Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="rounser" data-source="post: 5396239" data-attributes="member: 1106">I think it says it all that you're just using very old, very tired jokes there.&nbsp; Of course they're not amusing, you're just ripping off Python and +2 backscratchers have been around for 30 years.&nbsp; It has to amuse the DM for it to end up in the campaign and end up an in-joke, and obviously those things don't amuse you (I suspect you chose them for that purpose).&nbsp; Look at Blackmoor, Wilderlands or Greyhawk for examples - they are chock-a-block with in-jokes and external references that break the 4th wall.&nbsp; In fact as this thread touches upon, it's some of the colour, charm and genius of AD&amp;D that some of us miss.&nbsp; And some of it is built into the rules (e.g. Book of Marvellous Magic built on puns, AD&amp;D spell components and cantrips built on pop culture and literary references etc.)And I completely disagree that humour built into the rules is anathema.&nbsp; Obviously without graphic fumble rules you're not going to have graphic descriptions of the fighter tripping over their own scabbard, or the dragon accidentally critting it's own wings and flying into a cliff.&nbsp; You're not going to have an image of someone being beheaded without a vorpal sword, nor see the potential for humour inherent in a cursed item if you've decided they're unfair, and therefore don't exist.&nbsp; Or see the amusement potential in a magnetic rust monster, because they're unfair too....Just because a silly item, name, rule, race, class or concept exists doesn't make it the focus of the game.&nbsp; The game can have plenty of depth and still involve plenty of in-joke references as incidental humour.&nbsp; The game might even be better for it.&nbsp; AD&amp;D and D&amp;D have had it from the beginning, and I think we're beginning to see why purging it entirely might have been a mistake.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="rounser, post: 5396239, member: 1106"] I think it says it all that you're just using very old, very tired jokes there. Of course they're not amusing, you're just ripping off Python and +2 backscratchers have been around for 30 years. It has to amuse the DM for it to end up in the campaign and end up an in-joke, and obviously those things don't amuse you (I suspect you chose them for that purpose). Look at Blackmoor, Wilderlands or Greyhawk for examples - they are chock-a-block with in-jokes and external references that break the 4th wall. In fact as this thread touches upon, it's some of the colour, charm and genius of AD&D that some of us miss. And some of it is built into the rules (e.g. Book of Marvellous Magic built on puns, AD&D spell components and cantrips built on pop culture and literary references etc.) And I completely disagree that humour built into the rules is anathema. Obviously without graphic fumble rules you're not going to have graphic descriptions of the fighter tripping over their own scabbard, or the dragon accidentally critting it's own wings and flying into a cliff. You're not going to have an image of someone being beheaded without a vorpal sword, nor see the potential for humour inherent in a cursed item if you've decided they're unfair, and therefore don't exist. Or see the amusement potential in a magnetic rust monster, because they're unfair too.... Just because a silly item, name, rule, race, class or concept exists doesn't make it the focus of the game. The game can have plenty of depth and still involve plenty of in-joke references as incidental humour. The game might even be better for it. AD&D and D&D have had it from the beginning, and I think we're beginning to see why purging it entirely might have been a mistake. [/QUOTE]

Verification