Mundane vs. Fantastical

[Imaro]

If you run an encounter with red dragon poorly it won't seem wondrous, either. On the other hand, in my current campaign --though in some ways it's drenched in oddities-- most of the encounters have been with humans. I think I've managed to make them interesting. I like to think my players have killed and/or humiliated some fairly interesting personalities during the course of their checkered-like-a-race-flag career.

Okay, no one is arguing that a badly run NPC/encounter/etc. isn't a badly run NPC/encounter/etc. However, I think the point of this thread in comparing the nature of mundane and fantastic, is in assuming a good DM, since a poor DM will fail on both ends of the axis and to use the poor DM as a basis really proves nothing.

I've found in order to amaze people you need to think up something amazing (pardon my tautology). Like I said before, scarcity alone isn't going to make a fictional construct interesting/amazing. Ultimately, it takes good writing (and performance)..

I will disagree with this to an extent. As a kid, I had read about dragons, in different fiction books...but the first time I and my friends fought one in D&D it was a monumentous occasion. These were (at least in our minds) the Big Bad's of the setting, The DM used their mystique and rarity in his campaign world to help inspire this feeling of wonder, excitement and fear...so no, I don't agree that rarity does not help in creating this feeling, and sometimes it can be all that's necessary to invoke said feelings.

We're basically agreeing here. The fact that the dragon encounter is rare isn't enough to make it wondrous. It still needs to be well executed.

Okay, why don't you presuppose a good DM is actually running this hypothetical game. Now if the DM runs the above encounter or even similar encounters to the above over and over again does it keep it's wonderous nature or does it become ho-hum...even if the Dragon NPC is played well it becomes something they've done a million times and thus nothing to get excited about.

In what way aren't I taking player expectations into consideration? I agree that buy-in into the game setting is important, and I'm very interested in how different people approach the job of increasing player buy-in.

Because you're whole argument seems to be based on the assumption that the DM is sub-par at running NPC's and encounters. This isn't even the point of this thread, a bad DM is a bad DM whether he is using lots of the fantastical or mostly mundane.

Now a good DM sets up player expectations in the way he structures his campaign setting...by making the fantastical rare he invokes a greater sense of wonder from his players when it is encountered. By making it common, he invokes a sense of magic is commonplace and not something to be looked at with wonder and awe, but to be easily utilized, understood, and conquered. Neither of these assumptions in a game world is better than the other, but D&D 4e definitely leans towards the latter without heavy modifications and tweaking.

 

[mmadsen]

Sorry, still doesn't work for me. You're completely right, but my point is that I can't play that person because I can't raise myself to their level of blind courage. An unrealistic world illusions me into thinking I at least have half a chance.

You don't need an unrealistic world at all to have at least half a chance. There are plenty of real-life examples of small bands of adventurers making their fortunes. You really must read Bernal Díaz del Castillo's The Discovery and Conquest of Mexico, about his time with Cortez. A handful of men conquered an empire, centered on a lake in a volcano, ruled by evil priests, who sacrificed victims atop pyramids.

If you suppress your modern sympathy for the cultures that get trampled, colonial adventurers are perfect analogs for D&D adventurers, and they conquer even greater odds than you'd find plausible in the game.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

That's kind of like saying, "How do you keep your flashlight from being drowned out by the darkness all around it?" The more mundane the world as a whole is, the more the fantastic elements stand out - the contrast strengthens them, it doesn't weaken them.

An idea does not necessarily follow the same rules. In the realm of the mind the more common idea can overwhelm the others.

Besides, I take the contrast as between the real world and the fictional. If the fictional world just replicates the real world then the the tiny, tiny fraction of fantastic is sure to get overwhelmed by the total mundane.

This is a lot more true in traditional narrative forms like novels or film. In RPG's... not so much. My guess is that this is mainly because RPG's are disproportionally about exploring the fantastic, and let's face it, the highly contrived --"it's a non-stop world of adventure". For the most part, RPG's aren't about introspection and serious human drama, the kinds of things that make the mundane interesting and compelling in fiction. This might explain why historical RPG's, do not, as a subgenre, exist.

Also, contrast is important... but it doesn't need to be between the fantastic and the mundane. There seems to be this underlying assumption here that all fantastic things are the same (like happy families). I heartily disagree with that. There's plenty of room for interesting contrasts between impossible things.

This.

You don't need an unrealistic world at all to have at least half a chance. There are plenty of real-life examples of small bands of adventurers making their fortunes. You really must read Bernal Díaz del Castillo's The Discovery and Conquest of Mexico, about his time with Cortez. A handful of men conquered an empire, centered on a lake in a volcano, ruled by evil priests, who sacrificed victims atop pyramids.

If you suppress your modern sympathy for the cultures that get trampled, colonial adventurers are perfect analogs for D&D adventurers, and they conquer even greater odds than you'd find plausible in the game.

This isn't about what other people can do. It's about what I can think I could do. I'd never even be able to think of doing what those people did.

Plus having read histories of how those conquests went I don't consider them implausable at all.

 

[Mallus]

Okay, no one is arguing that a badly run NPC/encounter/etc. isn't a badly run NPC/encounter/etc.

What I'm saying is that limiting the amount of fantastic elements in a campaign doesn't make good DM'ing any easier. Conversely, the inclusion of a lot of wahoo doesn't make good DM'ing any harder.

I will disagree with this to an extent. As a kid, I had read about dragons, in different fiction books...but the first time I and my friends fought one in D&D it was a monumentous occasion.

Okay... but now how do feel when your PC's encounter a dragon? Is it still a momentous occasion? Are your memories all campaign-specific? Don't all the other times you've read about something (or encountered it in an RPG) don't into your reaction vis a vis how 'wondrous' it is?

...even if the Dragon NPC is played well it becomes something they've done a million times and thus nothing to get excited about.

In my games a dragon is just another kind of person. Another NPC. I'm not going to stop using NPC's because my players have seen them a million times before. I'm going to attempt to create interesting NPC's.

Because you're whole argument seems to be based on the assumption that the DM is sub-par at running NPC's and encounters.

On the contrary, my position in based on myself and my experiences as a good DM.

...a bad DM is a bad DM whether he is using lots of the fantastical or mostly mundane.

I find the opposite is true as well, which all I'm really trying to say.

By making it common, he invokes a sense of magic is commonplace and not something to be looked at with wonder and awe, but to be easily utilized, understood, and conquered.

Magic is looked at that way in D&D because that's what it is. A tool that increases the player's chances of success. When it's made into more than that it's because of the DM's creativity and descriptive abilities. Not even extreme rarity can make a +1 longsword evoke a sense of awe.

 

[Imaro]

An idea does not necessarily follow the same rules. In the realm of the mind the more common idea can overwhelm the others.

Besides, I take the contrast as between the real world and the fictional. If the fictional world just replicates the real world then the the tiny, tiny fraction of fantastic is sure to get overwhelmed by the total mundane.

Uhm...you seem to be making an assumption that may be true for you but there is no reason that a tiny fraction of the fantastic will be overwhelmed by the real world. I mean honestly, how have games like the nWoD, Call of Cthulthu, Unknown Armies, etc. survived. Their setting is mostly the real world with a smattering of (usually hidden) supernatural elements. No gonzo, all over the place, fantastical...yet I don't think the inherent fantasy in these games is overwhelmed by the mundane.

What I'm saying is that limiting the amount of fantastic elements in a campaign doesn't make good DM'ing any easier. Conversely, the inclusion of a lot of wahoo doesn't make good DM'ing any harder..

Again back to the "good" DM'ing, "bad" DM'ing thing. Who asserted that the amount of fantastic elements in any way affected how easy or hard a game is to run? I think what people are arguing is that D&D 4e doesn't give enough of the mundane for those DM's who do run campaigns that utilize it extensively. In other words there isn't enough balance...wahoo has been catered to and continues to be catered to in 4e while the elements one might find in Sword & Sorcery are really lacking.

Okay... but now how do feel when your PC's encounter a dragon? Is it still a momentous occasion? Are your memories all campaign-specific? Don't all the other times you've read about something (or encountered it in an RPG) don't into your reaction vis a vis how 'wondrous' it is?.

Uhm...yes. In general it is because I don't generally run wahoo games. If you're fighting a monster in one of my games, it is usually a singular being, the last of it's kind, a mutation, a creation of an earlier age, something summoned, etc. I tend to take inspiration from Lankhmar, The Elric Saga, Corum, Hawkmoon, etc.

I don't run the type of game where you fight an encounter with a chimera, 2 young dragons and an illithid...then 10 minutes later you run into a beholder, 4 vampires, and 2 liches...that's just not my style. Now cultist, trained animals, degenerate men, assasins, enforcers, warrior agents of deities, barbaric clans, corrupt rulers, wild animals,etc. are the "common" adversaries of my games.

In my games a dragon is just another kind of person. Another NPC. I'm not going to stop using NPC's because my players have seen them a million times before. I'm going to attempt to create interesting NPC's.

Good for you and I am not advocating...not using NPC's because they have been used before (that's just silly). What I am advocating is that IMO, some creatures can be more than just another NPC by using rarity as a tool. Let's take dragons...

In one game there may be 5 dragons total, ancient beings imprisoned when the world was made by the Old gods because they were a force that could challenge the Old god's power. Since their imprisonment only a few individuals have ever located and found their prisons, and most believe they are pure myth. Yet it is rumored they have knowledge beyond compare and can answer any question.

In another game, every town has a dragon scholar in it, that can answer questions for the right price or if you perform a task for them. They were defeated by the Kimorra empire and thus charged with providing it's citizens with their ancient knowledge.

I'm sorry but the rarity in the first example contributes to setting a certain feel in your game world, while the common nature in the below example creates a totally different feel, even though they're both examples of dragons.

On the contrary, my position in based on myself and my experiences as a good DM.

I find the opposite is true as well, which all I'm really trying to say.

Ok, but what exactly are you arguing as far as more mundane vs. more fantastical??? Because again it swems like you are debating which is easier to DM well, and that's a null point.

Magic is looked at that way in D&D because that's what it is. A tool that increases the player's chances of success. When it's made into more than that it's because of the DM's creativity and descriptive abilities. Not even extreme rarity can make a +1 longsword evoke a sense of awe.

No, magic isn't just a tool that increases the player's chances of success. What about the magical abilities of their adversaries (this is magic they may not understand or may fear), what about non-combat magic that allows certain things to exist (this is magic for the DM and his purposes)? Now it is up to the DM to determine the role that the above and various other "types" of magic play in his particular campaign. The problem people are talking about here is the fact that D&D keeps pushing this further out so that the options become more limited without more and more modification. In other words, if all you give me are magical monsters, items, transportation, etc. it becomes more work to tone it down in my own campaign than if you balanced it out some.

Really, let your players go 5 to 10 levels without discovering any magical weapons or items...then allow them to find the +1 sword. Now, you're telling me they wouldn't be awed at discovering said item? It would be like excalibur to them especially if this is the rarity of magic items in your world.

 

[The_Gneech]

Just as an aside, people interested in this topic might find this thread over at Paizo of interest:

4E's Rejection of Gygaxian Naturalism

Same basic topic, slightly different spin.

-The Gneech

 

[Tetsubo]

I have successfully challenged players with giant snapping turtles; giant gar; blind, cave-dwelling, albino electric eels and bears. Animals (and there giant versions) make great low-level threats. Remember, a cat can take out a Commoner.

 

[Tetsubo]

I don't think you can count Thermopylae as a victory in the D&D sense of the word. Holding off the enemy for a time before being slaughtered is not what most players are looking for in the game.

What warrior wouldn't want to go down in the annals of history? The greatest last stand ever recorded. To die with honor amongst your companions...

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

Uhm...you seem to be making an assumption that may be true for you…………

I work with what I have.

………but there is no reason that a tiny fraction of the fantastic will be overwhelmed by the real world.

It's what happens for me.

Good for you and I am not advocating...not using NPC's because they have been used before (that's just silly). What I am advocating is that IMO, some creatures can be more than just another NPC by using rarity as a tool. Let's take dragons...

In one game there may be 5 dragons total, ancient beings imprisoned when the world was made by the Old gods because they were a force that could challenge the Old god's power. Since their imprisonment only a few individuals have ever located and found their prisons, and most believe they are pure myth. Yet it is rumored they have knowledge beyond compare and can answer any question.

In another game, every town has a dragon scholar in it, that can answer questions for the right price or if you perform a task for them. They were defeated by the Kimorra empire and thus charged with providing it's citizens with their ancient knowledge.

I'm sorry but the rarity in the first example contributes to setting a certain feel in your game world, while the common nature in the below example creates a totally different feel, even though they're both examples of dragons.

Ah, and here we go. The problem with me may be that I've read so many books and seen so many programs on the fantastic things that exist in the real world that my equivalent of other peoples' need to have a grounding in "real world stuff" is still fantastic. So when I experience mundane grounding I'm actually I'm being lowered from my base point.

That work?

 

[Imaro]

I work with what I have.

It's what happens for me.

Uhm...ok, that's why I preceded my comment with the whole "for you" thing. But you aren't the only person playing D&D.

Ah, and here we go. The problem with me may be that I've read so many books and seen so many programs on the fantastic things that exist in the real world that my equivalent of other peoples' need to have a grounding in "real world stuff" is still fantastic. So when I experience mundane grounding I'm actually I'm being lowered from my base point.

That work?

Ah, and here you have totally missed the point of my example. In both examples...dragon's are real. Now whether they are common and you trip over them as you walk down the street, or they are rare and hard to find, and possibly only a myth is a matter of presentation. In one example the use of the mundane highlights and accentuates the dragons existence in a certain way, in the other their very lack of rarity and easy accessibility highlights their existence in another way. This is used to evoke different moods and styles within the campaign world.

Now how exactly does your having experienced a higher level of "fantastic" mundane things in real life have anything to do with

1. Accepting the notion that dragons exist within the gameworld (which is the first issue)

2. Accepting the level and emphasis of the mundane being used by the DM to accentuate dragons in a certain light...

Are you saying it isn't hard for you to suspend your disbelief that dragons do exist...but you have a harder time accepting that they are rare in a mundane-esque campaign world as opposed to buying in that they can be everywhere and as common as cats (along with numerous other fantastic and deadly beasts) in a more fantastical campaign world?

If anything this seems like a preference for your part on a certain type of fantasy, and maybe a lack of imagination in being able to accept a fantasy that doesn't subscribe to what you feel are acceptable fantasy tropes.