Wahoo vs. Traditional

[Dragonbait]

why is D&D a non-Wahoo? It's got some really wacky crap. I mean, Eberron uses all of D&D's stuff with like 3 additonal critters. In fact, I thought they toned it down by getting rid of subraces and ideas that non-humans that grow up around trees or in a valley would by physically and psychologically different than those that grow up around water or where it's a little chilly? Or the idea that the "good" races are few and rather unvaried in appearance, and often can't get along while the "evil" races have a HUGE variety of appearances and races and seem to work together much more often. So to be good one must been rather xenophobic? Compared to a lot of traditional fantasy, D&D is really out there.

but I digress..

I suppose with Hobo's definitions I'd say Wahoo and yet non-Wahoo. I like varied races beyond humans with different sizes and pointy ears (but I like those too). But I like when each race has their own cultures and there is more of a difference than outward appearance (non-Wahoo?) and I prefer a limit to the major races rather than thousands of different races.

 

[Doug McCrae]

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.

This picture really symbolises FR for me -

 

[Desdichado]

why is D&D a non-Wahoo? It's got some really wacky crap. I mean, Eberron uses all of D&D's stuff with like 3 additonal critters. In fact, I thought they toned it down by getting rid of subraces and ideas that non-humans that grow up around trees or in a valley would by physically and psychologically different than those that grow up around water or where it's a little chilly? Or the idea that the "good" races are few and rather unvaried in appearance, and often can't get along while the "evil" races have a HUGE variety of appearances and races and seem to work together much more often. So to be good one must been rather xenophobic? Compared to a lot of traditional fantasy, D&D is really out there.

I didn't say that it was. In fact, I disagree that it is, which is part of why I started this thread. I often feel like I'm the dissenting voice. When someone points out what was done in the medieval period, I'm the guy saying, "So? How is that relevent to my fantasy setting?" I'm the guy, when someone's complaining about, I dunno, say, dragnoborn being in D&D, saying, "So? How do they not fit? How are they so different from such iconic critters as mindflayers or displacer beasts that those are OK and these newer ideas are not."

The point is, clearly it's a popular play paradigm, perhaps in spite of the assumptions that the rulebooks have postulated over the years. I'm curious enough about the phenomena and the clearly different assumptions that various players have, that I'm trying to generate some discussion around the idea.

 

[Dragonbait]

I didn't say that it was. In fact, I disagree that it is, which is part of why I started this thread. I often feel like I'm the dissenting voice. When someone points out what was done in the medieval period, I'm the guy saying, "So? How is that relevent to my fantasy setting?" I'm the guy, when someone's complaining about, I dunno, say, dragnoborn being in D&D, saying, "So? How do they not fit? How are they so different from such iconic critters as mindflayers or displacer beasts that those are OK and these newer ideas are not."

The point is, clearly it's a popular play paradigm, perhaps in spite of the assumptions that the rulebooks have postulated over the years. I'm curious enough about the phenomena and the clearly different assumptions that various players have, that I'm trying to generate some discussion around the idea.

oooooohhhhh... I read that before my coffee.. Mandingo I grock your mouth music.

This picture really symbolises FR for me -

I love that image.

 

[Greg K]

In general, I fall on the non-wahoo side of things.

1. I don't like Eberron
2. Races: My preference for campaign races range from
a) the core races of previous editions (perhaps, substituting one or two only one or the nonhuman races with orc or lizardman) and in which humans are the only common race;
b) humans only (with several diverse cultures);
c) defintely, no warforged or breath weapon dragon man.
3. Classes: No ninjas, dragon shamans, soul knives (or WOTC take on Psionics at all for that matter) and no prcs like the Acolyte of the Skin
4. Equipment: no tanglefoot bags, sunrods, spiked chains, etc.
5. Combat Maneuvers: The Book of Iron Might not the Book of Nine Swords

All that said, my favorite published D&D settings are Al Quadim, Dark Sun (first edition), Ravenloft and Forgotten Realms (the first boxed set). How this affects where I fall, I don't know.

 

[Tigh]

I'm curious enough about the phenomena and the clearly different assumptions that various players have, that I'm trying to generate some discussion around the idea.

My assumption is that the Player known portion is just the tip of the ice berg and the DM's story is the rest beneath the surface.

My expectation is that the DM provide a game clear enough that I can make out the shape of the ice berg if I look for it, or I can chase after shiny reflections on the surface.

Eventually I hope the DM will break off a piece of that iceberg and let me have it to take somewhere.


Tigh

 

[Doug McCrae]

The PCs' adventures will be wahoo, whether the world is or isn't. Lord of the Rings is a good example, although it's a fairly low magic world, the protagonists have lots of magic items and encounter lots of weird magical creatures and situations over the course of the novel - The One Ring, the three elven rings, Sting, mithril armour, the seeing stones, the phial of Galadriel, Galadriel's mirror, elven cloaks, Durin's Door, Orthanc, prophetic dreams, the Nazguul, Tom Bombadil, ents, Gandalf, Saruman, Galadriel, the balrog, orcs, orc-men hybrids, trolls, elves, hobbits, Gollum, fell beasts, giant eagles, mumakil, the Watcher in the Water, Shadowfax, the ghosts of Dwimorberg and Shelob. When you look at that list it's actually kind of wahoo.

 

[Dausuul]

I didn't say that it was. In fact, I disagree that it is, which is part of why I started this thread. I often feel like I'm the dissenting voice. When someone points out what was done in the medieval period, I'm the guy saying, "So? How is that relevent to my fantasy setting?"

It's not, necessarily; but many DMs and players like their settings strongly grounded in reality. Looking at historical cultures can help a lot with building an internally consistent setting. It also helps to create atmosphere, by evoking shared cultural experiences among the players.

That said, not everyone likes that approach. And even among those who do, it can be taken way, WAY too far. I have occasionally drifted around the fringes of the SCA, and came away with an excellent term for people who get too wrapped up in historical accuracy, to the detriment of fun: "Authenticity Nazis."

I'm the guy, when someone's complaining about, I dunno, say, dragnoborn being in D&D, saying, "So? How do they not fit? How are they so different from such iconic critters as mindflayers or displacer beasts that those are OK and these newer ideas are not."

Well, the quick answer to that is that mind flayers are not a player character race. I doubt anybody would object to dragonborn if they were just in the Monster Manual... in fact, dragonborn-as-monsters have been around since AD&D. (Back then they were called "draconians" and existed mainly in the Dragonlance campaign setting.)

The existence of dragonborn as a race that can hang out in human towns and not excite comment requires setting assumptions that a lot of us find difficult to swallow. The issue is not new to 4E, of course; elves and dwarves require the same assumptions, but it's less of a bitter pill because elves and dwarves don't look like monsters.

...Did I mention how I don't like elves and dwarves either?

 

[The Ghost]

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?

Part of the fun of D&D is that I have the option to do both. Sometimes I am in the mood for a really gritty, human-centric game that reflects medieval Europe. Other times I feel like playing that celestial-halfling werebear paladin who rides a dinosaur. I think it is a good thing that the game can, and does, support multiple styles.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

...Did I mention how I don't like elves and dwarves either?

It is funny since I dislike them as well but for almost exactly the opposite reason. Elves and Dwarves could easily fit into a alternative-human feel (not so much Eladrin though). They just don't have anything special or unique about them anymore.

I much rather have races that even if they look Human have completely different mind-set, internal physiology, powers, etc. beyond something like, "I live 500 years". Plus races that are down-right bizarre, it is very common to have non-humanoid sentient races/people in my settings.