Mundane vs. Fantastical

[pemerton]

Uhm so taking the fact that your players are amazed by unfamiliarity with...
1. Knowledge of it's stats/game mechanical abilities
2. The extent of those abilities relative to the PC's...

If they encounter things more then they will have a greater understanding of it's abilities and the relative power of them compared to themselves. You just supported the whole rarity idea here.

I didn't say they were amazed by unfamiliarity with those things. They tend to be amazed by familiarity with them - casting Presence (a Rolemaster spell) and learning that there is a 50th level Presence nearby causes them to be amazed. Not by the rarity, but by the power (and the implications that power has for the upcoming confrontation with their PCs).

If the final encounter of a grand story is something the players have faced over and over again...how does that grand finale not become lessened when compared to the excitement and trepidation of facing an unknown or unfamiliar adversary?

Well, the PCs in my game have already faced down Tharizdun in dreamcrystal form twice, have rescued him in child simulcrum form once (not knowing back then who he was), have captured and kidnapped him in fallen-to-earth-and-weakened-and-imprisoned form once, and now have to engage him in full-strength voidal form. The issue of familiarity or unfamiliarity is not really relevant. Their interest is (i) in the story and (ii) in the game-mechanical resolution of the action.

I'm sorry but the familiar doesn't invoke awe or wonder...because it is the familiar. The unknown, unexpected does.

That depends a lot on the details. I frequently listen to the Ring Cycle on CD as I work, and it continues to evoke awe and wonder in me (in some ways more over time, as the subtelty and implications of the work become more evident). The first time I ever handled a Euro it was new to me, and I guess I got a bit of a thrill, but nothing that I'd describe as awe or wonder.

what exactly is your argument (logically) here, where you claim the exact opposite?

My contention is that what produces awe or wonder in the players of an FRPG is (at least in many cases) not very closely connected to what would create awe and wonder in the PCs in the gameworld. The players are surrounded by the familiar (their friends, their house/gaming room, their dice, etc) and are engaging in a shared act of narration. I think what will produce awe and wonder is the elements of that narration - plot, theme, delivery etc - and that the rarity, in the fiction, of particular tropes (dragons, spells, etc) is not a big contributor to this.

To put it another way - Graham Greene's The End of the Affair invokes, in me at least, far more awe and wonder than does the typical fantasy story, although it deals almost entirely with the mundane. This is because it is well written. I think much the same is true for an RPG (making appropriate allowances for the difference of medium).

 

[pemerton]

More succintly: roleplaying my PC's awe and wonder isn't a surefire recipe for my own awe and wonder. My awe and wonder depends upon something moving me at the gaming table. And that's a function of the story being told, not the rarity of the dragons/scorpions/whatever that figure in the story.

 

[Imaro]

I didn't say they were amazed by unfamiliarity with those things. They tend to be amazed by familiarity with them - casting Presence (a Rolemaster spell) and learning that there is a 50th level Presence nearby causes them to be amazed. Not by the rarity, but by the power (and the implications that power has for the upcoming confrontation with their PCs).

Uhm, again...rarity or does every comoner, housecat and street urchin have a level 50 presence? Is a level 50 presence a common thing in your campaign? Or is it something that wow's the players because it's rare? I'm sure if everyone including the PC's had this level of Presence it wouldn't inspire awe, it would probably be just another ho-hum fight.

Well, the PCs in my game have already faced down Tharizdun in dreamcrystal form twice, have rescued him in child simulcrum form once (not knowing back then who he was), have captured and kidnapped him in fallen-to-earth-and-weakened-and-imprisoned form once, and now have to engage him in full-strength voidal form. The issue of familiarity or unfamiliarity is not really relevant. Their interest is (i) in the story and (ii) in the game-mechanical resolution of the action.

That's great your players should be engaged in the story, and I will say it's probably more a testament to your skills as a good DM that your players have not become bored silly by Tharizdun at this point...I know I probably would, regardless of how engaging the story is... I'd just be sick of it revolving around Tharizdun.

That depends a lot on the details. I frequently listen to the Ring Cycle on CD as I work, and it continues to evoke awe and wonder in me (in some ways more over time, as the subtelty and implications of the work become more evident). The first time I ever handled a Euro it was new to me, and I guess I got a bit of a thrill, but nothing that I'd describe as awe or wonder.

And see here again we differ, I have shows, songs, etc I enjoy...but after seeing them or hearing them that first time, they never give me that first feeling of awe or wonder I had when first watching them. I can get close by not watching or llistening to them for a while...but if I watched or listened to the same thing every day it would bore me to tears.

My contention is that what produces awe or wonder in the players of an FRPG is (at least in many cases) not very closely connected to what would create awe and wonder in the PCs in the gameworld. The players are surrounded by the familiar (their friends, their house/gaming room, their dice, etc) and are engaging in a shared act of narration. I think what will produce awe and wonder is the elements of that narration - plot, theme, delivery etc - and that the rarity, in the fiction, of particular tropes (dragons, spells, etc) is not a big contributor to this.

First let me say you are describing one playstyle of D&D...without taking into consideration the fact that D&D doesn't have to be played as shared act of narration with heavy plots, themes, etc. So how does your theory account for those who still experience a sense of wonder or awe in the game but do not play in this style? I think a sense of awe and wonder can be invoked in Sword and Sorcery as well as sandbox games, without requiring the deep plots, and themes you allude to above.

Also, above you still provide support for rarity being a major factor in producing this feeling. You keep giving examples of one thing in your game...then try to argue the opposite with non-gaming examples.

To put it another way - Graham Greene's The End of the Affair invokes, in me at least, far more awe and wonder than does the typical fantasy story, although it deals almost entirely with the mundane. This is because it is well written. I think much the same is true for an RPG (making appropriate allowances for the difference of medium).

I can't very well argue about what inbvokes awe or wonder in you. However, it is more likely something rare will invoke these feelings in me than the common everyday things I experience. Now there's always exceptions to the rule...but talking generally no, the mundane very rarely invokes awe or wonder in me, yet it does serve well for helping me realize what those rare or unique things are that do.

 

[Hussar]

Well I've only read Perdido Street Station, but my impression from that book (what I can remember anyway) was that China Mieville often used mundane things to contrast with the very weird fantasy of his world. The opening chapter starts with two people just having breakfast (regardless of how alien one of them is) with very mundane concerns and actions. The artist community, the university politics, etc. are a few examples of the mundane that I think make his world much more vibrant in a familiar contratsing sharply with the weird way... that allows it's readers to relate better and highlights the alienness of it all better than if it was just alienness with no anchoring in the mundane. YMMV of course

The main character is having breakfast with a beetle headed woman, who cannot talk, whom he just had sexual relations with. Umm, that's about as bizarre as you can get. Of course, some things are going to be somewhat mundane, but, methinks you're stretching a bit here. Yes, the manticore poops in the forest, but, it's still a frickin' manticore!

Honestly, I cannot see how you can make the statement that a "more mundane" setting evokes sense of wonder more than a more fantastical one. That's simply a matter of taste. Hyboria is not more wonder inducing than Narnia. Middle Earth is not more inherently wonderous than Bas Lag. The wonder comes in the writing, not in the bones of the setting.

As far as D&D going too far into the fantastic, look at the make-up of your last five campaigns. Mine have not heavily featured humans in a very long time. Current 3.5 campaign has 2 humans, a tiefling, a lupin and a grippli. Last campaign had warforged, shifter, gnome and a human, campaign before that ended with an orc, a human, a kobold, a pseudo dragon, and a goliath (and had featured a veritable menagerie of races before).

Even going way back to the beginning, the campaigns I played in regularly featured non-humans as PC's. And PC casters of course. So, pretty much every aspect of the game had spells and fantastic races.

Is 4e really so different here?

 

[Mallus]

More succintly: roleplaying my PC's awe and wonder isn't a surefire recipe for my own awe and wonder. My awe and wonder depends upon something moving me at the gaming table. And that's a function of the story being told, not the rarity of the dragons/scorpions/whatever that figure in the story.

Thanks Pem, for summing up what I was trying to say earlier in this thread.

 

[Imaro]

Honestly, I cannot see how you can make the statement that a "more mundane" setting evokes sense of wonder more than a more fantastical one. That's simply a matter of taste. Hyboria is not more wonder inducing than Narnia. Middle Earth is not more inherently wonderous than Bas Lag. The wonder comes in the writing, not in the bones of the setting.?

Your interpreting what I'm arguing wrong. I'm arguing for me I find settings like Hyboria, The Young Kingdoms and Lankhmar resonate better as far as the fantastic actually being, well...fantastic.

Others are arguing it doesn't matter and has no effect...I disagree, regardless of whether you enjoy wahoo or toned down fantastical elements, it has an effect. The stories of Fafhrd, Conan, Elric and Corum would have a totally different feel in Middle Earth or Narnia. I don't even know if you could tell their stories correctly in those worlds.

It's all taste and I'm not arguing one is better than the other. That said I do feel D&D is leaning more and more towards one side of the fence.

As far as D&D going too far into the fantastic, look at the make-up of your last five campaigns. Mine have not heavily featured humans in a very long time. Current 3.5 campaign has 2 humans, a tiefling, a lupin and a grippli. Last campaign had warforged, shifter, gnome and a human, campaign before that ended with an orc, a human, a kobold, a pseudo dragon, and a goliath (and had featured a veritable menagerie of races before).

Even going way back to the beginning, the campaigns I played in regularly featured non-humans as PC's. And PC casters of course. So, pretty much every aspect of the game had spells and fantastic races.

Is 4e really so different here?

Uhm, even 3.5 had stats for animals (as in not monsters but real animals). Before 4e, D&D seemed a mix between the more mundane type of fantasy (especially if one confined play to lower levels), and the wahoo fantasy...now it seems much more positioned in the wahoo category. It's not just about player races, it's about the whole feel of the game.

 

[Mallus]

Well I've only read Perdido Street Station, but my impression from that book (what I can remember anyway) was that China Mieville often used mundane things to contrast with the very weird fantasy of his world.

Thanks for bringing this up, Imaro. This kind of contrast, juxtaposition, really, of the exotic and the mundane is a staple of the campaigns I run and obviously, I'm all for it.

But let's be clear, this technique isn't about keeping fantasy elements rare. It's not about a majority of mundane encounters punctured by infrequent encounters with the fantastic. It's about the realistic and the fantastic coexisting in the same time and place. In Mieville's Bas-Lag novels, the fantastic is omnipresent, but it exists side by side the mundane, even the banal.

This is how the fantastic should be grounded in the (more) real. Note that this can happen within the same character, like Lin the khepri artist in PSS. Put another way... it's not the number of dragon encounters that matter, it's whether your dragons seem grounded.

 

[Hussar]

Uhm, even 3.5 had stats for animals (as in not monsters but real animals). Before 4e, D&D seemed a mix between the more mundane type of fantasy (especially if one confined play to lower levels), and the wahoo fantasy...now it seems much more positioned in the wahoo category. It's not just about player races, it's about the whole feel of the game.

True, but, I'm not talking about how the books were written. I'm talking about what actually happened at your table. At my table, the fantastic was pretty omnipresent. Every encounter, every scene featured the fantastic - be it in the form of the PC characters, magic spells, items, whatever.

So, arguing that 4e has suddenly become more fantastic because it de-emphasises aspects, like combat stats for house cats, sidesteps the point somewhat. If most groups out there featured wizards, various non-human races as PC's and magic items, then the fantastic was pretty much omni-present during play.

What the campaign setting looks like outside of the characters? Other than DM's, who cares? No one else ever sees it. It doesn't matter and doesn't have any existence outside the brain of the DM. What actually happens at the table matters most. If most tables were, as I said, featuring the fantastic, then there really hasn't been much of a change at all.

In other words, D&D games never looked like Conan, as much as people may have wanted them to. The existence of PC caster classes put a spike in that balloon. D&D games have always been wahoo, right from day one. 4e is just the first edition to not pretend that this isn't true.

 

[Imaro]

True, but, I'm not talking about how the books were written. I'm talking about what actually happened at your table. At my table, the fantastic was pretty omnipresent. Every encounter, every scene featured the fantastic - be it in the form of the PC characters, magic spells, items, whatever.

So, arguing that 4e has suddenly become more fantastic because it de-emphasises aspects, like combat stats for house cats, sidesteps the point somewhat. If most groups out there featured wizards, various non-human races as PC's and magic items, then the fantastic was pretty much omni-present during play.

What the campaign setting looks like outside of the characters? Other than DM's, who cares? No one else ever sees it. It doesn't matter and doesn't have any existence outside the brain of the DM. What actually happens at the table matters most. If most tables were, as I said, featuring the fantastic, then there really hasn't been much of a change at all.

In other words, D&D games never looked like Conan, as much as people may have wanted them to. The existence of PC caster classes put a spike in that balloon. D&D games have always been wahoo, right from day one. 4e is just the first edition to not pretend that this isn't true.

Uhm...wow, now you're telling me how I ran my games? Actually my games were alot closer to The Young Kingdoms (where there are actually races besides humans) and Lankhmar in 3.5 than what you're describing. This is what I came up on as far as fantasy goes way before I had ever read LotR. It wasn't all that hard to find alternatives to the base system. Some examples I used were snatching out full casters and replacing them with the Warlock, DuskBlade, etc.... limited multi classing into caster classes and no full caster single classes( this you could od with almost any edition), the spell system from Dark Legacies, and so on. I know it was very much possible to run this type of game...unless one was hellbent on using everything in the game instead of picking and choosing (especially in 3.5).

And that is the crux of what I'm getting at. Earlier editions had the tools to create a more swords & sorcery type game, yeah you had to subtract stuff but the things you needed were there. In 4e I just don't see it and I think it's another one of my dissapointments with it.

Also I just wanted to say you are making some pretty big generalizations about playstyles and campaigns, where are you getting this stuff from. I have experienced a few games ran by different people and I wouldn't go so far as to claim they were all wahoo fantasy. Maybe those are just the type of campaigns you create and enjoy.

 

[billd91]

In other words, D&D games never looked like Conan, as much as people may have wanted them to. The existence of PC caster classes put a spike in that balloon. D&D games have always been wahoo, right from day one. 4e is just the first edition to not pretend that this isn't true.

'Cept maybe for those of us who played in campaigns that were all-fighter-types with a few multiclasses floating around. Not a whole hell of a lot of spellcasting in our games and D&D held up just fine.

D&D always had the potential to be wahoo 24/7, but it also had the potential and support to be something else.