So that's why you like it

[Bumbles]

Note: I'm not trying to argue that my viewpoint is the "right" viewpoint. I'm simply stating what I find wrong with the explanation in order for people to understand and possibly to try to answer my confusion.

Well, understanding is something I can't necessarily help you with, but I'll try.

And then later you become some footnote in a history book.

No, then later I move on and play a different game. No history books get involved.

Settings with stuff going on have been done, and done in the real world.

And? Doesn't mean I've done them.

Settings where nothing's going on and then something happens leave those who challenge the happening as central and forever unique.

And those settings leave me wondering why nothing exciting happened for so long then something happened.

Doesn't seem very realistic to me.

Would LotR have been as interesting if what happened in it was known to have happened every hundred years or less?

Actually...I think that's a different question than what you were asking earlier.

But then, I don't think your question is especially accurate either since a lot of big exciting stuff did happen in Middle-Earth. The scale may be more than one hundred years, but there were tons of major events.

No, you don't. You can just sit back and let the world die. It's not like it's worth anything. Heck, help out with the destruction. The faster you get it done the less the world has to suffer.

Well, the former is going to make for a boring game in the most part. And the second is not going to last long in my experience, but it's certainly something people do find fun as a relief now and then, so I don't see the problem as one of an objection. Just a different option that sometimes is liked. If you can make it last longer, well, go ahead, more power to you.

I do not know how long you can keep up a game that effectively involves a bunch of people role-playing drowning their sorrows in the local dive though.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

No, then later I move on and play a different game. No history books get involved.

But that's the way I'd feel: it wouldn't matter if I did anything because it just wouldn't feel unique.

And those settings leave me wondering why nothing exciting happened for so long then something happened.

Why not? Real life feels that way to me.

Besides, if exciting things are always happening then don't they then become unexciting?

Doesn't seem very realistic to me.

I don't understand the desire for realism either. The game's not real. Why stick close to reality? I can't objectively say I prefer unreal things, but I can say that when it comes down to realism vs. what I think is interesting I choose interesting every time. Otherwise a story is useless to me.

Well, the former is going to make for a boring game in the most part. And the second is not going to last long in my experience, but it's certainly something people do find fun as a relief now and then, so I don't see the problem as one of an objection. Just a different option that sometimes is liked. If you can make it last longer, well, go ahead, more power to you.

Well I just avoid those sorts of settings. If you can plan an entire campaign with the thought "No use bothering" it's not worth my time.

I do not know how long you can keep up a game that effectively involves a bunch of people role-playing drowning their sorrows in the local dive though.

I'm not talking about doing that. I'm just talking about settings that don't feel like their dying and should be shot to put them out of their misery. I'm not going to save something that doesn't want to be saved.

 

[Bumbles]

But that's the way I'd feel: it wouldn't matter if I did anything because it just wouldn't feel unique.

Well, that's your perspective of it. I think part of the problem is you're looking for agreement instead of understanding. Shoot, you could use that to argue against reading any book, or writing one...and I really don't know how to address that, since it seems to be your own personal preference.

Why not? Real life feels that way to me.

May you live in interesting times then. Real life may feel that way to you on the individual micro-scale, but then, that's why people don't play Accountants and Archives.

And I really don't agree with your perspective on real life. We're not quite at the Urth-level of stagnation yet.

I don't understand the desire for realism either. The game's not real. Why stick close to reality? I can't objectively say I prefer unreal things, but I can say that when it comes down to realism vs. what I think is interesting I choose interesting every time. Otherwise a story is useless to me.

I see part of the problem is right here, as we're not communicating very effectively with each other. Realism, or if you prefer, verisimilitude, in this case, can contribute to something being interesting, as it adds a certain level of believability and depth. This is not contradictory with the game, which does abstract many elements of realism out, as there's a wide range of things that are not realistic enough, too realistic, or just right. In the game, the trick is the balance, which may vary quite a bit from person to person.

But I really don't think I'm explaining it very well, as it seems to me you're not understanding what I'm saying. What i'm trying to say is that worlds where things change, where other events happened, do appeal to me more because they seem more believable and real than ones where it just suddenly seems something dropped in out of nowhere to happen.

This is distinct from the prosaic "What's ending the world this week" you might see in children's cartoons, which is what I think is closer to what you're asking about.

Well I just avoid those sorts of settings. If you can plan an entire campaign with the thought "No use bothering" it's not worth my time.

Um, who exactly is doing that? I'm a bit confused where this is coming from.

I'm not talking about doing that. I'm just talking about settings that don't feel like their dying and should be shot to put them out of their misery. I'm not going to save something that doesn't want to be saved.

Ok, then obviously I don't understand what you're talking about. Maybe you meant something other than post-apocalyptic, such as fatalistic? If so, then the answer can be found in....not giving up. Because not everybody is willing to believe nothing can be done.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

Well, that's your perspective of it. I think part of the problem is you're looking for agreement instead of understanding. Shoot, you could use that to argue against reading any book, or writing one...and I really don't know how to address that, since it seems to be your own personal preference.

Well no, I am looking for an explanation that will allow me to understand it. The problem may be that I am just incapable of that understanding while you are giving me good answers.

May you live in interesting times then.

Hey, I'm not that desperate!

I see part of the problem is right here, as we're not communicating very effectively with each other. Realism, or if you prefer, verisimilitude, in this case, can contribute to something being interesting, as it adds a certain level of believability and depth. This is not contradictory with the game, which does abstract many elements of realism out, as there's a wide range of things that are not realistic enough, too realistic, or just right. In the game, the trick is the balance, which may vary quite a bit from person to person.

But I really don't think I'm explaining it very well, as it seems obvious to me you're not understanding what I'm saying.

More like I believe things easier than other people do.

Um, who exactly is doing that? I'm a bit confused where this is coming from.

Sorry, I tend to change pronouns when trying to be general. I'm speaking about myself.

Ok, then obviously I don't understand what you're talking about.

I want that if I go out and fix a problem that the fix will stick. But settings with all the tension and war and strife and darkness don't lead me to feel that there is any way to fix them. I don't want to fight a useless battle.

UPDATE:

Maybe you meant something other than post-apocalyptic, such as fatalistic?

I see most post-apocalyptic as fatalistic. Or, at lest, if something isn't fatalistic I don't really accept it as post-apocalyptic.

If so, then the answer can be found in....not giving up. Because not everybody is willing to believe nothing can be done.

Well if something can be done then it can be done. But what most dark settings give me the feeling of is that nothing can be done. It won't stick if you try. So I don't see the need to try.

 

[Bumbles]

I want that if I go out and fix a problem that the fix will stick. But settings with all the tension and war and strife and darkness don't lead me to feel that there is any way to fix them. I don't want to fight a useless battle.

Well, in a sense it is useless no matter what, since you're just playing a game, and if the DM wants, tomorrow Skeletor can be back with another plot to destroy the world! In another sense, the reward isn't tomorrow, it's how you live with yourself today. Besides, believing that you're not fighting a useless battle may be a delusion, but it's often a good one, and it's often more entertaining when it's more of a challenge, when the world is at its darkest.

Obviously, however, YMMV.

I see most post-apocalyptic as fatalistic. Or, at lest, if something isn't fatalistic I don't really accept it as post-apocalyptic.

Yeah, I don't define things quite that way. Or I see the fatalism as yet another challenge to overcome, rather than something to find yourself submitting to it.

 

[SKyOdin]

I think I can try to answer the Gun question raised earlier.

One reason I like the idea of having guns available as an option in D&D is because of the History major in me. This comes out in two different ways:

1) Guns were present in Europe during the Late Middle Ages. Their complete exclusion from fantasy that is otherwise based primarily on the Late Middle Ages has always struck me as being very artificial.

2) Having rules for guns and other gunpowder weapons expands the kinds of settings that are possible with D&D. For example, Pirates of the Caribbean style high-seas campaigns work well with D&D, but need firearms in order to work properly.

The other factor is that I have seen enough examples of fantasy with firearms that it doesn't strike me as something unusual.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

Obviously, however, YMMV.

I think we're just going to have to agree that the issue is inexplicable to me.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I think we're just going to have to agree that the issue is inexplicable to me.

If I may?

I think you're finding it inexplicable, SM, because you're making a mistake at a fundamental level.

You're assuming that what a setting appears to be must always and automatically equate to what it actually is.

Sometimes, when things seem the most hopeless, that's when only a few truly committed individuals actually can change things.

How many of the English do you think actually expected victory in WWII, during the worst of the Blitz? But they fought because it was the right thing to do, because the only other option was even worse, and they held out until victory--which might have seemed utterly ludicrous at the beginning--turned out to actually be a possibility.

In Star Wars, how likely did victory over the Empire seem to anyone--even the Rebels--until one Luke Skywalker came along? And yet, if the Rebels before him hadn't fought a "hopeless" battle, Luke never would have had his chance to change things.

Have you ever given a few bucks to a homeless person? That act potentially made a real difference, even if he was hungry again tomorrow.

And you never know. Just maybe, that meal you bought him--which he otherwise wouldn't have had--meant that he felt well enough to walk all the way to the shelter where he slept that night, whereas he'd have frozen to death on the street. Sure, it's not at all likely, but it's possible.

When I play a character in a world were everything seems hopeless, or like the challenges are too big for any individual to change, I'm often playing to look for that one opportunity to prove the rest of the world wrong.

Don't assume that a campaign's challenges are too big for the PCs to change, even if they seem that way. Try looking at the campaigns that way, and seeing if you can't start finding some appeal in them.

 

[mach1.9pants]

...

5) More than likely, those who like Drizzt the most were young and impressionable when they read the books. They were teenagers, thus angsty, related to Drizzt being an outcast. Drizzt did badass stuff. He was also counter-culture (going against what his People saw as the thing to do). To someone first starting reading D&D fantasy, it's pretty impressionable. (Sidenote: My first fantasy novel was The Crystal Shard).

Add all these up, and if several of these apply to a person's tastes, they likely would like Drizzt.

Well said, I like drizzt but not as much as I like Raistlin, the first (non-tolkien) book I read was War of the Twins. Therefore Wizards (1st PC BECMI Magic User) are my fave PCs followed by half-orc fighter assassins (2nd..and last PC) see the thread on why people like half-orcs. For me it was the FR City System box picture

 

[Crothian]

Okay, my turn.

What is up with all the sub races? I know 4e got rid of that, but back in 2e and 3e they seemed kind of popular. I never saw the need for all the different types of dwarves and elves and orcs and whatever just because the enviroment they lived in was different. Of course there were other reasons for sub races but that seemed to be the main one.