Thinking Outside the Box

[Bendris Noulg]

Sure, "mixing" things up can be fun. But I get so upset when I see or hear someone describe a traditional-themed setting as "bland" or "conventional". No, it depends on how you run it!!!

Then you're taking things far too personally, especially since D&D is anything but "traditionally themed".

If your focus is on general characteristics (the overall race, etc) rather than specific characteristics (the individual character, etc), then of course it can be boring. On the other hand, if your focus is on the story, role-playing, the individual characters, and plot, then it is not a factor. Anyhow, that is the original intention!

I'm not sure what the original intention is. However, looking over the original write-up for the Mind Flayer (Strategic Review), there is nothing in it about high sciences or other such elements. These elements, in fact, came later, and by authors other than the original creators. I'd even contest that Mind Flayers became associated to scientific flavorings via the appearance of one in S3: Expedition to the Barrier Peaks.

As a PC, if I walk into a world where the water flows up and not down and there are five moons rather than one and the halflings are all stark-raving mad and want to eat my flesh, it's not going to make me think, "Wow, this is interesting!" That is unless the story is interesting or the individual characters are interesting! Sure, throwing in an occasional anomaly my "spice" things up and in today's world, it is less acceptable to have stereotypes. But give me a break.

Fortunately, we aren't talking about hippy orcs (which FR includes, btw), or water flowing up-hill. We are talking about giving the Illithid a primitive culture, which doesn't conflict with anything within the standard Core Material (although it flies in the face of previous 2E material, but I had no problem conflicting with Core 2E when 2E was the game).

Anyhow, your points are valid, though biased (just like mine) and all I wanted to say is that "traditional" ABSOLUTELY does not mean "boring".

Except, as noted previously, D&D is not traditional. It is often boring, however. Of course, that's why I homebrew and by 3rd Party material (I'd given up on WotC until BoVD came out, but that's another tale. ).

 

[Sir Edgar]

It sounds to me like you are more turned off by recent products than with (what I would describe as) a "traditional" theme. You can still run a world of friendly halflings and savage orcs and have a lot of fun. It is NOT inherently boring.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Oh, I agree on that, although I've never hesitated to change, even back in the day.

For instance: Orcs.

In my last campaign (Domhan), I decided Orcs needed more "juice". I upped their Intelligence, made them less brutish, more civilized, added elements of the Roman Legions and Klingons, and produced a true military might that made the world tremble in fear.

In my current campaign ([plug]see sig[/plug]), I decided that Orcs didn't fit the flavor of the setting at all. Thus, they're gone, as if never existing.

Another instance: Hydra.

In my last campaign, they didn't exist. In the current, there are a total of 12, each unique, rewritten to be Dragons instead of Magical Beasts, given class levels (they are no less than 20,000 years old). They are born of two "proto-dragons", and three have parented some of the Dragon species (White, Black and Yellow).

I agree that getting more of the detail on the "individual level" is key to making the particulars of a race stand out, but often inspiration takes a person into other directions, directions that the original creators never thought of.

Heck, isn't that what the OGL/d20STL all about promoting?

 

[Mouseferatu]

When everything is turned around like this, it becomes part of the norm and I think that's what the trend has been for a while. It is very uncreative in my mind. Don't get me wrong, it's fine if you're having fun with it and I do think some creations are indeed very interesting, but I don't like the overall trend.

Well, I'd agree that just turning something on its head is not usually the best way to go. But I don't think many (or any) of us were talking about direct reversals. The goal, when modifying (and I also agree that not everything should be modified) should be different, not opposite.

For instance--and forgive me for speaking in generalities, but I'm not able to go into details--what I've got planned for the Scarred Lands flayers is most certainly not an "opposite." They're still nasty as all hell--maybe even nastier than normal--and they're still quite intelligent and powerful. They're just not quite any flayers you've seen before. (Or at least none that I've seen before, anyway.)

A world where the flayers are all happy go-lucky sprites who dance across the hills, pick flowers, kiss children, and use their mental powers for truth, justice, and rescuing kittens from trees--that would qualify as the "opposite isn't better" argument, IMHO. (Though heck, maybe someone could make it work... ) But making them dengerate and savage, that, to me, qualifies as different, not backwards. And while, as I said, I wouldn't normally want my flayers to be that way, I think it's a perfectly valid and interesting idea, and I'm axious to hear more about how he develops them.

 

[Knight Otu]

But one of the hits is the Cthonian dragon, a Cthulhu-esque dragon created by the implantation of Illithid spawn into the brain of a captured dragon. Nasty creature, that one...

Sigh, there are no new ideas out there for me, right?

 

[Sir Edgar]

Make changes and innovating are important aspects of developing a game world, but I do suspect that the idea of "creating" (if you can call it that) flesh-eating halflings was probably thought up of as an "opposite" idea.

Just like goody dark elves, I find them highly annoying and nonsensical. I do not see them as any different from "happy-go-lucky" mind flayers at all.

I am not saying that this should be discouraged, but it seems to me like the norm now and I find that extremely irritating and ridiculous.

 

[Henry]

Don't worry, I wasn't going to. I'm just curious about the duality of conventional is bad vs. conventional is good.

Demiurge out.

Most of the time, the "duality" you see comes from different sets of posters. It's like when Anthony Valterra almost passed out in frustration on these boards about two years ago over people expressing negative ideas about the then-new Monster Manual. The fact is, the only times you hear from most people are when they have something to complain about.

So, it doesn't matter what you post, the detractors for that idea will come out more strongly than the supporters.

 

[Sir Edgar]

Despite the fact that I sound like I am disparaging "creativity", I am not.

I totally agree with Henry about the fact that more times than not negative comments come out than positive ones on such subjects. For the starter of the thread, I'd say do what you want and you should keep in mind a lot of people are hypocrites.

However, the 3rd edition Monster Manual deserves the criticism it is due.

 

[blackshirt5]

Somebody above mentioned Yellow Dragons. Where can I find them?

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Somebody above mentioned Yellow Dragons. Where can I find them?

From 2E; If a published 3E/d20 conversion exists I haven't seen it yet.

If you want some general basics (breath weapon, habitat, etc.), feel free to email me (no sense taking the thread over for it).