Wahoo vs. Traditional

[Dausuul]

Grim and gritty realism isn't really what I mean, though. I mean really traditional, medieval-esque fantasy. It's not necessarily realistic, unless you think The Hobbit is also realistic. It's just... traditional. Conservative, if you will.

That's not necessarily lacking in wahoo, though. Although I take it that you say that with that intent.

Huh. So, let's say I'm running a swords-and-sorcery setting with a Conan-esque vibe. The milieu is one of complex and detailed societies, with a heavy grounding in classical Mediterranean cultures - ancient Rome, Egypt, Greece, and so on. The magic level is relatively low and humans are the only race. If a guy who looked like a dragonborn walked into a tavern, everyone would run screaming and the city guard would be called in to hunt down the monster.

At the same time, the PCs are heroes of fearsome prowess who can take on five times their number in ordinary swordsmen. There are savage tribes, decadent ancient cities, evil viziers, scheming wizards, dark gods plotting to escape their centuries-old prisons, mystic ruins, and wild lands where terrible monsters lurk.

Is this "wahoo" or "non-wahoo?" I'm having trouble figuring out exactly what you mean - unless by "wahoo" you simply mean, "not a rip-off of Tolkien."

 

[Mallus]

Wahoo is the tradition when it comes to D&D. More straight-laced, pseudo-Medieval European campaigns are best thought of as a somewhat popular variant.

 

[Mournblade94]

Clearly, some of the posters there assume that D&D represents a mythological, Tolkien-style mileu. I actually think that clearly it represents a gallimaufry of influences from all kinds of crazy pulp sources, mostly, mixed in with mythology, pop culture and who knows what else.

Thank you for providing me with the new vocabulary word for the day!

My own tastes extend quite deep into the so-called wahoo side of the spectrum. In my opinion, trying to do Tolkien only invites comparison to Tolkien, which isn't a good idea unless you're really extraordinary. So why not come up with fantasy that's unlike Tolkien, and purposefully so? Combine this with a recent (several years long, but still relatively recent) focus on my end on pulp-style stories and settings and a rather blasé ennui when it comes to traditional High Fantasy, and I find that the more exotic something is, the more interesting I find it anymore.

I highly prefer Tolkein, but I do not run the tolkein world. I ran Forgotten Realms for many years (close to two decades), but I never felt it was LIKE tolkein, just strongly influenced in its tropes. Yet my favourite character is Elric and my favourite author is Moorcock. Moorcock is a variant off the traditional fantasy, but it still heavily influences (most likely the pulp influences of which you are speaking) traditional fantasy. There is nothing really in Elric that I could not fully picture in a medieval or renaissance society.

My tastes go to the historical (Strongly), Myth (strong), and things from other sources that I think can easily fit in that medieval society. Of course players have made cases for why I should allow certain things and if they give me a logical reason why they would fit I accept it. So this is up for debate.

This is why I always liked the Realms (previous to erasing it and making something new to publish), and Paizo's Golarion.

I also like culture divided into regions. I love the Eastern style but I like to have a separate culture where that style is from. For instance if I am running a game in Waterdeep, I would not allow a player to play a Samurai, or Kensai unless he was trained in Kara Tur.

Funny story though... I remember in 5th grade when I just started playing D&D we made our own miniature game with D&D grenadier models. Measuring distance with pencil length and giving 'cool' things powerful shots and little things weak shots. My friend bought the Grenadier pack Dwellers Below, (with intellect devourer and beholder) and I told him it was for science fiction not for fantasy. (I did not know the monster manual at the time). We used them, and they were "cool".

Now this standard applies to my home world. I am perfectly happy to play worlds like Dark Sun which was the first D&D campaign to branch off the "conservative". I liked Dark Sun enough that if WOTC did it right, I might actually play 4e again to DM the world. I think 4e is a great system for the non-traditional, more modern, bullet-cam style of play.

Tolkien vs Lucas

I don't see a vs. thing here. I love the Mos Eisley cantina, in the STAR WARS universe... not the Forgotten Realms or medieval europe. I have run year long campaigns in Star Wars from West end to Saga, and never limited a thing. I am much less limiting on race choice and such for players in SW because he set the paradigm for the Lucas fantasy world.

I am also much less limiting in Sci-fi (I don't consider Star Wars sci-fi). I like the cantina effect in sci fi as long as the races can filter through my science background and be more beleivable than fantastic. I love both the fantasy and sci fi genre equally. Though I can tolerate some sci fi element in fantasy, as soon as a fantasy element invades sci-fi it is no longer science fiction and becomes space/science fantasy.

This depends on ones theory of dungeons. If the dungeons are outposts of the underworld or someplace, then a more gritty, rural, cut off from civilization type of setting enhances the ghost story. If the dungeon is more of a plot device, then yes it makes more sense to have the exotica in a local tavern. The local pub makes a lot more sense as a setting for a creature to be passing time playing playing poker, than some hole in the ground. Over the evolution of campaigns I believe monsters started showing up close to town, coming into town, and even living in the town. Lucas beat DMs everywhere to the punch and had, what seemed like every monster, right there in the same cantenna.

And this is precisely what I don't like in the fantasy I DM. I will play and have fun in about any world, but I can only dedicate the mental energy to make specific kinds of stories as a DM.

The taverns in the fantasy world I DM, pretty much have the friendly races. Anything that enters in like the crew from 4EPHBII would be attacked, feared, or generally met in a hostile fashion.

If it could not feasably walk into King Theoden's hall and be accepted, it probably would not be accepted in FANTASY games I run.

 

[Desdichado]

Is this "wahoo" or "non-wahoo?" I'm having trouble figuring out exactly what you mean - unless by "wahoo" you simply mean, "not a rip-off of Tolkien."

I'd call it non-wahoo. That's Howard to a tee.

Thank you for providing me with the new vocabulary word for the day!

You're welcome! I learned that word here myself a few years ago, from buzz.

I don't see a vs. thing here. I love the Mos Eisley cantina, in the STAR WARS universe... not the Forgotten Realms or medieval europe.

See... my perception of Forgotten Realms is that it's much more like Star Wars in that respect than it is like medieval Europe. Of all the campaign settings, FR seems one of the most wahoo-esque.

 

[Plane Sailing]

do you prefer a more traditional pseudo-Middle-earth for your setting

This is my preference for all fantasy games. My original D&D was in this mould, and it has been ever since (along with other fantasy games I run or play).

Probably reflects my fantasy literature upbringing of Tolkein, Howard and Lieber.

Cheers

 

[Mournblade94]

I'd call it non-wahoo. That's Howard to a tee.

You're welcome! I learned that word here myself a few years ago, from buzz.

See... my perception of Forgotten Realms is that it's much more like Star Wars in that respect than it is like medieval Europe. Of all the campaign settings, FR seems one of the most wahoo-esque.

Then it was most likely the spin I had on the Realms. I liked it for its stories of course, and maybe I went against some cannon in that I treated many of the lands as medieval city states or countries.

monsters were not allowed in a tavern. Maybe Waterdeep. But I have played in games of FR where it was an extension of Sigil.

 

[Wombat]

Somehow this reminds me of my reading of Michael Moorcock.

When I first read Moorcock's incredibly baroque writings, back when I was in junior high and high school, I loved it. Wow! Look at the strange goings on! Look at all the marvels! Look at all the bizarreness! But when I reread them in my 30s my reaction was, jeesh, what a mess... is there any consistency here?

This is not to slam Moorcock, per se, but rather to show how tastes can change dramatically over time. At one point I loved his writings; now I am bored and annoyed by him. (Other people love him to tears, and that is fine, too, honestly! ) I had a friend who used to love the Gor books and later loathed them; some people loved D&D early on, and yet felt like they needed to change to another system; there are folks who loved Star Trek until Star Wars came along, etc.

So, there is not a single thing that will be Wahoo forever or for every person. Find what is good for you right now and that should work.

 

[Desdichado]

So, there is not a single thing that will be Wahoo forever or for every person. Find what is good for you right now and that should work.

Yes, yes... my question is just that, though: what is good for you right now?

 

[kitsune9]

I'm always intrigued by the gaming style assumptions that go into a game, such as D&D. D&D is a single game, and you'd expect that if you went from one D&D campaign to another you'd recognize some broad similarities, and yet I don't know that that's true (unless you get really broad.) One aspect in particular that I find interesting is setting assumptions.

Some people play, or expect, an almost Hârnworld-like pseuso-Medieval feel to the game. I read lots of posts on ENWorld, at least, that clearly assume that if it was done that way in "Merry Olde England" then that's what you should expect in D&D. Layer in a little bit of Tolkienana, and that's D&D at this end of the spectrum.

At the other end of the spectrum is something that's got a lot more wahoo. Everyone's tired of the old Tolkien races, and the medieval assumptions. Eberron comes to mind of an exemplar of a setting that's near this side of the spectrum. Low-grade magic has turned the setting into the magical equivalent of the 1920s. Races that this setting introduced are highly polarizing, as folks debate whether or not warforged and the rest are even appropriate for D&D. Mix in some of the other bizarro races, and you could have a setting that completely lacks the PHB racial line-up entirely if you wanted.

Anyway, I'm not talking about things like magic prevalence, high level PCs, and superheroics, but just the nitty gritty of the setting itself; do you prefer a more traditional pseudo-Middle-earth for your setting, or do you want something more like the Star Wars cantina scene, stuffed to the gills with cheap exotica for its own sake?

I like wahoo and have been playing that for quite some time. My favorite settings are FR, Eberron, Iron Kingdoms, and Arcana Evolved. I did play traditional in the form of Living Greyhawk (as traditional as that it can be) and enjoyed it, but traditional fantasy is not for me. I need fantasy to be truly fantasy and "out there". I run Kingdoms of Kalamar, but I have a lot of wahoo in it to fill in the gaps.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Mine would definitely be more in the "wahoo" side of things. You got settings like, common elements in my games include:

• Reality warping creatures, powers, environments.
• Pseudoscience everywhere.
• The world itself usually isn't a traditional one. It is usually something like say Sigil, a Artificial World controlled by a God-Machine, a Endless Flat Plane, etc.
• A wide-grouping of races with many bizarre origins. From basic D&D stuff like Elan, Tieflings, Warforged, etc. to stuff like races born from being warped by the world inside the womb, born out of dreams/nightmares, crawled out of the space between dimensions, etc. Non-humanoids are common as well.
• Magi-tech and Science/Technology is common. You are likely to see a scene such as a Magi-tech Airship flying over a steam locomotive while inside the Airship a scientist and a arcanist debate why the verse is expanding (though mix in some Pseudoscience here as well with discussing how Aether works).
• Clothing, cities, etc. only have a pacing resemblance to anything medieval. Skyscrapers, floating cities, Sigil, are common kinds of cities. Clothing, weaponry and such would be a mix of everything from medieval, Steampunk, Cyberpunk, modern, pulp, etc.
• In many regards Cyberpunk, Noir, Steampunk, Sci-Fi, Pulp and Horror are more influential in my settings then normal Fantasy.