Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="rounser" data-source="post: 5401003" data-attributes="member: 1106">There's a sliding scale, as you well know, Hussar.  An intelligent sword with a phobia of blood or an amulet which controls caterpillars is whimsy that is usable.  The Cloak of Blending 3 speed is, as you say, not designed to be used.  And of course it's subjective as to what is amusing to you, and what isn't.  It's not some unified front.  If you've played Baldur's Gate 2, is Minsc and his hamster named "Boo" anathema to you, or did it help make the game?For instance, it's possible to like a good deal of the tongue-in-cheekness of  Hackmaster and consider Castle Greyhawk to be vulgar and meanspirited, for instance, just as you can like Black Books, The Mighty Boosh and the IT Crowd and not like Russell Brand.  Just because you like some of it doesn't mean you like all of it, although it's a useful way to dismiss it altogether by pretending whimsy is some conglomerate.Look, I'm simply trying to point out something which is different about D&D culture, and not necessarily for the better.  If just one person realises that we've collectively probably swung the pendulum too far in the opposite direction, then there is a point to this thread.  It's just that the collective wisdom on this topic is faulty, because looking back, the stuff which stays with me and the anecdotes others share are related to farcical or whimsical situations which are built into adventure, setting, or rules (e.g. the mystery of the still-smoking boots in the mud, spear of backstabbing throwing competitions, Abyss tourism entrepreneurs, misfortunes involving "unfair" monsters, gods with stupid names and worshippers who chant odd things, Rolemaster crits where everything went very right or very wrong etc.).  And that the fantasy DMs have of how seriously their campaigns will be played IME often doesn't get borne out in reality, with players being less than serious at the table, as is normal for healthy social situations.  Yet so many of us DMs strive on under the collective delusion that we're creating some sort of live play multi-author literary work, until game day, and the players remind us of the way things really are by squabbling over something trivial or trying something stupid because this is an RPG, and they can.  I'm just trying to point out that D&D does whimsical and silly much better and more easily than it does horror, because it lends itself naturally towards that by default, as we all know.  And if you design your campaign or setting or rules to reflect some of that, you might, you know, actually add to the fun and the memories rather than actively fighting it, as many a campaign is built for a scope of epic drama, and no further, like a novel, rather than a social occasion.And if you can't see that a book reading as interesting is worthwhile, even if you don't use spell components, then you deserve the dryness of the current books.I'd also add that the Grand Duchy of Geoff is a bad name, but I really like the Egg of Coot and can't get enough of anagrams like Drawmij.  Boggy Bottom as the name of a town is borderline (apparently the locals have "heard all the jokes", and are sick of them), but places with names like that exist in the real world, and provide a nice antidote for all the Skullspire Peaks and Diredoom Castle type names around.I've been in games where the DM arranges for a PC with a name or personality too silly for his campaign to end up killed.  Now imagine a game where the DM doesn't have his ego stapled to the setting and campaign arc, and where a whimsical character fits in because the setting and adventures aren't totally without tongue-in-cheek elements themselves.  That's arguably something of a novelty at many game tables, because a lot of DMs consider their campaigns sacred in their serious businessness factor, and opposed to the players' idea of what is fun, which may have nothing to do with the DM's plans...</blockquote>

Verification