Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5401213" data-attributes="member: 22779">The problem you're outlining though Rounser, isn't a system problem though.&nbsp; It's a group problem.&nbsp; The DM is running one game and the players are playing another.&nbsp; If you want a whimsical game and everyone is looking for something more serious, or the other way around, there's going to be problems.Pointing at the game designers for something that should be solved at each table seems a bit like passing the buck.BTW, LOVED Minsc and Boo.&nbsp; But then, OTOH, there was Planescape Torment, which didn't have a whole lot of whimsy in it.&nbsp; Or the Ultima games which tended to be pretty straight.&nbsp; I liked them both.&nbsp; That's the point I'm making here.&nbsp; If you want whimsy, go for it.&nbsp; If you don't, don't.&nbsp; That doesn't make one way right or wrong.&nbsp; It's much, much easier to add whimsy than try to pry it out once its there.&nbsp; Anagram names or whatnot are fine, if everyone at your table is groovy with them.But, trying to claim it as the sort of &quot;perfect&quot; form of gaming that we've somehow strayed from seems a bit much.After all, if whimsy was so great and everyone loved it and it makes for such better games, why did we move away from it?&nbsp; Is the &quot;common wisdom&quot; so delusional that we cannot tell if our games are more fun than they were before?&nbsp; Are we so stupid that we're incapable of realizing that it was better before?And, how much before would you like to go?&nbsp; After all, there are loads of people that didn't grow up on Greyhawk, but on Forgotten Realms.&nbsp; Or Dragonlance, which doesn't have a much shorter pedigree than Greyhawk.&nbsp; Empire of the Petal Throne isn't exactly dripping in anagrams and whimsy.I think there's a bit of nostalgia glasses going on here.&nbsp; That there was some sort of better past that we've lost in an attempt to gain something of little value.&nbsp; Cheap shots about editions notwithstanding, I'll easily say that 4e can do whimsy with the best of them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 5401213, member: 22779"] The problem you're outlining though Rounser, isn't a system problem though. It's a group problem. The DM is running one game and the players are playing another. If you want a whimsical game and everyone is looking for something more serious, or the other way around, there's going to be problems. Pointing at the game designers for something that should be solved at each table seems a bit like passing the buck. BTW, LOVED Minsc and Boo. But then, OTOH, there was Planescape Torment, which didn't have a whole lot of whimsy in it. Or the Ultima games which tended to be pretty straight. I liked them both. That's the point I'm making here. If you want whimsy, go for it. If you don't, don't. That doesn't make one way right or wrong. It's much, much easier to add whimsy than try to pry it out once its there. Anagram names or whatnot are fine, if everyone at your table is groovy with them. But, trying to claim it as the sort of "perfect" form of gaming that we've somehow strayed from seems a bit much. After all, if whimsy was so great and everyone loved it and it makes for such better games, why did we move away from it? Is the "common wisdom" so delusional that we cannot tell if our games are more fun than they were before? Are we so stupid that we're incapable of realizing that it was better before? And, how much before would you like to go? After all, there are loads of people that didn't grow up on Greyhawk, but on Forgotten Realms. Or Dragonlance, which doesn't have a much shorter pedigree than Greyhawk. Empire of the Petal Throne isn't exactly dripping in anagrams and whimsy. I think there's a bit of nostalgia glasses going on here. That there was some sort of better past that we've lost in an attempt to gain something of little value. Cheap shots about editions notwithstanding, I'll easily say that 4e can do whimsy with the best of them. [/QUOTE]

Verification