Who Else likes the Cantina?

[Desdichado]

I argue luke is indeed butt kicker out the door... with only his responses to the Cantina being his innocence.... Give him Force Aiming and Piloting... long before meeting Obi-wan.

"I used to bullseye womp rats in my T-16 back home, they're not much bigger than two meters."

 

[Nifft]

I argue luke is indeed butt kicker out the door... with only his responses to the Cantina being his innocence.... Give him Force Aiming and Piloting... long before meeting Obi-wan.

No need to argue, amigo! We agree on that point.

"I used to bullseye womp rats in my T-16 back home, they're not much bigger than two meters."

Yep.

Clearly when Obi-Wan's specter said, "Use the Force", what he meant was the force of grinding skills on rats.

"SW = too videogamey", -- N

 

[haakon1]

A similar thing could have been done with most of what non-humans are in D&D: suggestions of what ability scores would be high rather than an ability bonus would eliminate the "picked only for a +2" effect.

Nod. I just realized the "+2 for this ability" (and in the old days, -2 for that) stuff is a vestige from AD&D days, when everyone rolled stats and some folks assigned them in the order rolled. Now, with arrays and so forth, it's less meaningful.

 

[bagger245]

Cantina is good for scifi where it originated. The concept is all species from every galaxy in one place. For fantasy? My tavern filled with wildens and shardminds having drinks together isn't really my cup of tea. There was a part where I read about D&D world description where the high races grouped together to form a community and those savaged ones are in the wilderness.

 

[Mad Zagyg]

I was the author of the original Mos Eisley thread mentioned by the OP. Since the time I wrote it (days after the release of PHB2) I have realized one thing: a huge number of people don't care about playing in a cohesive, believable fantasy setting. That's totally fine. People enjoy D&D for different reasons.

In general, it seems that people who like to play bizarre crystalline gem-people who go adventuring with minotaurs, dragonborn, githzerai, and devas, who spend their off-time hanging out in taverns being served by a tiefling bartender and his staff of shifters and goliaths in a town populated by... whatever, do not care overmuch about campaign cohesion.

That's totally fine. In the same way that people who love terrible movies like Transformers, Armageddon and Twilight are fine. Some people have a lot of fun soaking in the glorious awfulness of bad taste.

People who like that type of D&D likewise view the "humanocentric" type of D&D (that is, 1st, 2nd and early 3rd edition), as "boring" or "same-old-same-old." To each his own.

Still, the core philosophy of D&D 4e is that everyone embrace this new version of mish-mashed sci-fantasy. There is no question that a DM and his group of players can pick through the sillier races of the PHB and play a more "classic" fantasy version of the game, if they desired.

But, why bother really? If you're a vegetarian who wants a bowl of vegetable soup why would you buy a bowl of beef soup with vegetables just so you have to pick out all the meat to throw it away. And even if you manage to pick out all the meat, you can still sort of taste it swilling around in the residue.

I also predict that people who like 4e will disagree with me while people who dislike 4e will agree.

Weird how that works.

 

[Mallus]

I have realized one thing: a huge number of people don't care about playing in a cohesive, believable fantasy setting. That's totally fine. People enjoy D&D for different reasons.

They also 1) have different ideas of what makes a cohesive, believable fantasy setting and 2) some people think the traditional D&D settings like Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms are neither cohesive nor believable (but kinda cool regardless).

In general, it seems that people who like to play bizarre crystalline gem-people who go adventuring with minotaurs, dragonborn, githzerai, and devas, who spend their off-time hanging out in taverns being served by a tiefling bartender and his staff of shifters and goliaths in a town populated by... whatever, do not care overmuch about campaign cohesion.

It's true some don't. But some do.

Some people have a lot of fun soaking in the glorious awfulness of bad taste.

I'll pit my group's homebrew --which is currently free of crystal people but chock-full of the rest of the entities you mentioned-- against the best setting you can come up with any day of the week. Consider it a friendly wager. We can start a new thread and have people vote. Game?

Full disclosure: there's already a thread on ENWorld describing the creation of our 4e setting (see .sig) so all I'd be doing is cutting&pasting from it.

People who like that type of D&D likewise view the "humanocentric" type of D&D (that is, 1st, 2nd and early 3rd edition), as "boring" or "same-old-same-old."

I started with AD&D. I wouldn't exactly call it humanocentric... I seem to recall a plentiful number of sentient monster races to kill. Also, way too many elven sub-races!

Still, the core philosophy of D&D 4e is that everyone embrace this new version of mish-mashed sci-fantasy.

This has always been a trademark of D&D cf. Blackmoor, Arduin, and Empire of the Petal Throne. And AD&D had plenty of genre-blending material (and 2e had Planescape!).

There is no question that a DM and his group of players can pick through the sillier races of the PHB and play a more "classic" fantasy version of the game, if they desired.

Classic AD&D is a silly mishmash of disparate fantasy conventions, SF, horror, and --gasp-- even "Kung-Fu" references (cf. monk). I'm pretty old, I was there for AD&D, mang.

I also predict that people who like 4e will disagree with me while people who dislike 4e will agree.

I predict people who had different experiences with older versions of D&D will disagree with you.

 

[Mad Zagyg]

I'll pit my group's homebrew --which is currently free of crystal people but chock-full of the rest of the entities you mentioned-- against the best setting you can come up with any day of the week. Consider it a friendly wager. We can start a new thread and have people vote. Game?

No thanks. I'll simply give you the win there. I'm sure it's an awesomely kewl world

I started with AD&D. I wouldn't exactly call it humanocentric... I seem to recall a plentiful number of sentient monster races to kill. Also, way too many elven sub-races!

The author of the game flatly disagrees with you.

Excerpt from the 1st Edition Dungeon Master's Guide (p.21) by Gary Gygax

Advanced D&D is unquestionably "humanocentric," with demi-humans, semi-humans, and humanoids in various orbits around the sun of humanity.

Furthermore, from the same page and heading:

The game features humankind for a reason. It is the most logical basis in an illogical game. From a design aspect it provides the sound groundwork. From a standpoint of creating the campaign milieu it provides the most readily usable assumptions.

 

[bagger245]

I never seen anyone roleplay other races besides the usual races, at least in my area. The usual races all are played with the usual stereotypes (Scottish dwarf, mischievous halfling, Legolas elf). I am wondering with all the new races and people here getting excited with them, how do you roleplay them without being too "human"? If you say they all have some humanized personality, then the races are just a coat of paint, played just for stats but the fluff can be transfered to humans or classic races. A setting with majority humans ala Hyboria would be sufficient imo. For those who play wildens and shardminds, how do you roleplay them?

Also in scifi it is much easier to believe, as in every planet has it's own unique race. But having the same number of race (excluding monstrous races) in one same planet? Sure the material world is fantastic, but there can only be a finite number of species no? Again, I am not disputing your views and preferences. Just giving my opinion.

 

[Mallus]

No thanks. I'll simply give you the win there. I'm sure it's an awesomely kewl world

Hey, I'm going to be 41 at the end of this month... I doubt I could come up with something 'kewl' if my life depended on it. However, my homebrew --our, really, it's a collaborative effort-- is a heartbreaking work of staggering genius .

The author of the game flatly disagrees with you.

Excerpt from the 1st Edition Dungeon Master's Guide (p.21) by Gary Gygax

Let me ask you this: which is more important, what EGG wrote on page 21 of the AD&D DMG, or all the supplemental material, including the classic adventures, which more-or-less contradict it (or at the very least complicate his statements to the point of needing serious reevaluation). Or, for that matter, how people have been playing the game ever since he wrote those words in the DMG?

D&D settings, explicit or implied, have always been crawling with whacked-out life, quite a lot of it sentient (not too mention mismatched conventions from a range of genres). The only difference between 4e and 1e is that a few more of the outlier races are playable. From the simulationists standpoint, that's no difference at all.

I mean, AD&D and 4e both sport Githzerai. The difference is??

 

[Antithetist]

That's totally fine. In the same way that people who love terrible movies like Transformers, Armageddon and Twilight are fine. Some people have a lot of fun soaking in the glorious awfulness of bad taste.

Please don't ever compare me to a Twilight fan again. :/

It seems to me that you're mistaking you own limited conception of a 'correct' setting for the broader concept of 'campaign cohesion'. 2E Planescape was among the most coherent, compelling and immersive fictional universes I've ever come across, but since it features a multitude of sentient races it appears that you're ready to consign it automatically to some trash pile of disposable and faddish consumer culture. I can't help but feel you've missed something.