The Possibility of "Too Fantastic" Fantasy

[Reynard]

Has it occurred to you that D&D does well precisely because it's not as specific as Exalted, and that the core let people worldbuild with ease because it didn't need untangling from so much specific setting stuff? The surveys suggesting homebrewing being the most popular setting seem to suggest this.

4E seems to be taking a number of cues from Exalted, or, at least, tapping into the same reservoir. Exalted is a "Points of Light" setting -- the world is huge and full of white space, and built atop the ruins of once great civilization. The planar fluff, the mythohistory and the uniqueness of the PCs are all similar. Exalted is more specific, of course, but not by as much as some might think.

But even Exalted has a "mundane" foundation on which to build solid over-the-top fantasy -- the first book I worked on for Exalted was Manacle and Coin -- a book on trade and a trade organization.

 

[rounser]

Exalted is a "Points of Light" setting

I don't know why people are making such a big deal about "Points of Light" as if it were something new.

From even the early years, wilderness wandering monster tables have always implied "POL". The fact that you step out of the village into the woods and the DM starts rolling on these tables if you hang around too long is a hint that the concept's as old as the hills.

I find it hard to believe it was borrowed off of Exalted, more that the implied setting just got spelled out for once.

 

[The Little Raven]

Has it occurred to you that D&D does well precisely because it's not as specific as Exalted, and that the core let people worldbuild with ease because it didn't need untangling from so much specific setting stuff?

There's an advantage to being the first horse out of the gate as well. D&D is the most well known RPG for the same reason that Ford is the most well known American car company, and Kleenex is the most well known tissue company. When you basically start an industry, you become identified with that industry.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Yes, we're getting something like that with 4E. I've listed some reasons why this is IMO a bad thing to do, upthread.

As well as D&D?

Has it occurred to you that D&D does well precisely because it's not as specific as Exalted, and that the core let people worldbuild with ease because it didn't need untangling from so much specific setting stuff? The surveys suggesting homebrewing being the most popular setting seem to suggest this.

Shucks, TSR, WOTC and myriad 3rd party companies have had many bites at the cherry at making a setting for D&D, and none seem to beat homebrew for popularity as of 2000. Not even close. If you're suggesting that that's changed with the advent of Eberron and the d20 company settings, colour me skeptical.

No, I don't think I'm suggesting that they do as well as homebrewing.

What I might suggest though is that we have no idea how fantastic most homebrews are, or how much homebrewing plays a part even in fantastic settings.

Just because I use Exalted doesn't mean I don't homebrew as much as any DnD player.

And just because I homebrew off of DnD doesn't mean I'm not playing in a game as fantastic if not more so than Exalted or even PS or DS.

The sale of the boutique PnPs and their related fiction might be our best window into what homebrewers are doins since we might assume that they are buying the things that will be most useful to their homebrews or closest.

Honestly, I hadn't really considered DnD's success in terms of its generic status. It just doesn't seem like that generic a game. I would've attributed it primarilly to inertia and recently the success of 3.X and the OGL in recognizing that and leveraging it very successfully.

I do like the generic flexibility of DnD, but I honestly think it works better in terms of its fantasticness. Up to a point it's easier to take things off than to put them on.

Don't get me wrong:

.

• I agree with Reynard that you don't want to ignore the mundane
• I agree with you that the really fantastic settings, in both quality and imagination, should be the boutique settings
• And I love that we're getting more actual Earth Myth - the Shadowfell and Feywild really complete that aspect of the base game
• And I like the Fantastic - Dark Sun was great and I like Exalted! But Al-Quadim was my favorite - I think there is a happy medium between fantastic and mundane that best settings hit perfectly. I need that historical analogue to get the myth right

But I do think that

• Some of DnD traditional historicisms and analogues really slowed things down. For the most part, they were exceptions, but they still need to be ejected.
• A higher level of fantasticallness than we have now is probably where things should go. Not too far certainly, but farther than now.

I look forward to the first really good fantasy Earth for the new edition, but my point is if I buy 100 monsters from a company I'd really like it if I can easilly use all of them.

Then again, I think we are just arguing about degrees here, and we might agree more on specifics than we do on generalities

 

[rounser]

There's an advantage to being the first horse out of the gate as well. D&D is the most well known RPG for the same reason that Ford is the most well known American car company, and Kleenex is the most well known tissue company. When you basically start an industry, you become identified with that industry.

Granted. But if what you're suggesting were a good idea, wouldn't we have seen the "killer app setting" by now? Why aren't we all throwing away our homebrew settings in favour of Eberron or FR?

Homebrew has had many challengers, and seemingly beaten off them all. This seems to be independent of D&D's success, else we'd all be playing Greyhawk.

Greyhawk was the first published setting for D&D, yes? The booklet for it came out after Eldritch Magic or Blackmoor or something, I gather. Early enough days to have considerable impact in terms of the "I got here first!" stakes.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I don't know why people are making such a big deal about "Points of Light" as if it were something new...

more that the implied setting just got spelled out for once.

Hallelujah! Amen! And Preach it to us!

QFT!

 

[Lhorgrim]

I do like the generic flexibility of DnD, but I honestly think it works better in terms of its fantasticness. Up to a point it's easier to take things off than to put them on.

I see what your saying here, and I agree in some respects.

It has been my experience though, that if something is included in the "core" rules it is more difficult to convince players that they can't use it in your campaign. It's a little like a judge directing a jury to disregard testimony that they've just heard. A player is going to know "Flying Mantis Death Flutter" is available in the PH, and some players resent not getting to use all the tools in the toolbox.

As a note, my experiences are from a gamer poor environment, so I understand how this would not be a concern in an area where players and DMs can "shop around" to find a table that suits their style.

 

[The Little Raven]

But people don't run or worldbuild with the WoW MMORPG, Mourn. That's the point! They're not the same thing!

No, they're not the same thing. But things don't have to be the same to draw influence from eachother. WoW has something that D&D doesn't: mainstream popularity and broader cultural acceptance. Since WotC wants to grow their playerbase, it makes sense to tap into what can be learned from WoW and go with it.

The "certain amount of unfamiliar" ends up in most D&D worlds, which puts a real strain on D&D's relevancy to homebrew fantasy worldbuilding.

The D&D core contained a "certain amount of unfamiliar" in 3e, and this didn't stop people from homebrewing in the slightest.

Aasimar, Aboleth, Achaierai, Allip, Androsphinx, Ankheg, Annis, Aranea, Arrowhawk, Athach, Avoral, Azer, Babau, Barghest, Behir, Belker, Blink Dog, Bodak, Bralani, Bulette, Chaos beast, choker, chuul, darkmantle, delver, destrachan, digester, displacer beast, dragonne, drider, ethereal filcher, ethereal marauder, ettercap, ettin... and that's just up to E with the "totally unfamiliar to anyone who isn't experienced with D&D."

With the descriptions given in R&C and W&M, the reconcepting of monsters will make them more recognizable to non-gamers (because of ties to real-world mythology and lore... Feywild... Shadowfell... giants/titans, primordials vs gods, etc) while making everything have a place.

Unless you specifically ban them, eladrin and dragonborn are now EVERYWHERE in the D&D multiverse same way as mythologically resonant stuff like elves and dwarves.

Eladrin have basically always existed (poorly), as gray elves. They got the space they deserve as an iconic image (sorcerous elf) alongside the other iconic image (ranger elf). And in case you didn't know, half-dragons and things like that have been pretty popular for a while. A dragonman race in a game called Dungeons and Dragons isn't necessarily crazy.

The same "you have to ban things if you don't want them" rules applied when people wanted to ban core races in the past. Nothing has changed in that regard, except a reshuffling of the core races due to popularity through feedback.

And that's a pity, because custom worldbuilding pretty much was D&D's trump card.

And people still managed it with BECMI's implied setting and 3e's implied Greyhawk, so I don't see anything stopping people in 4e, except lack of creativity.

And with that, I'm off to sleep. I'm glad we were able to get beyond the ugly beginning of this to actually engage eachother in real discussion, rounser. Take care.

 

[shilsen]

And I think I know why -- I like my fantasy firmly rooted in the mundane because it makes the fantastic that much more so. In addition, the mundane is more familiar and familiar encourages immersion and immersion makes the game more "real" and when the game feels more "real" and you suddenly pull out a big giant walking space-god-robot thing that wants to eat the planet, the implications and consequences wrapped around that fantastic element are more real. And therefore, much "bigger" and much "cooler" than it would have been as just another deimonkibot among many.

If W&M is any way to judge, 4E will be constantly reminding us DM's to remember the fantasy part of the FRPG. And I agree. But we can't forget the mundane, everyday aspects either, lest we lose the "fantasy".

No disagreement here (surprise, surprise ). I'd just add that I wouldn't be at all surprised if you're right that 4e does constantly remind DMs to remember the fantasy part and I can understand why. The fantasy part is mostly the part that the designers are going to be working on and tinkering with, since the more mundane and real world aspects are things that the DMs are surrounded with all the time and can presumably handle on their own. Most DMs can describe a tree and a human being, but would need more information to describe a treant or a dragonborn.

Also, I think it's worth remembering that there's a continuum of fantasy ranging from more mundane fantasy (even if it is an oxymoron) to more, well, fantastic fantasy. For example, in my Eberron game, a middle to upper class denizen of Sharn will not be the least bit surprised at seeing a warforged or the lightning rail or an airship, but will freak out when he walks into a house and is greeted by a mindflayer (my PCs have a stuffed one in the foyer - don't ask!). So in the D&D fantasy world, whether it be FR, Eberron, a homebrew, a 4e POL setting or anywhere else, exactly what counts as mundane and everyday is likely to be at least a little different from ours, and even if the baseline is a somewhat fantastic one, that doesn't obviate the presence (and effect) of more drastically fantastic elements.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I see what your saying here, and I agree in some respects.

It has been my experience though, that if something is included in the "core" rules it is more difficult to convince players that they can't use it in your campaign. It's a little like a judge directing a jury to disregard testimony that they've just heard. A player is going to know "Flying Mantis Death Flutter" is available in the PH, and some players resent not getting to use all the tools in the toolbox.

As a note, my experiences are from a gamer poor environment, so I understand how this would not be a concern in an area where players and DMs can "shop around" to find a table that suits their style.

No, I think that even in gamer rich environments you still have to negotiate with the players. Every gamer, DM or Player, with even a little bit of experience knows that they all own the rules in common. So yeah, you ask a player to give something up you're going to have convince them its worth their while to give up that power to you.

On the other hand, getting players to enjoy new elements you introduce is much much harder. It's like trying to get them to try your home made toothpaste when there's name brand right on the shelf.

So, while I have faith in the Golden Mean, IME I do tend to side with more options and new elements.