The Possibility of "Too Fantastic" Fantasy

[JohnSnow]

Ah, but now you're getting into the difference between default assumptions and assumptions related to specific campaigns. If you want to rule that paladins do not constitute 1 out of every 11 PC-classed characters in your world despite the fact that paladin is an equally available PC option to, say, fighter, of course you can... just as you can alter the demographics to suit your world! However, in the context of a published game book, the designers really don't have the luxury of providing for every single DM's individual take.

Or you can just rule that paladins are about as common among all adventuring groups as they are among yours.

Which, unless your group is very unusual, means you'll get about 1 paladin for ever 50 or so PCs made. Because a lot of people HATE paladins.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Figure I should probably bring this thread back onto topic:

I think that what's going on here is actually the triumph of simulationism. In all probability, there are people who look at medieval-ish D&D worlds (or superhero comics, or Vampire's Earth analogue, etc.) and get their dander up about the fact that these worlds don't make sense given what D&D characters are capable of doing. So you get Ptolus, or Eberron, or any of these other worlds that are actually built around the common magic, guys-in-funny-suits racial mix, and heroic character assumptions of D&D. Once you're there in terms of the mechanics, you sort of have to write the flavor to match... wherefrom originates (IMO) the super-fantastical D&D world that is under discussion here. A mundane world that contains all of this craziness would involve huge cognitive dissonance and could even be seen as a failure of the imagination... a rejection of the implications raised by the mechanics rather than an embrace.

Personally, I too prefer a world with a strong "mundane" default... but I think it's hard to justify given D&D's assumed campaign demographics and given all the monsters, magic, and other crazy stuff that the game contains. In order to make the mundane work, you have to pare down a lot. I do this IMC, but unless they want to alter D&D to look more like A Game of Thrones, Conan, or Black Company, I think it's hard for the designers to do this when putting together the skeleton of the "implied settting."

 

[JohnSnow]

ruleslawyer, thanks for pulling us back on topic.

Personally, I too prefer a world with a strong "mundane" default... but I think it's hard to justify given D&D's assumed campaign demographics and given all the monsters, magic, and other crazy stuff that the game contains. In order to make the mundane work, you have to pare down a lot. I do this IMC, but unless they want to alter D&D to look more like A Game of Thrones, Conan, or Black Company, I think it's hard for the designers to do this when putting together the skeleton of the "implied settting."

I think there's more to it than that. From my perspective, as a DM, it's relatively easy to think about a setting where the most of the world is mundane and the fantasy exists mostly in the context of "strangeness" or "otherness." That's a world where it's possible to adventure in strange realms, but the fantastic is rare enough that most people either don't think it exists, or that "that sort of thing doesn't happen here."

That's pretty much "no-brainer" world-building.

What's hard is trying to make the fantastic common enough that ordinary people have experienced it, but don't treat it as "everyday." In the real world, magicians and goblins don't exist, but in most fantasy settings, wizards are common enough that most people haven't just "heard of them," they've probably seen one cast a spell.

Over-the-top fantasy is one thing. But making it so that the fantastic is part of the setting without overwhelming it is a LOT harder. I believe the latter is their intent with 4E. They want the fantastic elements to be prevalent, but not overwhelming.

 

[ruleslawyer]

The sort of balance for which you're suggesting the 4e designers are aiming strikes me as nearly impossible, though. I'd love to see it in practice, but I know that as a homebrewer, I have a very difficult time communicating the strangeness of a world if I don't keep that strangeness rare and far away. It's a descriptive issue with my Iron Heroes Realms campaign; I drastically pared down the level of magic from 3e FRCS levels or even 1e gray box levels (since IH doesn't really have reliable PC magic), and I'm running a largely humans-only campaign, but with every new magical location, "civilized" monster, and special effect that comes into the game, I can feel my players' sense of wonder straining. If they pull it off with a 4e setting, I'll be impressed.

 

[JohnSnow]

The sort of balance for which you're suggesting the 4e designers are aiming strikes me as nearly impossible, though. I'd love to see it in practice, but...If they pull it off with a 4e setting, I'll be impressed.

Well, that's why they're professionals, right? They're supposed to be better at this than we are.

 

[DandD]

Well, that's why they're professionals, right? They're supposed to be better at this than we are.

Nah, they simply get paid for their fantasy-wank.
That's why they get called professionals. If they're better than us has yet to be seen.
I have high hopes for 4th edition, but if some things simply suck, they still suck.

 

[The Little Raven]

That's why they get called professionals. If they're better than us has yet to be seen.

Ah, the internet, where professionals get disparaged by amateurs that have never proven themselves capable of writing professionally, nor meeting a deadline, nor even making a company think they're worth hiring.

 

[DandD]

Yep, absolutely right.
The internet has it all, and more.

 

[The Little Raven]

Whenever something like that happens on my company's forums (no, I'm not telling who I work for), I take a moment to post and request the person's resume and references. Only one has ever produced a resume that would even be considered for employment by any company, and we ended up getting that guy onto our testing team before he moved up to become one of my programming slaves (just promoted two weeks ago).

Most amateurs talk a lot of talk (aka make claims that they can do better), but professionals actually walk the walk (aka produce products that people actually buy). There are exceptions to both, but they are few and far between.

 

[Reynard]

Ah, but now you're getting into the difference between default assumptions and assumptions related to specific campaigns. If you want to rule that paladins do not constitute 1 out of every 11 PC-classed characters in your world despite the fact that paladin is an equally available PC option to, say, fighter, of course you can... just as you can alter the demographics to suit your world! However, in the context of a published game book, the designers really don't have the luxury of providing for every single DM's individual take.

Alternatively, you bring back anility score pre-requisites for classes. The Paladin gets hella rare in that case (as does the ranger, the druid, the monk and a few others).

Here's the thing though, even if you want to assume no prereqs and people have as open an opportunity to join a PC class as the PCs do (a bad idea, IMO), but you figure that either everyone rolls 3d6 for their stats or has a "standard array", things like powerful clerics and wizards aren't much of an issue. Bishop Bob the 10th level cleric of Whatsertown can still only cast 2nd or 3rd level spells, is relatively weak in many areas because of low stats and doesn't have access to nearly the range of items or options that PCs do because he doesn't go trolling around in deep, dank, monster infested holes.