Should there be ducks in the new RuneQuest?

[ColonelHardisson]

Gaming as joke is not good recreation to me, and I cannot take anthoropomorphic ducks seriously.

With all the anthropomorphic races in any given game, I don't see why ducks in particular would be a bone of contention. In my campaign world, the ducks aren't a joke, anymore than, say, a kenku or an intelligent giant owl would be.

 

[Psion]

With all the anthropomorphic races in any given game, I don't see why ducks in particular would be a bone of contention. In my campaign world, the ducks aren't a joke, anymore than, say, a kenku or an intelligent giant owl would be.

If you don't see why ducks strike me as silly, I don't expect to be able to convey that to you, much less "convince you"; you asked me why and I so stated. It's merely a matter of my perception of ducks and (in particular) anthropomorphic ducks differing from yours, or at least, how much we translate our perception of our characteristics into the game.

To me, anthropomorohic ducks are Donald and Daffy and Howard. Anthropomorphic eagles are kenku/tengu (which predates roleplaying or comics by a good ways) and "Hawk (from Buck Rodgers) and Hawkman/woman. The former is silly to me, the latter is not. Is there any natural law for why this is or should be? No. It has everything to do with perception and precedent and differences in our ability/desire to separate Runequest ducks from the same.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

If you don't see why ducks strike me as silly, I don't expect to be able to convey that to you, much less "convince you"; you asked me why and I so stated.

I was simply interested in discussing the subject.

 

[der_kluge]

I admit I have no expertise on this subject, but it seems like if Mongoose wants to remain faithful to the original, they should retain the ducks.

Those that like them, will be glad that they are there, and those that don't like them can simply ignore them.

Or, create a happy middle ground - and just publish them as a web enhancement.

If I were running it, I doubt I would allow someone to play a duck. The idea of players running around screaming "AFLAC!" would just get on my nerves.

 

[sniffles]

I voted no, but only because the ducks always came off as silly to me. I don't have a problem with anthropomorphic animals per se. But my very first RQ adventure involved some ducks using pumpkins and helmets to convince our party that there were more ducks present than actually were, and ever since I've seen the ducks as rather ridiculous.


Now what was that about Mongoose doing RQ? I've got to go reread some of these posts!!

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

If we're cutting silly monsters from games, 4E is going to be a very different game than previous editions.

 

[radferth]

I always thought the whole point of ducks (for good or ill) was that they seemed just as silly and pathetic in game as they did to us players. This makes it all the more horible when the duck Humakti you run across remorselessly slays your favorite character.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

If we're cutting silly monsters from games, 4E is going to be a very different game than previous editions.

Yeah, it's gonna be a pretty thin Monster Manual, that's for sure.

I mentioned the kenku above, to which Psion said:

Anthropomorphic eagles are kenku

Well, no. The description of them in the old Fiend Folio and even the version of kenku for 3e suggests anthropomorphic parrots rather than eagles.

And if any character in the old Buck Rogers show was silly - besides Twiki, of course - it was Hawk. I mean, come on; feathers for hair?

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Since Howard the Duck has been invoked quite a few times, I have to address him. He never has struck me as silly. Anyone who read his comics way back when, especially in the early days, would likely agree. It was the situations he found himself forced into that were silly - surreal, in many cases - but even he acknowledged how bizarre his predicamant was. He was, as the blurb on his comic said, "trapped in a world he never made." He was, essentially, a normal guy somehow thrust through to a parallel universe where "hairless apes" ran everything, a situation which he felt was as ridiculous as talking ducks are to us. That's why I have a hard time getting why people seem so adamant about not having ducks in a game. I don't think of Donald or Daffy in the context of this discussion, so maybe that's where the difference lies.

 

[Psion]

Well, no. The description of them in the old Fiend Folio and even the version of kenku for 3e suggests anthropomorphic parrots rather than eagles.

Actually, when I spoke of eagles, I referred to them as they existed in FR, so FF is another take from the one I was referring to entirely.

In actual myth they were crows.

None of which (Eagles, Parrots, or Crows) evoke images of Daffy or Donald to me.

And if any character in the old Buck Rogers show was silly - besides Twiki, of course - it was Hawk. I mean, come on; feathers for hair?

(shrug) To each their own, I guess. I thought he was cool. But thanks for peeing on my childhood heroes.