Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mallus" data-source="post: 3439833" data-attributes="member: 3887">I believe they are. I also believe that the words 'basic tropes' and 'D&amp;D' shouldn't be used in the same sentence, seeing that D&amp;D is --by this point-- a deliberate hodgepodge mostly incompatible fantasy conventions ('It's fantasy in the tradition of Tolkien and Conan'... 'Huh?!'). It's like everything you've had before, all mixed up (I plagiarized that last bit from a cartoon in Harper's. It's my favorite definition of 'postmodern').Where am I going with this? Good question. I guess I'm arguing for a certain level of specificity for it's own sake, in the form of distinctive game environments. I'm applying the old advice for writers: be specific/use specific language! I've never seen 'generic' or 'easily ported' used as a compliments when discussing the merits of a fictional setting.Designing from the 'bottom up', without regard for a macro-level framework, looks to me like an embrace of the utterly generic.&nbsp; Sure. But knowing a little bit adds to the experience, doesn't it? I just want my adventures to be entertaining (don't we all?). But I'm better at designing clever bits of setting flavor than elaborate set-pieces. I'm a little like the director who does quirky character films because he can't direct a car chase to save his life. So material that some DM's might consider extraneous, I consider integral. I'll forgo drawing combat maps in favor of describing how a neighborhood got its funny name. And this material get used in the session. Sometimes these details are interactive, sometimes not. My players find it entertaining (most of the time). I had my current group in stitches over the legend of Cockswallow Dock. It's academic for me to ask if they would have enjoyed another combat in that session more, perhaps one on a rope bridge or a zeppelin, because that isn't my strength.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mallus, post: 3439833, member: 3887"] I believe they are. I also believe that the words 'basic tropes' and 'D&D' shouldn't be used in the same sentence, seeing that D&D is --by this point-- a deliberate hodgepodge mostly incompatible fantasy conventions ('It's fantasy in the tradition of Tolkien and Conan'... 'Huh?!'). It's like everything you've had before, all mixed up (I plagiarized that last bit from a cartoon in Harper's. It's my favorite definition of 'postmodern'). Where am I going with this? Good question. I guess I'm arguing for a certain level of specificity for it's own sake, in the form of distinctive game environments. I'm applying the old advice for writers: be specific/use specific language! I've never seen 'generic' or 'easily ported' used as a compliments when discussing the merits of a fictional setting. Designing from the 'bottom up', without regard for a macro-level framework, looks to me like an embrace of the utterly generic. Sure. But knowing a little bit adds to the experience, doesn't it? I just want my adventures to be entertaining (don't we all?). But I'm better at designing clever bits of setting flavor than elaborate set-pieces. I'm a little like the director who does quirky character films because he can't direct a car chase to save his life. So material that some DM's might consider extraneous, I consider integral. I'll forgo drawing combat maps in favor of describing how a neighborhood got its funny name. And this material get used in the session. Sometimes these details are interactive, sometimes not. My players find it entertaining (most of the time). I had my current group in stitches over the legend of Cockswallow Dock. It's academic for me to ask if they would have enjoyed another combat in that session more, perhaps one on a rope bridge or a zeppelin, because that isn't my strength. [/QUOTE]

Verification