is perfectly acceptable since that changed RAW becomes the new RAW for that setting, or you can change the setting to conform to the RAW.

However, ignoring the issue doesn't make it go away.

On another note, I gave a bit of thought to RC's point about the WLD. Now, the WLD is a fairly simplistic dungeon. However, the inconsistent elements are explained in the book. Either it's explicitely stated that it is being handwaved (such as food issues) or it establishes new RAW (such as no web spells and no summoning). There is an attempt by the designers to at least recognise the inconsistencies and either deal with them or put a fence around them. They are not ignored. They are specifically called out. Thus the issue of food becomes a non-issue because the RAW of that setting says its a non-issue. The reason for it is entirely metagaming but, you can wrap it up in setting specific dressing if you like. The fact that it's an extradimensional prison allows you a lot more leeway in things like that.

Me, I added a bit where the angels performed a rite to kickstart a basic food chain. Fine creatures grow at a very high rate and are thus eaten by diminuitive creatures. However, nothing bigger than that can reproduce. Thus, no kobold babies, but, lots of mice to eat.

However, I didn't need to do that for the WLD to work. I did it because I wanted to. An extradimentional prison could simply not allow the inmates to eat or procreate similar to the Astral plane. I can apply existing rules to the setting and it works (sort of).

But, this illustrates my point very well. By examining those basic issues, I am looking at how the RAW of that setting affects that setting. If I don't like it, I can change it and that's fine. But, my point has always been, there should be an examination of the effects of RAW on a setting before the setting is finalized. If there are wonky interactions, then something needs to be changed. And it's that examination process which has grown out of the art of campaign creation over the years.

Yes, you can play a low magic game with 3.5 rules. You can't play a low magic setting with ALL the 3.5 rules though. To play a low magic setting, you have to change the RAW. This is a given. When a setting tries for a certain feel without changing any of the RAW it has glaring inconsistencies. The main example I've used is the existence of low level permanent magics. For gaming as an art form (wow, how's that for pretentious ) to grow, it must be self reflexive. Just like any art form, you have to have some sense of the theory of that art in order to move it in a new direction.

Yes, raw talent goes a long way. But, its those who have raw talent AND a grounding in theory who can really move things forward.

 

[rounser]

However, Rounser, that only applies if you think that settings with giant holes in them are excellent.

Suspension of disbelief is a personal thing, but IMO your cures are far worse than the disease.

 

[Hussar]

Suspension of disbelief is a personal thing, but IMO your cures are far worse than the disease.

True. SOD is always personal. I can swallow a lot of impossible things. Heck, I did swallow them for a long time. However, as time has passed, I've actually coughed up a couple of those impossible things and started to look at them a little more closely.

To me, simply continuing to ignore them for the sake of some sort of genre convention is ridiculous. If the only way you can have a particular genre is to never examine it, then the genre needs to die.

 

[rounser]

If the only way you can have a particular genre is to never examine it, then the genre needs to die.

There is a tendency for geeks to want to analyse everything and apply logic and science to it....that's what makes us geeks. D&D isn't a science, and in treating it as such, you'll destroy a lot of the things that make it attractive in the first place. You may note other areas in your life where analysis and imposing logic are also counterproductive.