D&D 5E Wandering Monsters: You Got Science in My Fantasy!

[Remathilis]

I think we'd all be better off by rejecting tropes altogether.

They're tropes for a reason; they work.

CLICHES should die a horrible death though.

 

[Kinak]

Any game where Conan, Merlin, Bilbo and Orpheus go out to fight Count Dracula and his army of uruk-hai is pretty wacky to begin with. Making a version where Spock, Obi-Wan, Flash Gordon and Starbuck fight Daleks doesn't seem so far fetched.

Agreed

Still, in both cases you end up asking "Whose fantasy" or "Whose Sci-fi" are we talking about. Wyatt's article seems to want to explain a lot of D&D with either "A wizard did it" or "The Gods willed it" to simplify the storyline. Which is fine, lots of mythical creatures in our world were the work of God(s) and/or magic. (See: Minotaur, Medusa). So I have no problem with certain monsters being explained "magically". That said, it does get pretty boring when everything not found on our Earth was either the will of mad gods or wicked mages.

The thing that I think separates, say, the minotaur from the original owlbear is that the minotaur has some of those spaces filled in. Who cursed him? Why was he cursed? Where did he live? What happened?

The minotaur of Greek myth is really hooked in to an entire setting, along with being a symbol for the stormy relationship between the gods and mortals. If you decide to involve the minotaur, you have a raft of plot hooks. And, if you decide it's the sire of an entire race, you have a great basis for their habits and society.

So the minotaur has a story. But if you just say "minotaurs were cursed by a god" that's no better than the owlbear. So they were cursed with becoming far stronger and more dangerous than humans? Who decided that was a good idea? What do I do to get cursed like that?

And that's part of what's so weird about the racial symbolism stuff he talks about. The minotaur is iconic and has symbolic weight because it has an actual backstory. The owlbear could be iconic and could have actual symbolic weight, but it ends up being a joke because it doesn't have a real backstory.

A do find it hilarious that Wyatte proposing limiting the "Cantina" effect after editions of goliaths, wildren, catfolk/tabaxi/rakasta, shadar-kai, illumains, spellscales, dragonborn, aventi, xephs, shardminds, warforged, shifters, genasi, and dozens of other PC races (and monsters). Yeah, its weird when you have 26 humanoid races in a bar in Waterdeep drinking, but QUIT PRINTING THE DAMN RACES if you want to keep PCs fixed in the world of elves and dwarves!

Ha! Yeah, I've certainly done the cantina scene before (admittedly in Sigil, not Waterdeep). The City on the Spire didn't suddenly become not-fantasy.

And you're absolutely right that the Basic Set focus suggested in the article doesn't jive with how the game's been developed and marketed, with later 3rd Edition and several classic 2nd Edition settings sharing the proliferation you mentioned. Along with any game allowing Savage Species or the Complete Humanoids Handbook, which I haven't thought of for ages.

The question isn't if the cantina has a place in fantasy. It obviously can and I think he's just drastically overstating his point.

What I'd much rather see than some line-drawing about how many races should be in the same place at the same time is some discussion of what that says about your setting. Just because a street in Sigil, Sharn, or the Rock of Bral has a dozen species on it doesn't mean those places aren't fantasy, but it does tell us something really important about those places.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Mistwell]

Why is there a list at all? What is the point of having a list, if it's just going to be a list of things James Wyatt felt like putting on a list today? Who cares if this thing is AN OTHER THING or THE SAME THING or THAT THING YOU DO?

Remember when you claimed I was going in circles? It was a direct answer to this question, which you ignored and have now repeated. Again, " If the word fantasy is to have any useful meaning, it's going to be composed of a list of elements, and that list inherently excludes some other elements."

So, it follows that it's to give the word "Fantasy" meaning, so that he can communicate when something is a fantasy element, and when something is not a fantasy element. So that when they desire to focus on fantasy elements to enhance the brand, or a setting, or a city, or an NPC, or a monster, or whatever other elements of the game, they can do that with some clarity. And when they want to add a science element, they can do that knowingly, like they did with Barrier Peaks, and take full advantage of it. It's just a helpful game design tool, to define your important concepts, to think about them and analyze them and debate them with others. You do this so you know how to enhance them, and also how to add something new that isn't that thing.

 

[DMZ2112]

I think we'd all be better off by rejecting tropes altogether.

That's a great way to make sure that whatever you're doing is thoroughly unremarkable. Fortunately it is also functionally impossible.

They're tropes for a reason; they work.

CLICHES should die a horrible death though.

The only difference between these two things is precisely that the latter annoys the speaker more than the former.

You're stuck with both.

 

[Kinak]

The only difference between these two things is precisely that the latter annoys the speaker more than the former.

You're stuck with both.

Although I agree with [MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION], this is very true and well-stated.

I think it's probably better to say "use tropes early and often, but be thoughtful about your choices and whether your audience are tired of them."

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Dausuul]

So, it follows that it's to give the word "Fantasy" meaning, so that he can communicate when something is a fantasy element, and when something is not a fantasy element. So that when they desire to focus on fantasy elements to enhance the brand, or a setting, or a city, or an NPC, or a monster, or whatever other elements of the game, they can do that with some clarity. And when they want to add a science element, they can do that knowingly, like they did with Barrier Peaks, and take full advantage of it. It's just a helpful game design tool, to define your important concepts, to think about them and analyze them and debate them with others. You do this so you know how to enhance them, and also how to add something new that isn't that thing.

Okay. So the goal is to enhance the brand of D&D as a fantasy game, by (I presume) focusing on "fantasy elements" and limiting "non-fantasy elements" in the game design. Thus, the criteria for the list should be, "What do people looking for a game with the 'fantasy' brand want and expect to find in that game? And what do they expect to not find?"

Wyatt putting forth his definition, therefore, is telling us what he thinks we want and expect out of "fantasy." And given that he seems to think none of us has ever picked up a book that didn't have "By J.R.R. Tolkien" on the cover, it's not surprising people are getting irritated.

 

[Mistwell]

Okay. So the goal is to enhance the brand of D&D as a fantasy game, by (I presume) focusing on "fantasy elements" and limiting "non-fantasy elements" in the game design. Thus, the criteria for the list should be, "What do people looking for a game with the 'fantasy' brand want and expect to find in that game? And what do they expect to not find?"

Wyatt putting forth his definition, therefore, is telling us what he thinks we want and expect out of "fantasy." And given that he seems to think none of us has ever picked up a book that didn't have "By J.R.R. Tolkien" on the cover, it's not surprising people are getting irritated.

While I disagree with your bombastic characterization of what you wrote, I think the most important point is what you left out: And then he asked "What do you think", with a series of poll questions.

And, "people" are not getting irritated. It seems, from current poll results, that an overwhelming majority of people think, depending on the campaign, he is on the right track with this. The answers seem to be trending "depends on the campaign" with "exactly what you said" as second, or "exactly what you said" as the first answer, with "I totally disagree with that" being the answer with the lowest score across the board, and "I mostly disagree" as the second lowest score.

That's hardly the reaction you're suggesting is occurring.

And for what it is worth, I agree with what he wrote wholeheartedly. There are lots of kinds of fantasy, but I think D&D does best to stress the core four races, which are most similar to the Tolkien core races. I think D&D does best with good vs. evil instead of relativism. And I think D&D does best with mythic powers creating most magical things instead of mundane or scientific ones. You're of course free to disagree with those views.

 

[Imaro]

I guess I'm a little unclear as to how and where exactly Wyatt is drawing this line for fantasy vs. science. It does seem to be highly (almost exclusively) based on Tolkien and/or high fantasy... but that's only one subset of "fantasy" and arguably not even the one that provided the greatest inspiration for D&D originally. What about the fantasy of Moorcock, Lieber, Howard, and others? Where evolution, different dimensions and mechanical artifacts are all a part of "fantasy"??

 

[Remathilis]

What's the difference?

A trope is a preconceived notion the audience will have on a topic. For example, if I say "medieval fantasy" you probably think of castles, knights, wizards, dragons, swords, princesses, etc. A trope saves time in explaining an idea to your audience. For example, referring to a character as "Grothgar the Barbarian" will probably invoke images of fur-clad warrior and little civilization. These are good.

A Cliche is something so overdone that it no longer interesting. For example; the vizier of the Sultan is always an evil backstabbing sorcerer. The dragon has demanded all the oldest girls in the kingdom, including the princess, as tribute or else he will destroy it.

What is trope to some can be cliche for others. However, you can't have fantasy without tropes. Everything under the sun has been done. You can remix some of them (see Dragonlance vs. Greyhawk) but in the end you still end up with tropes. However, some cliches could use a good pasturizing.

 

[howandwhy99]

That's a great way to make sure that whatever you're doing is thoroughly unremarkable. Fortunately it is also functionally impossible.

Everything I do is impossible. It's simple to ditch tropes. Just quit storytelling.