Worst...Idea...Ever

[Shemeska]

Dungeonpunk > Cheese

IMHO, of course. But I'd rather have a stylistic design than something historically accurate or filled with Conan and wild '80's hair and other cliches of fantasy art.

Not that, you know, every peice of art from earlier editions was bad, or that the dungeonpunk look doesn't get pretty rediculous at some points, but it's hardly the death of a grand tradition that many of the more severe grognards are bemoaning.

It's entirely a style issue based on when you picked up the game. Those who started with 80's metal band haired heroes and Conan surrounded by women in chainmail bikinis, you aren't likely to like Liddi in formfitting studded leather armor, tieflings with DiTerlizzi tiefling hair, so-called 'dungeonpunk' etc.

What you call dungeonpunk I call DnD divesting itself of the worst aspects of 1980's style and fashion. But I didn't play DnD till 2000.

*shrug*

 

[Mercule]

Actually, I like them. I'd prefer Racial Substitution Levels to favored class -- accomplishes the 'elves are great spellcasters' or whatever without punishing the player for doing something outside of the box.

I can see that point, and hadn't considered it before. If that was how they were used, consistantly, then I don't think I'd have a major issue. It isn't, though. Still, it's not a major peeve of mine. Mainly threw it out because it does bug me some and I hadn't seen it mentioned yet.

I have since realized something that does really, really bug me. Spending XP for anything outside of level advancement. I don't much care for it in the creation of magic items, but understand the need to balance an existing (and necessary) concept. Still not a great construct. But the worst thing about it was that it openned the door to other uses of XP that weren't level related. There was a period of time where this seemed to be in vogue, but the only one that comes to mind is something about the races in Monte Cook's AU.

Part of my issue is that D&D is not a character-point system. XP is separate from things and you don't buy things with it. I don't want to see D&D become a system where you pay xp to advance your BAB, and do so separate from your skills or feats. If I wanted a point based system, I'd go play Hero, which I know and which might actually do a better job of capturing the feel I want. I play D&D for easy of use, and the added complexity and balance issues that spending XP brings kills some of that ease of use.

Which, in a way, is my issue with racial level substitution. When you make a system, make it consistant. Don't keep throwing in exceptions.

 

[Macbeth]

IMHO, of course. But I'd rather have a stylistic design than something historically accurate or filled with Conan and wild '80's hair and other cliches of fantasy art.

Exactly what I was trying to say. good to know I'm not the only one that doesn't mind Dungeon Punk.

 

[WinnipegDragon]

What mammals were ever written up as vermin?

AFAIAC, only vermin I have seen written up that weren't arthropods were jellyfish.

Rats.

 

[Mercule]

IMHO, of course. But I'd rather have a stylistic design than something historically accurate or filled with Conan and wild '80's hair and other cliches of fantasy art.

I don't mind style. I like it, actually. I just don't find DungeonPunk to be particularly stylish. It doesn't fit the stories well. To me, the look is as jarring as having some guy in full plate in a WW2 flick or a gal in a sports bra and biker shorts in a Victorian horror. I wouldn't mind dungeonpunk in certain games, but it doesn't fit well with D&D.

 

[Macbeth]

I just don't find DungeonPunk to be particularly stylish.

Perhaps. But to my mind, it fits better then a hair band reject with a airbrushed dragon. I guess it's a matter of taste, but I think WotC knew who they wer targetting: younger gamers that don't want a game with art that looks it came from the side of their parent's old van.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I like it, actually. I just don't find DungeonPunk to be particularly stylish. It doesn't fit the stories well.

Well, this probably does depend on the stories you're telling. My tales of the meteoric rise of larger-than-life heroes to challenge a great evil are all full of very distinctive looks, and "impractical" armaments, because they can afford to develop their own look. Tatoos, piercings, spiked armor, buckles....these are things certain adventurers do to try and differentiate themselves from the masses, in a world where your next income depends on how well you can convince the town to hire you to slay goblins vs. hiring some other group to do it. And they can afford to do it, because they are of such a mythic level of skill that things like "practicality" don't enter into it. The flourishes are there because looking different from the other adventurers is worth the small (not mechanically significant) strategic hassle.

 

[Macbeth]

Well, I think I can just let Kamakazie Midget post my thoughts for me. He does it better anyway.

Seriously, I agree with KM. It's all a matter of stories you tell. For me, they work fine.

 

[Gez]

Rat: Tiny Animal.
Dire Rat: Small Animal.
Rat Swarm: Tiny Animal (Swarm).

Sorry WinnipegDragon, but no mammal is considered a Vermin.

In fact, all vertebrate animals are Animals, and with the exception of octopi and squids, all invertebrate animals are Vermins.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It's all about what makes sense for your own game. Dungeonpunk isn't appropriate for every style, that's for sure.

Though...

tieflings with DiTerlizzi tiefling hair, so-called 'dungeonpunk' etc.

I think it deserves a mention that the DiTerlizzi "spikey heroes" stuff in PS was probably something of an inspiration for the Dungeonpunk style that 3e embraced. Certainly stuff like the rusty page borders and frequent tatoos and "icon placement" could have been inspired by the similar look of some PS illos...

But in the spirit of whining that this thread was started in, let me chip in with: monster characters. This idea is great and it should work, but the fact that one powerful ability can be worth a level, and that hp is tied so directly to level (but not with powers) gives us the Paper Tiger syndrome. I'd hope 4e's monsters are designed with being able to use them in a party in mind.....but I admit, that's probably not high on many designers' lists.