I'd argue that D&D used to contain and actively support this scope, but that it no longer does. That it used to be a broad church, and now isn't. That it used to have something that it no longer has, and that many don't even notice what they've lost. That the baby has been thrown out with the bathwater. Or are you arguing that 4E is no longer D&D?
The whimsical element of D&D vs AD&D
- Thread starter MerricB
- Start date
You think you've got a political correctness trump card there. The badwrongfun card failed, so now you're trying playing the edition wars card. It won't make your argument for you, the scope of the game has changed, and arguably for the worse.
Next time make your point without the labels and rhetoric, please. It's possible to do without deliberately trying to make people angry. PM me with questions. ~ PCat
Last edited by a moderator:
Hussar
Legend
No, Rounser, it really hasn't.
Unless you can somehow prove that the 3e or 4e rules actually prevent whimsy, then you don't really have a leg to stand on. Granted, whimsy isn't nearly as prevalent, and it's something you don't see a lot of, but, pretending like this is something new is playing silly buggers with history.
After all, how much whimsy is there in Ravenloft? Forgotten Realms? Dragonlance? The original Oriental Adventures setting and Kara Tur? All of these appeared in the 80's, long before WOTC was even a gleam in someone's eye.
You're the one claiming that apparently we've all be brainwashed to think that whimsy is bad and that we're too feebleminded to actually be able to judge for ourselves what kind of games work best for us.
I like whimsy in the game and I would like to see more adventures that used nonsense because I find nonsense to be a lot of fun. But, I'm certainly not going to sit here and make grandiose claims about THE WAY THINGS WERE and how today is just a pale shadow of THE WAY THINGS WERE.
Unless you can somehow prove that the 3e or 4e rules actually prevent whimsy, then you don't really have a leg to stand on. Granted, whimsy isn't nearly as prevalent, and it's something you don't see a lot of, but, pretending like this is something new is playing silly buggers with history.
After all, how much whimsy is there in Ravenloft? Forgotten Realms? Dragonlance? The original Oriental Adventures setting and Kara Tur? All of these appeared in the 80's, long before WOTC was even a gleam in someone's eye.
You're the one claiming that apparently we've all be brainwashed to think that whimsy is bad and that we're too feebleminded to actually be able to judge for ourselves what kind of games work best for us.
I like whimsy in the game and I would like to see more adventures that used nonsense because I find nonsense to be a lot of fun. But, I'm certainly not going to sit here and make grandiose claims about THE WAY THINGS WERE and how today is just a pale shadow of THE WAY THINGS WERE.
Barastrondo
First Post
It's not a truism, and it's not even what I said. Players who won't think to be funny without mechanical encouragement, sure, you can't leave it to them to be whimsical. But if you play with players who don't need mechanical encouragement, then they will be funny with or without it, read the context of the situation more accurately, and know the kind of behavior that entertains the group better than an author who's never met them will. For those reasons I find rules-whimsy less effective overall, and therefore not as important.
Let me make it perfectly clear that I am not saying that whimsy-by-mechanical-design is a bad thing, and that nobody should use it! I'm just saying that for the right group, it's unnecessary, particularly if some of the members aren't that in tune with the author's sense of humor.
Well, here's the thing: If the "trip over your scabbard" joke is fresh and hilarious each time it comes up, it's because the players have interpreted it in different fashions each time. Yet if they're creative enough to do that, then the virtue is not resting with "31-33: You trip over your scabbard." It's resting with creative players who remember the last time this happened, and do something different with it for variety's sake. The table won't remember the last time it happened, and neither will the dice. They're not that smart (player accusations that my dice are both smart and malevolent to the contrary).
I fear you don't know my players very well, sir. Certainly they fail to interpret the game world in terms of their powers: they're pretty hip to the idea of rules as a means to arbitrate specific interactions rather than physical constants. They also have this tendency to act as though whimsy is a rules-agnostic element. The socially inept wizard goes off on a comical tirade when an appropriate conversational opening presents itself. The Librarian develops a deep-seated fear of being devoured not because of a psychological chart, but because the player thinks it would be funny for him to flinch at the mention of giant frogs like the ones that almost got him.
I'm trying pretty hard to imagine a gaming group that doesn't crack jokes because there are no in-jokes in the ruleset, and... yeah, it's pretty hard for me. In the first Vampire game I ever played, one of my friends created the vampirized Jim Henson and built a robot "Kerminator." In my experience, the group chemistry will always trump whatever the ruleset says. They may play in perfect accordance with a theme as written, of course -- but it's because they choose to.
Well, humor's essentially subjective. My wife, who laughs her head off at the latest rant of the Ezio Auditore-meets-Bertie Wooster rogue, or at the gesticulations that describe the hunting behavior of the rhinostirge, would just roll her eyes at the +2 Backbiter and say "Man, another stupid screw-the-players inclusion. Did a player eat the last nacho or something?" She prefers conversational wit to slapstick, and conversational wit is not something game books often do very well. They can only dictate; you can't have a back-and-forth with them. So our fellow players are far more successful in that regard.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
The newer game designs and rules certainly don't prevent whimsy, but they no longer outright include it either, instead leaving it up to the DM and-or players to put it back in. Thing is, it's easier to take such things out once you know they're present than to think to add 'em in if they're not present to begin with.
Dragonlance has Kender. What more do you need?
The rest of the settings you mention are pretty serious, *but* keep in mind that they are also built on a core system (1e) that includes lots of whimsy; so it's probably going to rear its head at some point.
Lan-"in Ravenloft they're wandering vampiric harlots"-efan
Dragonlance has tinker gnomes.
I just looked up bullywugs in 4e; they're not so whimsical in their description (alas!). Mind you, it does describe them as being paranoid as they think everything is out to kill them... and nature seems to thank those who do, so they're right!
My feeling is that 4e does "serious" inventiveness extremely well. The backstory of the primordial war is brilliant. Although there are lighter touches from time to time, presenting a coherent, serious world seems to be at the forefront of most of the rulebooks.
The original AD&D rulebooks present a pretty serious world, albeit with occasional touches of humour (mostly in an in-joke manner, such as spell components). Yes, it has the cartoons in the DMG, but they're at odds with the writing.
The Over-The-Top fantasy which I associate - rightly or wrongly - with Basic, isn't so much in the AD&D rules. Consider that in OD&D that Gygax is saying, "Yes, play a dragon if you want to - just make up a few rules", but once AD&D comes along, playing non-humans is something you shouldn't be doing (even demihumans are rarely worth it).
Cheers!
The Gazetteer line was pretty good for whimsy, but I don't think it held a candle to Glorantha (setting of White Bear & Red Moon and RuneQuest).
There was the Jack-O-Bear (remember Greyhawk?), Three Bean Circus, Trollball, and of course (as a friend of mine puts it)
"Those damned Ducks!"
There was the Jack-O-Bear (remember Greyhawk?), Three Bean Circus, Trollball, and of course (as a friend of mine puts it)
"Those damned Ducks!"
I think that this argument is a bit of a furphy, as far as RPG tables in general are concerned, but it may be fine for your particular group.
If the rules and setting provide props, not necessarily for humour but for roleplaying of any sort, then more of that will happen. It's just the way it is. Yes, you can roleplay over a pure combat engine, but I guarantee that you'll see less of it than if the system gives you rules and setting props to throw around, similarly to how actors can act on an empty stage without costumes may have more trouble getting into character than ones in the opposite environment.
To clarify, the humorous use of the Backbiter I had in mind isn't a "screw the players" use (although IMO that's a perfectly acceptable part of true D&D games when used in considered moderation*). To be specific, it's more a PC inspired way of being cruel to peasants through an impromptu equivalent of a gameshow, once they know what they have (but enough said about that). When you ditch items and monsters that might cause a setback or inconvenience, you simply throw to the winds much of the possibility of this kind of humour or drama.
I think there is a place for cursed items, and it's in the campaign of a trusted DM. I get the impression that AD&D trusted the DM as a sort of equal, like Gygax was speaking to you directly through the DMG as a sort of co-conspirator (as opposed to patronising you), which is a leap of faith that I think that game designers of RPGs simply have to make (given that a bad DM will screw up any RPG). Throwing away tools that a bad DM might misuse punishes all DMs, and the game is worse for it.
I debate that - the gamebook setting, rules-supported actions and writing style can set up the very mood of the table, the content of what is happening and the possibilities for conversational wit as a result. Nevermind genre, for that matter, although I'm quite prepared to accept that people can be witty in any RPG genre. It's just that the genre is likely to influence the players, if it's doing it's job, as are the rules.
No, there's no scripts in there, but there is a stage provided, and the mood of that stage is different from game to game. I'm very surprised that you're attempting to argue this, as I can't think of an angle where playing, say, Paranoia would not affect the dialogue content and style of wit engaged in, unless said wit is part of the group's in-jokes and individual personalities independent of the game being played.
*: The "player entitlement" meme that's crept into D&D culture would have the DM throw away one of the masks of drama almost entirely, and make the game the D&D equivalent of Ladders and Ladders rather than Snakes and Ladders. Plus, if you identify items before using them, there's a good chance you can catch such things...and there's always paying for a Remove Curse. No higher highs without lower lows, it's a rule of the emotions, and rarely do such items kill anyone unless they're artifacts. In short, I disagree with your wife in her opinion about cursed items, but acknowledge that her take on it would probably see support from the 4E design team.
Last edited:
Hussar
Legend
Oh, totally agree that 4e is not presenting "teh funny" in the rules. Yup.
But, OTOH, because 4e has such loose rules, and decouples mechanics from flavour, adding in the whimsy is really really easy.
Sorry, another gaming story. This time with a bit of setup.
My current character in a 4e campaign is a human rogue based on the Mike Resnick Lucifer Jones character. Blatantly stolen ideas.
Anyway, his schtick is that he believes that he has been chosen by Kord to do Kord's work (straighten crooked men and tighten loose women). He believes this because, after eating a stew made from questionable mushrooms, he saw Kord stride out of the darkness, sit at his fire, pick up his wooden spoon and eat the rest of his stew. He now carries the spoon as a holy icon of Kord. (plus he took the dual class feat into cleric which allows him to do clerical healing).So, enough exposition.
In the most recent adventure (the one with the bullywugs - while I haven't read the description, asploding bullywugs that grant you hit points when they are critted is plenty funny for me) we come across a locked door. Being the party rogue, I step up to open the lock.
Me: I pull out my spoon, look at my biceps, mutter a prayer and rap the lock smartly with my spoon and bump the door Fonz style. ((And make my Theivery check)).
DM: The lock pops open with a sproing and the door swings inward.
Now, I can do that because the mechanics are not tied to the flavour. I am free to describe my actions pretty much any way I want. I wanted a sign from Kord, and I got one. The image of my grossly overweight rogue praying to His Thewitude to open a lock made me giggle.
And, it's something I actually couldn't have done in earlier editions, at least, not by the rules.
So, yeah, count me squarely in the camp with Bastarondo in saying that whimsy is what you make it. You don't need someone to tell you how to have whimsy in your game, just use your own imagination.
