# Mundane vs. Fantastical



## Remathilis (Sep 30, 2008)

I had another conversation with a friend (a life-long D&D player from 2e on, like myself) in which he innocently recalled one of his PCs being mauled to death by a bear. 

I said to him; "A bear? Not a fiendish half-dragon dire bear?"

He restated it had been a typical black bear in the 2e Monster Manual. 

That exchange got me thinking though...

A large amount of criticism is lobbed at 3e (and especially 4e) for removing the "mundane" from fantasy. This charge came in many forms: races (half-genies, half-angels, half-dragons), magic items (belt buckle of warding), monsters (thundertusk boars, half-fiendish vampiric blackguard minotaurs), armor (mithril chain shirts) and weapons (adamantine fullblades), not to mention the near constant drumbeat of class-based power expansion (from the lowly rogue gaining evasion to nearly every martial power in 4e). 

It seems like a dude in chainmail and a sword fighting a bear and dying has become blase', and I guess in a world full of wizards lobbying fireballs at ice-breathing white dragons, it would. I mean, who really wants to play a game set in a fantastical world of vampires and ogres and druids only to be made a meal from a real-world animal? Who wants mundane real-world steel swords in a world where your mage buddy gets a wand of infused magical essence allowing him to shoot lightning from it? Besides, if the world was as infused with magic as the core rules seem to assume (with its large catalog of magical items, mythological beasts, and spells-a-plenty) why would it be a world where dudes in mundane chainmail die at the claws of normal bears?

Still, when one looks in the monster manual for "scorpions" and finds scorpions that deal lightning damage from their tail instead of large, poisonous "real" scorpions, something feels odd...

So has D&D drifted too far from mundane into fantastical? Is it a bad thing? Can a balance between truly magical and fantastical elements (warlocks, demons, potions of fire-breath) be struck with historical or mundane elements (grizzly bears, fighters, bec-de-corbins?) without one or the other suffering?


----------



## The_Gneech (Sep 30, 2008)

Remathilis said:


> It seems like a dude in chainmail and a sword fighting a bear and dying has become blase', and I guess in a world full of wizards lobbying fireballs at ice-breathing white dragons, it would. I mean, who really wants to play a game set in a fantastical world of vampires and ogres and druids only to be made a meal from a real-world animal? Who wants mundane real-world steel swords in a world where your mage buddy gets a wand of infused magical essence allowing him to shoot lightning from it? Besides, if the world was as infused with magic as the core rules seem to assume (with its large catalog of magical items, mythological beasts, and spells-a-plenty) why would it be a world where dudes in mundane chainmail die at the claws of normal bears?
> 
> Still, when one looks in the monster manual for "scorpions" and finds scorpions that deal lightning damage from their tail instead of large, poisonous "real" scorpions, something feels odd...




This is why the desire for "grim and gritty" or "low fantasy" (or whatever you want to call it) variations comes up again and again -- and why _D&D_ is periodically referred to as a superhero game with a fantasy skin on it.

Speaking only for myself, I much prefer the guy in chainmail fighting a bear. My exact words on flipping through the 4E MM the first time: "Zombies with wings? What the heck is THAT about?" I love having magic and the supernatural spice up the background -- but like spice, too much of it and it becomes an irritant instead.

Somewhere in 2e I started to feel like _D&D_ was dangerously skirting the realm of "over-the-top"-ness, but that could be mitigated by staying at lower levels. 4e, as far as I can tell, has blown all that away by having everybody and their brother full of superpowers from day one. I'm sure the WAR artwork (et al.) doesn't help, but whenever I look at or in a 4e book, I see neon lights and hear bad metal music turned up way too loud.

I prefer my fantasy turned up to around 8.5 or so, thanks. I don't want it turned up to 11.

-The Gneech


----------



## Byronic (Sep 30, 2008)

I actually like seeing animals from real life in DnD, I even like how they can be a real threat. I was actually very dissapointed to see the lightning Scorpion and will probably change it to a poisonous one (although perhaps a bit larger) and perhaps make a level 1 swarm of scorpions to compensate. 

I mean, I can swallow lightning Scorpions if there are more normal scorpions. then at least I could say that they are mutated by magic or some other unnatural origin. Things are scarier when they have unnatural or unholy origins. When Lightning Scorpions seem normal and every day they lose a lot.


----------



## Greg K (Sep 30, 2008)

Remathilis said:


> I mean, who really wants to play a game set in a fantastical world of vampires and ogres and druids only to be made a meal from a real-world animal?



Myself and practically everybody I have played with.


> Who wants mundane real-world steel swords in a world where your mage buddy gets a wand of infused magical essence allowing him to shoot lightning from it?



If it can be enchanted or I can find an enchanted sword, I do. And by enchanted, I don't mean casting fireballs, death rays, fire auras or frost auras.



> Besides, if the world was as infused with magic as the core rules seem to assume (with its large catalog of magical items, mythological beasts, and spells-a-plenty) why would it be a world where dudes in mundane chainmail die at the claws of normal bears?



Not everyone plays in the default setting or assumes the default setting is full of a large catolog of magical items and mythological beasts.  For many of us, those are options to placed as we see fit.



> Still, when one looks in the monster manual for "scorpions" and finds scorpions that deal lightning damage from their tail instead of large, poisonous "real" scorpions, something feels odd...




Honestly, scorpions shooting lightning out of their tails makes me groan.  Then again, I despised most of WOTC's new monsters created for 3e and the same is already true for 4e.
I'll take the giant poisonous scorpions everyday of the week and twice on Sundays.



> So has D&D drifted too far from mundane into fantastical?



Imo, yes.


> Is it a bad thing?



Again, imo, yes.  The same for my friends based on what they have said.



> Can a balance between truly magical and fantastical elements (warlocks, demons, potions of fire-breath) be struck with historical or mundane elements (grizzly bears, fighters, bec-de-corbins?) without one or the other suffering?



Yes.  For example, choose and place your magical and fantastical elements with care.  Maybe, aberrations , most magical beasts, etc. are unique creatures.  Place most of them ahead of time in particular areas with legends surrounding them (e.g, think the Medusa, the kraken, and the Hydra from Greek Myth). Or maybe, they are something that nobody has seen until the characters encounter the wizard that created them.

Similarly, place thought into the non-human races of your setting.  You don't have to allow everything. Nor, do you have to allow every possible PC race because WOTC printed it somewhere.


----------



## Oni (Sep 30, 2008)

It's like if you had nothing to eat but cake.  After a while it might still be enjoyable, but it loses its specialness.  Contrasts is one of those things that can make something more enjoyable.  

Also I think when you try to cram too much "awesome" into something it can turn silly, this is often a problem I have with the aesthetic of a lot of JRPG's for example.


----------



## GlaziusF (Sep 30, 2008)

Giant poisonous scorpions are more fantastic than giant lightning-clawed poison-tailed scorpions. (Or if you've got kobolds inadvisably feeding them scraps from the hold of a ship that fell out of the Astral Sea, giant star-clawed mindcrush-tailed scorpions.)

Scorpions that eat thunder and crap lightning are obviously fantastic and can be any size at all. Normal Scorpions But Bigger just kinda violate the square-cube law and expect you to take it.


----------



## mmadsen (Sep 30, 2008)

Oni said:


> Also I think when you try to cram too much "awesome" into something it can turn silly.



It's a fine line between *awesomizing* and lasersharking.


----------



## Tewligan (Sep 30, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> Giant poisonous scorpions are more fantastic than giant lightning-clawed poison-tailed scorpions.



Wait - _removing_ lightning from a giant poisonous scorpion makes it _more_ fantastic?


----------



## GlaziusF (Sep 30, 2008)

Tewligan said:


> Wait - _removing_ lightning from a giant poisonous scorpion makes it _more_ fantastic?




Well, more unbelievable, how about?

Believability's kind of an uncanny valley thing, where realistic things like tiny scorpions are believable, and patently unrealistic things like giant scorpions that eat thunder et cetera are believable under their own weird logic, but something that's not unrealistic enough, like a giant poisonous scorpion that somehow has more potent venom but fills the same ecological niche and is presumably just as natural a creature as a regular-sized scorpion except it can't possibly exchange enough oxygen through its spiracles to not suffocate, just raises all kinds of uncomfortable questions.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 30, 2008)

I don't really care how mundane or fantastical a campaign/setting/game system is. What concerns me is the quality of the presentation.

A man fighting a bear with a sword isn't inherently more interesting than a man fighting a bear that shoots lightning out of ass with a sword made of antimatter. Both can be done well, though the latter case might strain even my ability to dignify unadulterated wahoo.

For the record, my current campaign tends toward the "11" (more for fantastical perversity than for epic scale... Synnibar it ain't). My group recently compare it to the video for Muse's "Knights of Cydonia". They meant it as a compliment.


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Sep 30, 2008)

I like the fantastical.  I play a fantasy game so I can encounter the fantastical.  Too much insistence on things being mundane and there's no point in playing the game.

That being said my personal opinion is that the fantastical backfires on games like D&D because they concentrate it too much: the wrap it up in their monsters, magic items, fantasy locations, and their PCs and then expect everything else to stay normal.  And so long as that concentration remains in those categories you can't add more without eventually creating a feeling of the normal stuff being loomed over by the fantastic like a bunch of tall trees.

Some people like to cut down the number or height of the concentrations of fantastic so they don't loom so much.  That's a perfectly valid way to do it, but if you like the amount of fantastic but hate the looming there's another way: spread it out.  Take the fantastic from the monsters and PCs and spread it out over the rest of the world: have people raise sheep with colored wool and ride horse-sized goats into battle; increase the range of natural hair colors; just little increases in the fantasticness of other stuff.  Doing this it should be possible to keep the total level of fantastic constant but reduce the looming effect.


----------



## takasi (Sep 30, 2008)

There's no right or wrong way here, there are only preferences.  However, it's incredibly difficult to create a campaign with both preferences.  

Let's say one person wants to play an everyman villager who found a strange arrow one day.  He spends years carrying it around until one day his wife dies of the flu, he leaves his village and heads out to find the man who shot that arrow.  He's built a simple fighter, but he's put a lot of backstory and thought into his character. 

Another person has watched the movie Ninja Scroll and is inspired by a rocklike creature in the movie.  He wants to play a character who has those powers, so he creates a goliath ninja/duskblade.  He too comes up with an interesting backstory that involves revenge against an ogre mage.

While it's possible to satisfy these two players, sometimes if you try to please everyone you please no one.  The same is true with a game system.  3.5 and prior had such a strange mix of the mundane and the fantastic that you had to do a lot of work just to explain what was and wasn't allowed in your game.  With 4th edition it's very clear from the onset that using the default rules you're getting high fantasy and high powered action adventure.  It does what it sets out to do very well.

Now this doesn't mean the mechanics don't allow for low powered campaigns.  I'm sure we'll see more from 3PP, and at some point Wizards will probably release a 4E Greyhawk and show how it can be done too.  But like a DM making a campaign, I think it's best to present a default campaign setting as either high or low.  Mixing the two causes even more problems for the DM down the road as different types of players are attracted to the 'same' game.


----------



## Masada (Sep 30, 2008)

#1 I agree with the sentiment that "this is too much."

But...

#2 I think we all sound like a bunch of old men complaining about these young gamers today...

There are about 100 systems out there from no magic fantasy to brand new "Hey my belt buckle is magic" 4e.  No singular system is "right".  If someone wanted to play Magic to 11, this is it.  Of course, no one can ever take away our Rule Zero; "There are no rules, only guidelines."  The best thing about RPG's is we can decide what to use, what to modify and what to ignore.

Some systems just have more to ignore than others.


----------



## RangerWickett (Sep 30, 2008)

My largest setting-oriented gaming experience of late has been directing the War of the Burning Sky campaign saga. It's _really_ hard to keep a consistent style and feel over the course of 20 levels.

The first adventure saw an army attacking a city. Yes, the army had wyverns who dropped 'bombs' of alchemist fire, but there wasn't too much magic.

The second adventure had a forest spirit keeping the woods alive despite a 40-year-old forest fire. Very high magic, but I felt it thematically appropriate.

Third adventure had a magically conjured hurricane, but it was a key plot point that we built to over the course of the whole adventure, and it tied into a villain later with a storm theme.

And so on and so on. There was a lot of powerful magic, but I believe we kept a consistent feel and tone, without 'lasersharking' (a term I now love). Sure the challenges had to increase as the heroes got higher level, but I tried to develop them organically from elements already in the setting, rather than adding new whizbang stuff. If there was amazing, powerful magic, it was firmly established that the person using that magic had to go to great lengths to gather and control it. 

I don't know if we ever had a half- anything (except a couple half-elves). 

Perhaps the most ridiculous thing we've had has been the scene -- when you're 16th level -- where some enemies animate a 90-ft. tall statue that appeared in the first adventure, and you have to fight it. But it didn't shoot lasers from its eyes or have ninjas with light-saber-nunchuks.

So it's possible to have fantastic fantasy without it feeling forced. I don't think 4e pulled it off, though.


----------



## Walknot (Oct 1, 2008)

RangerWickett said:


> ninjas with light-saber-nunchuks.




Oh, yeah.  May I please borrow that concept?  But, they will need some sort of sturdy hand protection, ummm ... mirrored gauntlets?


----------



## jensun (Oct 1, 2008)

Remathilis said:


> So has D&D drifted too far from mundane into fantastical? Is it a bad thing?



Personally it still hasnt moved far enough and the move it has made is a good thing. 

More Elric, Conan and Ffarhd please, less being mauled in the woods by common animals while you take a leak.


----------



## Scribble (Oct 1, 2008)

There are creatures in the real world that are weirder then giant scorpions with electrified claws. Ever see a documentary on some of the crazy stuff that lives in the ocean?  

It's not too much of a stretch for me to think in a reality that condeeds different planes of existance, gods, and magic to be true and taking an active role in the world would have weird creatures. Who knows how many are actually native to the prime material plane as opposed to some weird cross between the prime and some other random plane... That a creature could manage to exist WITHOUT some kind of weirdness is pretty amazing.

Aside from that... just make the electro claws do ongoing normal damage. It hurts you by crushing you instead of shocking. Voila... normal giant scorpion.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Oct 1, 2008)

Masada said:


> #1 I agree with the sentiment that "this is too much."
> 
> But...
> 
> #2 I think we all sound like a bunch of old men complaining about these young gamers today...



Heh.  I'm glad you posted this before I did something grumpy. 




Masada said:


> There are about 100 systems out there from no magic fantasy to brand new "Hey my belt buckle is magic" 4e.  No singular system is "right".



This is obviously correct.

I'm a 2E guy also, steeped in the "feel" of Ansalon, Barovia, Athas and the Rock of Bral, so when I look at the 4E MM I think "Whoa, this is even more bizarre than Spelljammer", which in my head is the litmus test for silly fantasy.  

But the best thing about the MM is that it's all optional.  I keep it there in my back pocket in case I ever need it, but for the most part I continue to make due with limited palettes so that nothing "looms" over the play experience.  My players are readers of fantasy novels first, not D&D players, so this is the "right" dial setting for them.  Oliphants and worgs?  Yes, definitely.  Nazghoul or Shelob?  Occasionally.  Half-Dragon Vampires with crystal greatswords?  No.

I'm still a fan of 4E though. The mechanics (the hardest part of any game) work for me, and I can pick, choose and repurpose monsters and fluff as I see fit.

I should note though that what's a normal moster palette for "the world" doesn't apply in the Feywild, Shadowfell or Elemental Chaos.  And of course if you are stupid enough to wander in the Abyss or some random Astral Dominion, anything goes.  And an Epic Lich-template Aboleth is always nice when I feel like running a Cthulu investigation without telling my players ahead of time.  "_Here are your Sanity tokens.  Don't lose them.  (Ha ha - 'Don't lose your Sanity'  Get it?)  Seriously, this'll be fun.  Guys?_"


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 1, 2008)

Needless to say, I agree with the OP.

Of course, I've _seen_ grizzly bears in the wild (trip to the Yukon), and I sure as heck had no desire to get any closer.  

Weird monsters are cool, but IMHO they are best in moderation....so that they actually _come across as weird _when used.  YMMV.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Oct 1, 2008)

This: 







Raven Crowking said:


> Needless to say, I agree with the OP.
> 
> Of course, I've _seen_ grizzly bears in the wild (trip to the Yukon), and I sure as heck had no desire to get any closer.
> 
> Weird monsters are cool, but IMHO they are best in moderation....so that they actually _come across as weird _when used.  YMMV.



 And This: 







			
				The_Gneech said:
			
		

> I love having magic and the supernatural spice up the background -- but like spice, too much of it and it becomes an irritant instead.



but also this 







			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> My group recently compare it to the video for Muse's "Knights of Cydonia". They meant it as a compliment.



Good stuff!

However it's all about balance.

In terms of the bear mauling a character... so be it. I invest quite a bit into any character I create so as long as the DM presented the bear as a significant challenge, huge bone crushing jaws are just as nasty as several flashes of electrical awesome. I'm not jaded by the mundane nor the fantastic quite yet.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## The_Gneech (Oct 1, 2008)

jensun said:


> More Elric, Conan and Ffarhd please, less being mauled in the woods by common animals while you take a leak.




Um ... you might want to check your sources. Conan particularly (at least as written by REH) fought mostly beasts and men, with the occasional otherworldly horror. He's the epitome of the low-fantasy model that you've just decried.

Fafhrd slightly less so -- when he fights wolves, they're ghosts, but they're still, er, "mundane" ghosts.

I haven't read enough Elric to know how he fares on the fantasticometer either way. But my point is, if you want more fantasy in your fantasy, you _don't_ want more Conan and Fafhrd.

-The Gneech


----------



## Evilhalfling (Oct 1, 2008)

I felt the way the OP did when playing earlier editions, I was careful to husband the occurrence of magical beasts and aberrations, I used a lot of  humanoids, specifically whatever I had decided lived in that part of the world.  

With 4e I decided just to cut loose, there were drakes instead of ravens, kobolds had more than one caster per tribe, their is a unicorn in the Inn stable.  The chickens ARE blessed by a god.  Its not just a story from far off parts, that turns out to be exaggerated its actually happening.  

Simulation bows out to the game.
Can this be sustained? Is a world that ignores certain logical details more fun?  I'm not sure, thats why my group is calling it a test campaign.

Besides how often would a bear attack a well armed and armored group of men?  How many wolf attacks involved a group of healthy humans?


----------



## billd91 (Oct 1, 2008)

Remathilis said:


> So has D&D drifted too far from mundane into fantastical? Is it a bad thing? Can a balance between truly magical and fantastical elements (warlocks, demons, potions of fire-breath) be struck with historical or mundane elements (grizzly bears, fighters, bec-de-corbins?) without one or the other suffering?




This has been a significant element of my dissatisfaction with 4e from the day I paged through the 4e Monster Manual. Too much way out stuff and not enough bread-and-butter critters to challenge a lower level party or for a more mundane game.
And even in 3e, i generally do what I can to keep to a more mundane game. The PCs encounter animals quite often that I try to have react in a natural and realistic manner. My primary opponents are more likely to be humanoids with levels than peculiar monsters.


----------



## Galloglaich (Oct 1, 2008)

I think people have really, really lost track of how fantastical the 'mundane' can actually be.  A fight with a bear could be very exciting IMO.  I remember the first time I read Lord of the rings, how terrific the battle with a few orcs and and ogre was in the Mines of Moria.  To me that was the archetypal dungeon adventure.  And yet today that wouldn't rate as anything but a minor encounter to snag a few XP.

I think about the classic fantasy books I read like the original conan, fafhred and gray mouser, cugel the clever, they were actually very grounded in history and mythology.  They were essentially low fantasy books in which the magic stood out vividly against a background something like a hard bitten detective novel, realistic and gritty.  

Like somebody else said, when dinner is cake and icecream desert just doesn't seem as special. 

I believe the general escalation of fantastic themes into the hyper realm, though it works for some people and can probably be done well, to me represents a failure of the imagination.


----------



## Galloglaich (Oct 1, 2008)

Evilhalfling said:


> I felt the way the OP did when playing earlier editions, I was careful to husband the occurrence of magical beasts and aberrations, I used a lot of  humanoids, specifically whatever I had decided lived in that part of the world.
> 
> With 4e I decided just to cut loose, there were drakes instead of ravens, kobolds had more than one caster per tribe, their is a unicorn in the Inn stable.  The chickens ARE blessed by a god.  Its not just a story from far off parts, that turns out to be exaggerated its actually happening.
> 
> ...




See... sometimes our assumptions about "mundane" reality fall way short of how crazy it can actually get.

You might find this interesting

Wolf of Soissons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> The first victims of the wolf were a pregnant woman and her unborn child, attacked in the parish of Septmont on the last day of February. Diligent locals had taken the infant, a scant four or five months old, from the womb to be baptized before it died when the wolf struck again not three hundred yards from the scene of the first attack. One Madame d'Amberief and her son survived only by fighting together.
> On 1 March near the hamlet of Courcelles a man was attacked by the wolf and survived with head wounds. The next victims were two young boys, named Boucher and Maréchal, who were savaged on the road to Paris, both badly wounded. A farmer on horseback lost part of his face to the wolf before escaping to a local mill, where a boy of seventeen was caught unawares and slain. After these atrocities the wolf fled to Bazoches, where it partially decapitated a woman and severely wounded a girl, who ran screaming to the village for help. Four citizens of Bazoches set an ambush at the body of the latest victim, but when the wolf returned it proved too much for them and the villagers soon found themselves fighting for their lives. The arrival of more peasants from the village finally put the wolf to flight, chasing it into a courtyard where it fought with a chained dog. When the chain broke the wolf was pursued through a pasture, where it killed a number of sheep, and into a stable, where a servant and cattle were mutilated.
> The episode ended when one Antoine Saverelle, former member of the local militia, tracked the wolf to small lane armed with a pitchfork. The wolf sprang at him but he managed to pin its head to the ground with the instrument, holding it down for roughly fifteen minutes before an armed peasant came to his aid and killed the animal. Saverelle received a reward of three-hundred livres from Louis XV of France for his bravery.




and these:


Beast of Gévaudan, a contemporary
Wolves of Périgord, more contemporaries
Wolf of Sarlat, another rogue
Wolves of Paris, man-eaters from 1450 Paris
Wolf of Ansbach
And tell me THIS story wouldn't make a great DnD (Cthulhu Dark Ages) campaign:

Peter Stumpp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 1, 2008)

Don't forget the bears!

List of fatal bear attacks in North America by decade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sankebetsu_brown_bear_incident

And the film, _The Ghost and the Darkness_ was based off a real incident:  Tsavo maneaters - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Crocs:  Crocodile attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Crocodiles can slow their metabolism to such an extent that a tree with an intruder hiding in its branches may be guarded continuously for several weeks, without breaks for food.  )

Of some use:  Categoryeaths due to animal attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


RC


----------



## Galloglaich (Oct 1, 2008)

*Dilbert in the Dungeon*

moved to new thread


----------



## Wik (Oct 1, 2008)

Hunh.  Glad to know I'm not the only one to feel that way.  I've always been about the Grim and Gritty fantasy, and that's been my comfort area.  But, with 4e, I said "you know what?  I'm going to run it as-written, and see what happens."  And, even though it's a different fantasy than I'm used to, I like it.  

So far, in my campaign (I run two different groups in a shared locale), we've seen:

*   Goblins invading a town (fairly low key), the town being the hub of numerous races trading and celebrating a town's centennial (also low-key, but more Tolkien than Howard).  
*   An eruption of demons, forcing much of the populace to live in orc-infested islands (a background event, but a fairly mid fantasy event)
*   Phantasmal Orcs reliving an eternal battle against teleporting Eladrin (fairly high fantasy)
*   A room that shifts between the mortal realm and the feywild at random, against the spiritual remains of a once-proud Eladrin Lordling, now a screaming wraith protected by his skeleton children (high fantasy, but not gonzo)
   * A lizardfolk Spellmage with an aura of cold magic that can channel latent magical energy around him (about as high fantasy/video game as I've come, so far).  

Those all spring into mind, and I don't think any of them really break character for my setting.  Really, I'm followign the book, and I don't truly find it too crazy in magic content.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Oct 1, 2008)

I think a lot of it, in terms of not... Low Fantasy vs. High Fantasy but simply "Mundane and Fantastical" depends a fair bit on how you approach it.

You can have a setting that has lots of fantastical elements. BUT! The way both the players and the DM approaches it, it can feel much more mundane and almost real-lifesque. 

If you emphasize, that it is a "half-demon spirit posessed minotaur" then it will be more fantastical. If you emphasize its sickly form, how it grunts, squeals, etc. and make it more seem like a real beast it feels more mundance.


----------



## RFisher (Oct 1, 2008)

I came late to reading the Conan stories. Read my first one just a few years ago.

One thing that really stood out to me was how Howard generally limited himself to one supernatural element per story. Which really showcased that one element.

I have also found that, in role-playing games, it helps for the game world to be as similar to the players’ world as possible. It (generally) means less confusion and more time to focus on the adventure.

That said, one of my favorite campaigns was a gonzo, the-fantastic-everywhere-you-look sort of thing. That can have it’s appeal too.

I agree with those who say there is no right or wrong in this matter.

One thing I always prefer to avoid, however, is systemizing the fantastic elements to the extent that they become mundane with a fantastic façade. This can be a hard thing to guard against in role-playing games.


----------



## jensun (Oct 1, 2008)

The_Gneech said:


> Um ... you might want to check your sources. Conan particularly (at least as written by REH) fought mostly beasts and men, with the occasional otherworldly horror. He's the epitome of the low-fantasy model that you've just decried.



You may want to read the books rather than just watching the films.

While Conan fights a lot of men there are also great hordes of demons, giant serpents, devolved humans and other monstrasities. 

About the only thing he fights which might be called a "normal" animal is the occasional giant ape thing.


----------



## Shades of Green (Oct 1, 2008)

If you have too much fantasy, the fantastic becomes mundane and loses its appeal.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Oct 1, 2008)

Remathilis said:


> I had another conversation with a friend (a life-long D&D player from 2e on, like myself) in which he innocently recalled one of his PCs being mauled to death by a bear.




"Don't you mean platypus bear?"
"No, it just says, 'bear'."
"Certainly you mean his pet skunk bear?"
"Or his armadillo bear?"
"Gopher bear?"
"Just, 'bear'."
"This place is weird."


----------



## GrumpyOldMan (Oct 1, 2008)

As a long time Hârn GM, using HârnMaster rules, I still treasure the first time the characters disturbed a boar in the woods. The combat ended with them enjoying a meal of roast boar, but not until after one of them had sustained a serious wound from the tusks, and two of the other three had hastily taken to the trees. A critical success by the only Shek-p’var (mage) in the group and a similarly successful spear attack seriously wounded the boar; it still took them a long time to finish it off.

Since then they’ve fought gargun (goblins) a few times, nolah (trolls) three times and vlasta (don’t ask) twice and a gulmorvrin (the undead worshippers of Morgath) once. The latter they don’t even know about, and they won’t until he tracks them down for revenge (they think they drowned him). The rest of the time they’ve been up against other humans. Whenever they face a critter it’s a major event for them.

It is, of course, whatever floats your boat. I never liked the preponderance of creatures introduced in the Fiend Folio, never mind MM2 and that harks back to my days playing AD&D. So I moved worlds (from Greyhawk to Hârn) and systems (from AD&D to HârnMaster). I’ve never looked back.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 1, 2008)

jensun said:


> You may want to read the books rather than just watching the films.
> 
> While Conan fights a lot of men there are also great hordes of demons, giant serpents, devolved humans and other monstrasities.
> 
> About the only thing he fights which might be called a "normal" animal is the occasional giant ape thing.




I have read all of the original REH Conan stories (they are currently available in a three-volume set), and while it is true that Conan fights a number of monstrous creatures -- giant spiders, giant snakes, the occasional (pretty weak, by D&D standards) demon -- what he fights the most are human beings.  And most of those human beings are not even wizards.

I can, if need be, go through each story and list everything that he fights, so that the mundane vs. the fantastical can easily be seen.  As a fan of REH's writing, I am more than willing to do so if necessary to demonstrate the much less Wahoo! nature of Conan's world than is being implied here.

There are a few things Conan faces that might have appeared in the 4e MM.  Specifically, a form of "living water" comes to mind (Conan flees for all he is worth) in one of the more fantastic stories.  Other than that, even the "fantastical" is more mundane....giant serpents and devolved humans (I think you are conflating Conan with Bran Mak Morn here, and if so I imagine that you read the "fixed" Conan stories of deCamp, rather than the originals as Howard wrote them?) are more in line with giant scorpians than giant scorpians that shoot lightning out of their claws.

Regardless of what kind of fantasy you like, the Conan stories are a lot less infused with Wahoo! elements than you think.


RC


----------



## jensun (Oct 1, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Regardless of what kind of fantasy you like, the Conan stories are a lot less infused with Wahoo! elements than you think.



I think we are talking past each other here. 

I am not suggesting that Conan contains some of the more Gonzo elements of rpg's.  I am suggesting that the occurence of mundane animals is unusual.  There is a wide gulf between fantastic and gonzo. 

My main Conan reference is the recent compiled collection of the original stories.  I have no idea who Brak Mak Morn is.  My devolved humans comment was specific to Howards essay on the Hyboria setting where he talks at length about the rise and fall of civilisations throughout the ages.  

Conan certainly encounters elements of those fallen civilisations on more than one occasion, the Picts spring to mind immediately.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 1, 2008)

jensun said:


> I think we are talking past each other here.




Sounds like it.

If you have the three-volume compilation, there is a similar one for Bran Mak Morn (The Worms of the Earth alone makes it worth while, and is perhaps the best "devolved human" story ever written), Kull, Solomon Kane, etc.  There are also two volumes of cross-genre REH stories.  I own them all, and haven't regretted a single purchase.

If you enjoy the Conan stories, I would recommend Solomon Kane and Bran Mak Morn at the very least.  Really good stuff.


RC


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Oct 1, 2008)

GrumpyOldMan said:


> Since then they’ve fought gargun (goblins) a few times, nolah (trolls) three times and vlasta (don’t ask) twice and a gulmorvrin (the undead worshippers of Morgath) once. The latter they don’t even know about, and they won’t until he tracks them down for revenge (they think they drowned him). The rest of the time they’ve been up against other humans. Whenever they face a critter it’s a major event for them.
> 
> It is, of course, whatever floats your boat.



I wonder if it's an attention span issue.  I know I'd be a lot more interested if I had to fight weird creatures more often then I fought regular people probably because my brain would shut down quickly with the same old thing.  Of course, if the people were weird somehow that might mitigate it somewhat, but then that would be equivalent to unleashing another weird thing.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 1, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I can, if need be, go through each story and list everything that he fights, so that the mundane vs. the fantastical can easily be seen.  As a fan of REH's writing, I am more than willing to do so if necessary to demonstrate the much less Wahoo! nature of Conan's world than is being implied here.



I'd like to see that. Not because I doubt your assertion. I just think it would be cool to see.


----------



## The_Gneech (Oct 1, 2008)

jensun said:


> You may want to read the books rather than just watching the films.




Wow, I was just about to say the same thing to you. 



> While Conan fights a lot of men there are also great hordes of demons, giant serpents, devolved humans and other monstrasities.
> 
> About the only thing he fights which might be called a "normal" animal is the occasional giant ape thing.




Lessee ... lions in the Tower of the Elephant, apes in Jewels of Gwalhur, an enormous but fairly mundane lizard (referred to as a "dragon") in Red Nails...

Yes, each story had at least one supernatural beastie, usually either undead or some variety of otherworldly horror -- but that's a far cry from the current vogue of Spellwoven Flamecrickets, Crystalborn Shockmice, and Dragonborn Bladeflickers we're dealing with now.

-The Gneech, card-carrying Howardian Purist


----------



## Mallus (Oct 1, 2008)

The_Gneech said:


> Crystalborn Shockmice



If they're born from crystal, shouldn't they be _Brightmice_, and shoot lasers from their eyes? (this is what I know of verisimilitude...).

Also, thank you. I'm so infesting the PC's headquarters with Shockmice in our new 4e campaign...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 1, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> I'd like to see that. Not because I doubt your assertion. I just think it would be cool to see.




I do too; I might just produce such a list.

Conan, IMHO, faces about the perfect mix of weird vs. mundane for a role-playing game.


RC


----------



## Mallus (Oct 1, 2008)

Shades of Green said:


> If you have too much fantasy, the fantastic becomes mundane and loses its appeal.



If this were true, lifelong fantasy readers, who've _gorged_ themselves on the fantastic, would have given up on fantasy in favor of Jane Austen. For fantasy fans, the fantastic is unavoidably a bit mundane; chances are they've seen it before. This is an inherent problem with genre fiction, in a very real way the readership wants the work to be derivative (they want in to meet their expectations w/r/t genre conventions).

Again, if you have too much fantasy, but do it well, it's like triple-chocolate bread pudding (an actual desert at my favorite local restaurant). If you stick to more mundane material and do it poorly, it's like lunch at Applebee's.


----------



## The_Gneech (Oct 1, 2008)

Mallus said:


> If they're born from crystal, shouldn't they be _Brightmice_, and shoot lasers from their eyes? (this is what I know of verisimilitude...).
> 
> Also, thank you. I'm so infesting the PC's headquarters with Shockmice in our new 4e campaign...




You're welcome.  For the record, they should be yellow with black stripes and make a noise like "Pika! Pika!" 

-The Gneech


----------



## Shades of Green (Oct 1, 2008)

Mallus said:


> If this were true, lifelong fantasy readers, who've _gorged_ themselves on the fantastic, would have given up on fantasy in favor of Jane Austen. For fantasy fans, the fantastic is unavoidably a bit mundane; chances are they've seen it before.



That's not what I meant. what I meant was not that reading too much fantasy or thinking too much about fantasy would make anything fantastical seem mundane to you, but that a setting where everything and everyone is fantastic runs the risk of reducing the readers'/viewers'/players' awe and sense of wonder when they encounter new fantastic plots, items, locations, characters and so on.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 1, 2008)

The_Gneech said:


> For the record, they should be yellow with black stripes and make a noise like "Pika! Pika!"



Naturally...


----------



## Mallus (Oct 1, 2008)

Shades of Green said:


> ... runs the risk of reducing the readers'/viewers'/players' awe and sense of wonder when they encounter new fantastic plots, items, locations, characters and so on.



My point was that it's fantasy fandom itself that reduces a players 'awe and sense of wonder'. What does it matter if the players encounter a steady diet of the fantastic in-game when they're all but guaranteed to have ingested a steady diet out of it? If they're the type to get jaded by that exposure it doesn't matter where it occurred; the harms already done, _before_ they even begin playing. The risk is unavoidable.

Which is I think the focus should be on execution, not the general level of 'fantasticality'. We should be discussing exactly _how_ to make the portrayal of men with swords fighting large apes thrilling.


----------



## GrumpyOldMan (Oct 1, 2008)

SilvercatMoonpaw2 said:


> I wonder if it's an attention span issue.  I know I'd be a lot more interested if I had to fight weird creatures more often then I fought regular people probably because my brain would shut down quickly with the same old thing.  Of course, if the people were weird somehow that might mitigate it somewhat, but then that would be equivalent to unleashing another weird thing.




More gaming style than attention span IMO. I’ve never been a monster lover, hated gelatinous cubes, piercers and lots of others right from the start.

But then my brain starts asking questions like, what do those orcs eat? Or, what sort of hunting range does a dragon have? Or, how can that city survive without any surrounding farmland? (WFRP – I’m thinking of you on that last one!) My campaigns are more political ‘we’re in trouble again’ messes than let’s slay the BBEG. My players don’t complain. But we used to play traveller back in the day, and that was done in a fairly similar way.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 1, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Conan, IMHO, faces about the perfect mix of weird vs. mundane for a role-playing game.



I agree. I generally send mostly human/humanoid opponents against my PCs, with a few weird beasties for good measure.


----------



## Gothmog (Oct 1, 2008)

I agree that the Conan and Mouser/Fafhrd stories have about the right mix of mundane vs. fantastic elements.  The games I run typically involve more mundane opponents (classed NPCs, normal animals, and basic races like goblins, orcs, etc) than out there monsters like fire-spitting beetles, elemental archons, or bears that crap lightning.  I tend to be pretty firmly in the simulationist camp when it comes to populating my world and internal consistency.  Too much wahoo makes it hard to take the setting seriously, and makes you wonder why there are ANY mundane animals/creatures if they are far outclassed by the wahoo stuff that is apparently common (I'm noticing a lot of drakes in the 4e published stuff for example).

However, I also love 4e and the way it treats monsters and NPCs. 4e really supports my playing and DMing style in a way no other version of D&D has.  I can whip up a "classed" NPC in a couple minutes now, rather than 20-30 min as in 3e.  Also, monsters do more interesting things now, and are MUCH easier to run.  And the occasional wahoo monster from the MM I use REALLY stands out as being something weird and dangerous.  I look at the MM not as a be-all-end-all collection of monsters, but as a reference to give me ideas and draw inspiration from.  In that regard, the 4e MM is a huge success- I've come up with more really interesting critters since reading the 4e MM than I have in the previous eight years, especially in regards to unusual things 4e critters can do in combat (their "schtick" if you will).


----------



## GlaziusF (Oct 1, 2008)

The_Gneech said:


> Spellwoven Flamecrickets




Little wisps of flame that dart around a fire mage's garden of rocky trees and crystal flowers. They sing pleasantly, and when he needs to cover his escape, grow to giant size and spring around like a giant flaming burst hazard.

Awesome.



> Crystalborn Shockmice




A little scampering fuzzy sparkly thing, which in swarms will Van de Graaf anything standing nearby and shoot lightning.

Awesome.



> Dragonborn Bladeflickers




A stocky 9-foot lizard-woman who spits poison and is also a gatling gun _but with knives_.

Awesome.



> we're dealing with now.




But they're all awesome. What's the problem?


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 1, 2008)

I'm going to lead off with a quote from Tolkien's essay "On Fairy-Stories":

_By the forging of Gram cold iron was revealed; by the making of Pegasus horses were ennobled; in the Trees of the Sun and Moon root and stock, flower and fruit are manifested in glory._

I think this sums up my attitude pretty well.  The best fantasy, to me, is grounded in reality; most of the fantasy elements are not thrown in at random, but chosen to either heighten or subvert attributes which the realistic elements already possess.

For instance, I really loved the dire animals of 3E.  A dire bear was still recognizably a bear.  As such, it could partake of all our real-world knowledge of bears - both actual physical bears, and all the mythology surrounding them.  Bears are already big and scary; this one was bigger and scarier.  It didn't shoot lightning out its rear end and it didn't fly.  It was just a bear with its bearness turned up to 11.

Or take undead.  Dead bodies are creepy.  They're cold.  They frighten us on an atavistic level.  They spread disease and make us sick.  

So undead are _really_ creepy.  Their touch carries a lethal chill, and they inspire supernatural terror.  They infect us with diseases like mummy rot; they sicken us by sucking the life out of us.  Once again, undead are dead bodies with their deadness turned up to 11.

(Of course, there's another element of undeath that draws upon our real-world knowledge of corpses; in this case, however, it is the deliberate _breaking_ of real-world rules that makes them effective.  Dead bodies don't move around, and we all know this.  So when a dead body gets up and starts shambling toward us, that's a profoundly unnatural thing, and we feel the impact of that unnaturalness.)

Horses are fast; pegasi are so fast they can fly.  Bulls are tough and heavy and solid; gorgons are so tough and heavy and solid, they're made of iron and can turn things to stone.  Big strong men are hard to put down; trolls are so hard to put down, they regenerate.

So, I tend to like monsters which fit that "like the real world, but more so" pattern.  If something is going to get wacky special powers, those powers should heighten its existing attributes most of the time.

Not every monster has to fit the pattern, of course.  There's nothing about snakes or lizards that suggests they ought to have wings or breathe fire.  There's nothing about octopi that suggests they ought to suck out your brain.  There's nothing about Jell-O cubes which suggests that they ought to ooze stickily through dungeon corridors, engulfing and devouring every... well, actually, you know what?  Forget that last example.  But I feel these monsters ought to be extraordinary and exciting, a step up from the less fantastical perils that adventurers normally face.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 1, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> A stocky 9-foot lizard-woman who spits poison and is also a gatling gun _but with knives_.



And thank you for the new love interest for my Dragonborn paladin.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 1, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> But they're all awesome. What's the problem?





Some folks think Jar Jar Binks is awesome, too.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 1, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Some folks think Jar Jar Binks is awesome, too.



There's no reason why he couldn't be... if someone other that Lucas writes him. Tom Stoppard maybe? I hear he did some polishing on RotS...


----------



## The_Gneech (Oct 1, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> But they're all awesome. What's the problem?




Did you read the definition of "lasersharking"? 

-The Gneech


----------



## Galloglaich (Oct 1, 2008)

Dausuul said:


> I'm going to lead off with a quote from Tolkien's essay "On Fairy-Stories":
> 
> _By the forging of Gram cold iron was revealed; by the making of Pegasus horses were ennobled; in the Trees of the Sun and Moon root and stock, flower and fruit are manifested in glory._
> 
> I think this sums up my attitude pretty well. The best fantasy, to me, is grounded in reality; most of the fantasy elements are not thrown in at random, but chosen to either heighten or subvert attributes which the realistic elements already possess.




I agree 100%, well put.

G.


----------



## GlaziusF (Oct 1, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Some folks think Jar Jar Binks is awesome, too.




Jar Jar Binks would actually not have so annoying if the direction hadn't assumed everyone would think he was awesome. There are several points after a Jar Jar line where there's an extended pause in which absolutely nothing of consequence happens, and they only make sense if you assume that this is to compensate for the entire audience laughing so hard they can't hear or see straight.



The_Gneech said:


> Did you read the definition of "lasersharking"?




Lasersharking is a whole 'nother ball of wax. The problem with lasers and sharks is that they don't actually go together. Sharks breathe in water, lasers diffuse in water, so the lasershark is either suffocating or boiling. Also the shark is a pinnacle of fluid motion to bite your face off and there's really no room in there for an obvious "fire the laser" cue. 

It's like how all Ecco the Dolphin's ranged attacks are basically all sonic booms but with sonar, they make sense in terms of actions a dolphin can take.


----------



## The_Gneech (Oct 1, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> Lasersharking is a whole 'nother ball of wax. The problem with lasers and sharks is that they don't actually go together. Sharks breathe in water, lasers diffuse in water, so the lasershark is either suffocating or boiling. Also the shark is a pinnacle of fluid motion to bite your face off and there's really no room in there for an obvious "fire the laser" cue.
> 
> It's like how all Ecco the Dolphin's ranged attacks are basically all sonic booms but with sonar, they make sense in terms of actions a dolphin can take.






Yes well ... um ...

*pause*

I like pie!

-The Gneech


----------



## Korgoth (Oct 1, 2008)

I agree that the fantastical is only fantastical insofar as there is a mundane against which it can be highlighted.

I like to use normal critters (if the setting permits) such as wolves, bears, etc. Even in the dungeon one can still highlight the texture of stone, the smell of spices or rot, and other "mundanities" in order to highlight the alienness of those things which break the expected continuity of sensation.

A cave bear (or 'dire' bear if you wish) is interesting mainly because it's even bigger and tougher than regular bears. If all the bears in your world are cave bears, then the message is "all bears are ginormous". If _this_ bear is a cave bear, then the message is "_this_ bear is ginormous".

I think the point about "lasersharking" is a good one. Obviously, the shark of Jaws would have been more powerful in the story if it had a laser cannon on its head, and cybernetic walker arms so it could come up on land, and a metal tail that spun like a buzzsaw and chopped people up. But it would have been less engaging than 'merely' the giant shark, because it would place the audience at such a distance from the creature... the idea has no plausibility and so its terror is less visceral.

Now, I'm not saying that there's no way to escalate your tone to the point where a lasershark (or a cyberlaserbuzzsawshark) could be introduced... but unless you're playing Encounter Critical (where you would be reproached for _not_ using a cyberlaserbuzzsawshark, because it's a comedy) you're probably better off trying to make the game world something the players can relate to, rather than laugh at.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 1, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> Jar Jar Binks would actually not have so annoying if the direction hadn't assumed everyone would think he was awesome.




Kinda like electric scorpians could be awesome, in context, if the "director" hadn't assumed everyone would think they were so awesome that they became the baseline?


----------



## Mallus (Oct 1, 2008)

Korgoth said:


> ...you're probably better off trying to make the game world something the players can relate to, rather than laugh at.



My name is Mallus and I *disapprove* of this message!

Seriously though, I've always found that my players relate more to the characters and their motivations than their trappings. A peasant can be less believable than a laser-equipped shark, depending on the quality of the characterization. 

Maybe what I'm trying to say is that it's better to strive for psychological believability. Consider Buffy the Vampire Slayer. If you examine the show'ss trappings; SoCal vampires, suburban demons, 98 lbs kung-fu schoolgirls, eventually, robots, it looks like an utter mess. Completely unbelievable. Then look at the way this freakshow is written, characterized. Suddenly, the show becomes one of the more realistic and effecting coming-of-age stories on TV.


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 1, 2008)

Mallus said:


> My name is Mallus and I *disapprove* of this message!
> 
> Seriously though, I've always found that my players relate more to the characters and their motivations than their trappings. A peasant can be less believable than a laser-equipped shark, depending on the quality of the characterization.
> 
> Maybe what I'm trying to say is that it's better to strive for psychological believability. Consider Buffy the Vampire Slayer. If you examine the show'ss trappings; SoCal vampires, suburban demons, 98 lbs kung-fu schoolgirls, eventually, robots, it looks like an utter mess. Completely unbelievable. Then look at the way this freakshow is written, characterized. Suddenly, the show becomes one of the more realistic and effecting coming-of-age stories on TV.




I'll concede "Buffy," but most of us are not Joss Whedon.  Carrying an extended storyline on the strength of characterization alone is quite a challenge.  And "Buffy" took a rather tongue-in-cheek approach to the whole business; the writers were well aware of how ludicrous their premise was, and frequently made sly jokes about it for the benefit of the audience.

For us mortal DMs, I think it's better to strive for both believable trappings _and_ believable characters.


----------



## WayneLigon (Oct 1, 2008)

Remathilis said:


> I had another conversation with a friend (a life-long D&D player from 2e on, like myself) in which he innocently recalled one of his PCs being mauled to death by a bear.




Perfectly plausible at low levels in any edition. Mundane animals provide a challenge for about 1-3 levels, depending on the edition, and that's it. 

The level-based nature of D&D means that threats must escalate along with your PC and that's not going to change. There's only so much you can wring out of a mundane Earthly animal until you're forced to make it shoot lightning or something just so it's more than a speedbump to even a moderate level character.



Remathilis said:


> A large amount of criticism is lobbed at 3e (and especially 4e) for removing the "mundane" from fantasy. This charge came in many forms...




And almost all of that criticism is stuff and nonsense. 1E and 2E had just as many fantastical creatures as 3E does. Moreso, I'd say, because 3E is missing all the really weird stuff that came out for the various 2E boxed settings, plus most of the 'gotcha' monsters, which tended to be bizarre in the extreme. Just as many magic items, just as many spells, or whatevers.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 1, 2008)

Dausuul said:


> And "Buffy" took a rather tongue-in-cheek approach to the whole business; the writers were well aware of how ludicrous their premise was, and frequently made sly jokes about it for the benefit of the audience.



Can the same not be said about Gygaxian D&D? 



> For us mortal DMs, I think it's better to strive for both believable trappings _and_ believable characters.



If I wanted believable trappings I'd... do something other than play D&D


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 1, 2008)

WayneLigon said:


> Perfectly plausible at low levels in any edition. Mundane animals provide a challenge for about 1-3 levels, depending on the edition, and that's it.
> 
> The level-based nature of D&D means that threats must escalate along with your PC and that's not going to change. There's only so much you can wring out of a mundane Earthly animal until you're forced to make it shoot lightning or something just so it's more than a speedbump to even a moderate level character.




3E had dire animals going up to CR 16.  Those aren't "mundane earthly animals," but they also don't shoot lightning.



Mallus said:


> Can the same not be said about Gygaxian D&D?




Well, yes.  And if you prefer that style, more power to you.  Gygaxian D&D doesn't tremendously appeal to me.



Mallus said:


> If I wanted believable trappings I'd... do something other than play D&D




I admit the bar is set rather low, but I would still like a firm foundation of quasi-realistic stuff (note the "quasi," which means dire bears are cool but dire lightning-shooting flying bears are not) upon which to build my edifices of fantasy.


----------



## GlaziusF (Oct 1, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Kinda like electric scorpians could be awesome, in context, if the "director" hadn't assumed everyone would think they were so awesome that they became the baseline?




Completely opposite, actually.

Film is a dynamic medium. The audience engages with the film at the pace the film sets. Most film simply accepts this. Some experimental film rejects it -- to its detriment -- or plays with the notion of pacing and expectation.

Print is a static medium. (I'm excluding audiobooks here because seriously, how would you understand the ding-dang tables?) The audience engages with it at a pace they set themselves. 

The electric scorpion is an entry on a page of a book. The worst it can do to you is inspire you to hold your nose and turn the page.


----------



## Delta (Oct 1, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Consider Buffy the Vampire Slayer. If you examine the show'ss trappings; SoCal vampires, suburban demons, 98 lbs kung-fu schoolgirls, eventually, robots, it looks like an utter mess. Completely unbelievable.




Had me... 



> Then look at the way this freakshow is written, characterized. Suddenly, the show becomes one of the more realistic and effecting coming-of-age stories on TV.




... Lost me.


----------



## joethelawyer (Oct 1, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I do too; I might just produce such a list.
> 
> Conan, IMHO, faces about the perfect mix of weird vs. mundane for a role-playing game.
> 
> ...





cool. once you get the list you could compare to the mm, add up the exp, ad get conan's level.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Oct 2, 2008)

Fantasticalness is sort of like spicyness.  Some people choke if you if you put a drop of hot sauce in their food while others arn't happy until they're sweating.  It's a dail that you turn up or down until you find the level your happy with.

High Fantasy can be both good and bad.

For another example of high Fantasy done well, consider Avatar: The Last Airbender.  People toss around fire and boulders all the time, and it only make the world cooler, not all wahoo.


----------



## Starbuck_II (Oct 2, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Some folks think Jar Jar Binks is awesome, too.



 Jar Jar was awesome. What movies were you watching?


----------



## Barastrondo (Oct 2, 2008)

The problem with mundane animals as antagonists that I've encountered is less boredom and more sympathy. My players know animals pretty well, and it's just really not much of a noble fantasy for them to beat up wolves or bears. If I had wolves or hyenas attack the party, they'd say "Holy crap, something must be really wrong for these poor critters to be acting so out of character." A bear might be more plausible, but it's still sympathetic to the players. This is only reinforced by other games we're into like Werewolf. 

Other than that, my players are quite happy with a mix of the mundane (gritty urban gangs with knives) and fantastical (holy crap is that an arctic manticore?) in their fantasy, as long as a little bit of thought is put into the presentation.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 2, 2008)

Well I definitely fall into the "more mundane" is better crowd.  I like for my monsters to really be *MONSTERS*.  Thus a darker tone more similar to Swords & Sorcery fiction is maintained. I like for the protagonists in my game to... 

1. Rarely encounter true monsters. ( as opposed to how many orcs are slain in something like LotR)

2. Be frightened  or at least wary, because they recognize monsters as unnatural and rare, and are uncertain of their weaknesses and strengths.

3. Usually fight true monsters in epic climactic battles as opposed to over and over again.

I think the norm of mundane creatures and battles can really bring home the impact of fighting something truly monstrous and dangerous... something I feel has been greatly tossed aside in D&D.  Even something like Avatar had mostly battles between mundane (for their world at least) humans with a rare "monster" encounter every so often.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 2, 2008)

Mallus said:


> My point was that it's fantasy fandom itself that reduces a players 'awe and sense of wonder'. What does it matter if the players encounter a steady diet of the fantastic in-game when they're all but guaranteed to have ingested a steady diet out of it? If they're the type to get jaded by that exposure it doesn't matter where it occurred; the harms already done, _before_ they even begin playing. The risk is unavoidable.
> 
> Which is I think the focus should be on execution, not the general level of 'fantasticality'. We should be discussing exactly _how_ to make the portrayal of men with swords fighting large apes thrilling.




To me, this is a much more interesting point.

Sure, giant apes are cool.  But, what's the difference between a giant ape and, say, an ogre?  Why, as a player, would I particularly care if I'm fighting either one?  Or, to put it another way, what will distinguish the two from each other?

To me, it's all about the set up.  Mechanically, an ogre and a big ape aren't going to be all that different except for the climb speed.  Sure, the ogre might have a club, but, in the end, that's the only difference that matters to me.

So, play to the type. The ape makes hit and run attacks.  Sure, (assuming 3e here) he'll take some AOO's (give him mobility to mitigate that) and maybe take some extra hits, but, have him run in, attack, then run out up a tree.  Next he leaps onto a player (bull rush?  Trip attack?) then run up another tree.  Play up the speed aspect - have him withdraw and come back from a different direction.  

To me, this would make the fight much more memorable.


----------



## Delta (Oct 2, 2008)

joethelawyer said:


> cool. once you get the list you could compare to the mm, add up the exp, ad get conan's level.




Gygax presented full AD&D stats for Conan in Dragon #36 (April 1980), at a variety of different ages (15, 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, 60, and 70).


----------



## Mallus (Oct 2, 2008)

Delta said:


> Had me...
> 
> 
> 
> ... Lost me.



Heh... there's no accounting for taste.

But even if you personally can't stand BtVS, it does illustrate the point that people relate to characters and their relationships, even if the trappings are more-or-less absurd.


----------



## Wombat (Oct 2, 2008)

I have always enjoyed what I refer to as "Realistic Fantasy",  a notion that while there will be fantastical elements to a game or story, that there is also an underlying sense of believability to the matter.  If you have nothing but stranger monsters everywhere, how does the world exist?  If heroes are constantly bringing millions of gold coins into local villages, how does the economy work out?  If 

Writers that fit this general sense for me include Tolkein, Guy Gavriel Kay, Ursual LeGuin, George R.R. Martin, Charles de Lint, and a host of others.  It does not include Michael Moorcock and most of the writers of D&D (or other rpg) novels.  

In games, I am currently drawn to Ars Magica, but I also love Harnmaster; in the past RuneQuest also did me well and others have had luck with Riddle of Steel and Burning Wheel.  Under D&D, I can, with a lot of effort, tweak the rules to fit such a world -- my _Faceless Statues_ and _Tales of New Mavarga_ campaigns stood the test and my players loved these above all other D20 campaigns they had been in, something that makes me truly proud.  

RAW D&D does not make for such a setting.  It takes some serious tweaking and runs against some of the more expected elements of the game.  Still, I find such efforts repay well with a game where the players can really get into character simply because they know that certain base elements of reality still exist, thus making the amazing changes the more wondrous.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 2, 2008)

Couple of other thoughts.

On Conan - it really depends on what you mean by Conan when you start tossing his name around.  There's been a couple of dozen, at least, writers produce Conan stories in various forms - novels, short stories, comics (I loves me lots Savage Sword of Conan) - and each is a bit different for any number of reasons.  It's kind of like saying the only Batman you can talk about are stories written by Bob Kane.  Anyone else doesn't matter.  Only, that's a bit of a stretch.  Sure, I love the REH Conan stories, but, then again, there's others I like as well.  I would certainly not tell Roy Thomas that his Conan wasn't up to snuff.  

As far as making the mundane fantastic, it really depends on your setting.  If you're using any of the default settings - Greyhawk, FR, whatever, - then the wahoo level is going to be pretty high.  Besides, monsters are fun.  Sure, it's great to stab a bear, but, really, it's Dungeon's and DRAGONS.  I want some critters.


----------



## Miyaa (Oct 2, 2008)

This hits a problem I've started to notice with magical items (other than they not really tell us the ingredients needed to make the items listed by a player): 4th Edition is so High Fantasy that the magical items seem very nerfed compared to past editions.

One example from the new Adventurer's Vault: Pouch of Platinum. *What does it do?* It takes gems or gold or lesser metal pieces and "exchanges" them for their equivalent in Platinum Pieces. If there isn't enough money to exchange for a platinum piece, those pieces remain as they were. *The level 4e decided that this item is appropriate for?* 5th level.

In 3.5e the closest I could find to a pouch with similar items is the epic artifact pouch that multiplied one gold piece into ten gold pieces. So from 31/2 to 4, we've gone from something that may well would have been considered an artifact (epic artifact at that) to a magical item that adventurers might pick up after defeating a creature with the abilities slightly better than the average bear!

This is in a world where most towns and villages they would into would sell most things for copper pieces or silver pieces at best! Cities are very far and few between, and yet this could be put into an adventurer's hands who could well be in the middle of their Heroic tier? I could imagine...

_Raliena drifted into the local village tavern with a slight grimace on her face. She just took out the bear who killed her pa, and then vanquished the warlock who commanded the bear to kill him in the first place. All he had was a pouch might well could be magical, but in this two-horse village, probably didn't have a wizard or cleric who could discern whether this pouch was magical or not.

"Here's your ale. That will be 5 silver pieces, lass," the wench said through her beard. Hadn't dwarven women heard of the idea of shaving? Raliena thought as she reached into her new found purse. Her eyes widened as she couldn't feel any of the gold coins she had put into that purse. She pulled out a lone platinum piece that was there in the pouch, which was impossible, the pouch had nothing in it before she put her loot in there.

The wench and pretty much every patron had stopped to look at her. Raliena weakly mumbled, "Anyone have change for a platinum?"_​
(By the way, one other little complaint: They renamed the immovable rod as the _immovable shaft_. That's just not right.)


----------



## Allister (Oct 2, 2008)

Er, platinum pouch != Artifact pouch

The platinum pouch doesn't actually do anything except perhaps make your treasure easier to carry....

The artifact pouch...That's an entirely differently kettle of fish...

re: Fantastic vs Mundane
What's the cutoff point? I've seen people mention giant scorpions but like another poster, giant scorpions are definitely fantastical.

Are Illithids fantastical? Is mundane just things that existed on Earth (thus excluding the Dire animals? )


----------



## Quantarum (Oct 2, 2008)

The first thing that occurred to me was a newspaper story I read earlier this year where a man had "Killed a bear with his bare hands to protect his son", or so the headline claimed. The details were less dramatic. The man and his son awoke to find a small black bear dragging a cooler full of food off. The man picked up a piece of firewood the length of his forearm and pitched it at the bear, hitting it in the head and killing it instantly. Level up.
 I've planned an encounter with some crocodiles at a river crossing and later a pair of cave bears in the first adventure for my redesigned homebrew for 4E. Not because I want a taste of the mundane, but because they make sense in the context of the adventure. 

-Q.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 2, 2008)

Allister said:


> What's the cutoff point? I've seen people mention giant scorpions but like another poster, giant scorpions are definitely fantastical.
> 
> Are Illithids fantastical? Is mundane just things that existed on Earth (thus excluding the Dire animals? )




Well, that's one of those "different strokes" kinda things, I guess.

The problem (perhaps) is how "mundane" is defined. Surely, it includes humans and all manner of animals known of in the medieval world, but after that, the definition gets hazy...

* Are dire animals, giant vermin or other "its like X, but bigger" monsters mundane?

* Are dinosaurs, sabre-tooth tigers, and other prehistoric animals mundane?

* Are non-anthropomorphic humanoids mundane (elves, orcs, etc?)

* In an extreme definition, you could say any monster with a relatively common mythical background (vampires, werewolves, ghosts, centaurs, minotaur, and fey) are all "mundane" when presented without a twist or adaptation. 

I made a point about animals like thundertusk boars or stormclaw scorpions, but I think they point can be applied elsewhere. I'm not a low-magic or grim-n-gritty DM; I like tieflings and wizards and sweeping epic heroism, but a part of me can't help but feel that the Monster Manual lacking mundane (there's that word again) critters and replacing them with elemental, shadow, fey, or planar variants to make them a better "challenge" seems to ring a bit hollow. 

Then again, I can't recall the last time I ran a giant vermin that wasn't in a module. Maybe there is a point to removing mundane monsters like "giant spider' and replacing them with "Demonweb Spider"...


----------



## Galloglaich (Oct 3, 2008)

Allister said:


> re: Fantastic vs Mundane
> What's the cutoff point? I've seen people mention giant scorpions but like another poster, giant scorpions are definitely fantastical.




Ah, no. Not really.  Likely?  No.  Plausible? yes (particularly in a semi aquatic environment).   Possible?  definitely.

News - Science: Fossil tracks of giant scorpion a world first

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y55/silverbeam/A%20CSM%20Blog/SeaScorpion.jpg

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/arthropoda/chelicerata/meaneurypterid.gif

Again, you are talking about internal consistency, plausibility, verisimilitude.  Scorpions which shoot lightning out of their tails are a _lot_ further removed than a really big one.

Not that theres anything wrong with that....

G.


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Oct 3, 2008)

I'd have to say that if my fantastic monsters got taken away and I was mostly fighting humanoid opponents that I'd have to have something like a wuxia movie combat system.  Because for me the more real the world seems the less I can personally understand why anyone bothers to be an adventurer: the logic of the "mundane" world intrudes on my imagination.


----------



## RFisher (Oct 3, 2008)

Allister said:


> What's the cutoff point?




There isn’t one. It’s a continuum. The stuff in the middle is a little of both.


----------



## Imp (Oct 3, 2008)

Barastrondo said:


> The problem with mundane animals as antagonists that I've encountered is less boredom and more sympathy. My players know animals pretty well, and it's just really not much of a noble fantasy for them to beat up wolves or bears. If I had wolves or hyenas attack the party, they'd say "Holy crap, something must be really wrong for these poor critters to be acting so out of character."



I think this is a good point... slapping a demonic or pseudonatural or zappy-tailed template on an animal orcifies them to the point where they can be remorselessly slaughtered by the PCs, and conversely, makes it more plausible that they should go after the party with intent to kill. If you roleplay your animals much, a first-level wizard type should be able to scare off just about anything the majority of the time. Animals don't know magic, but the mammals and birds at least aren't stupid.

So while I feel you guys about making the mundane dangerous and the supernatural more super, I don't think straight animals work very well as routine foes. As an exceptional foe, they can be pretty cool. And a straight animal works great as a base model for an imaginatively considered supernatural enemy.

Hippos need to get statted up more often though. Most underrated threat in the animal kingdom. I wanna threaten a TPK with those someday!


----------



## Hussar (Oct 3, 2008)

I think Imp makes a good point here.  Someone above mentioned Ghost in the Darkness.  Great story, great movie.  But, if EVERY lion acts like this, it's a bit of a stretch.  If every bear, wolf, rat, whatever, assaults the party simply because it's hungry, that's just as unbelievable as anything else.

As far as giant scorpions go, well, sure, you can get very big bugs, but, Collosal?  I don't think so.  A bug 40 feet in diameter?  That's WAY beyond real world.  And, note, there are environmental reasons why you could have big bugs in the Jurassic (or whatever) - which do not lend themselves particularly well to having humanoids.

Again, it all depends on how fragile your sense of wonder is.  Mine's pretty robust.  Most of this doesn't faze me too much.  If it makes sense in the context of the adventure I'm writing, I'll use whatever creature works.  That's about as much realism as I need.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Oct 3, 2008)

I feel the need to point out that a _non_-dire bear can break your neck with its paws without even really trying to.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 3, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I feel the need to point out that a _non_-dire bear can break your neck with its paws without even really trying to.




Nobody's arguing that though.  Sure, a real life bear kills people pretty easily.  Never mind a crocodile, or a hippo or any number of other pretty dangerous animals.

But, in D&D, a bear isn't much of a threat past about 4th level.  (in 3e anyway)  

In real life, the guy attacking a rhino with a sword gets turned into paste.  In D&D, it's just another day at the job.  And the rhino breathes fire and has wings.


----------



## mmadsen (Oct 3, 2008)

SilvercatMoonpaw2 said:


> Because for me the more real the world seems the less I can personally understand why anyone bothers to be an adventurer: the logic of the "mundane" world intrudes on my imagination.



In a quasi-medieval world, going to college and then getting an office job isn't really an option.  If you're the second or third son of a minor noble, you either go out and earn a fortune -- through conquest -- or you live in poverty, since you're not inheriting an estate with a steady income.

In a modern setting, sure, no one reasonable becomes an adventurer, but in a pre-modern setting?  Yeah, hop on the leaky boat and cross the ocean to fight savages.  At least you have a chance of making it.


----------



## mmadsen (Oct 3, 2008)

Hussar said:


> In real life, the guy attacking a rhino with a sword gets turned into paste.  In D&D, it's just another day at the job.



In real life, ancient soldiers faced angry war elephants, and they learned how to fight them -- namely by getting out of the way and then throwing javelins for the eyes as they charged past.

That's the kind of thing I'd like to see more of in the game -- using the right tactics to defeat a ferocious beast.

If you prefer mythical inspiration, then have your heroic fighter wait in a ditch for the dragon to slither over him.  Then he can plunge his sword into the beast's soft underbelly.

That's the kind of "mundane" answer I'd prefer to see, rather than simply giving the hero more hit dice and bigger bonuses, so he can stand toe to toe with a grizzly bear.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Oct 3, 2008)

Remathilis said:


> So has D&D drifted too far from mundane into fantastical?




Yes. 

The world (or worlds) as described in the DMG of any edition never made any sense to me. I cannot believe any of them would function as they are described – they lack plausibility on almost every level and under any kind of rational examination become down right silly.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 3, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> In real life, ancient soldiers faced angry war elephants, and they learned how to fight them -- namely by getting out of the way and then throwing javelins for the eyes as they charged past.
> 
> That's the kind of thing I'd like to see more of in the game -- using the right tactics to defeat a ferocious beast.
> 
> ...




Fair enough.  And I agree with this.  I'm not sure if D&D is the right vehicle for this though.  D&D has never really concerned itself with this sort of thing too terribly much.  Other than maybe, "You need a +1 weapon to hit this creature" or some such thing, that's about it.

To me, D&D has always been far more 300 than mundane.  Even back in the day, when the kill list was several pages long, I realized that I was playing a game that was pretty darn fantastical.  Again, even looking at very elementary encounters, say in Keep on the Borderland, you could send a party in, outnumbered 3 or 4 to 1 and have a reasonable expectation of winning.  Sure, a few guys might get smoked, but, by and large, you won.

Real life certainly doesn't work like that.  If you fight against 3:1 odds, by and large, you lose.  Badly.  ((Yes, yes, Battle of Thermopyle and all that, but, for every Thermopyle, you have a LOT more Alamo's))


----------



## GrumpyOldMan (Oct 3, 2008)

SilvercatMoonpaw2 said:


> I'd have to say that if my fantastic monsters got taken away and I was mostly fighting humanoid opponents that I'd have to have something like a wuxia movie combat system.  Because for me the more real the world seems the less I can personally understand why anyone bothers to be an adventurer: the logic of the "mundane" world intrudes on my imagination.




Fair enough. I have the opposite problem. The more real the world seems the more I can relate to it and the less I can personally understand the inclusion of fantastic monsters. Fortunately, there are enough games out there to keep us both happy.


----------



## Fenes (Oct 3, 2008)

The more "fantastic" elements you use, the more mundane they become.


----------



## amysrevenge (Oct 3, 2008)

Fenes said:


> The more "fantastic" elements you use, the more mundane they become.




And the more "mundane" elements you use, the more...  wait, they were _already_ mundane before you started.


----------



## Quantarum (Oct 3, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I feel the need to point out that a _non_-dire bear can break your neck with its paws without even really trying to.




  Falling off a step ladder can do the same thing. Falling off a dire step ladder would be brutal.

-Q.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 3, 2008)

amysrevenge said:


> And the more "mundane" elements you use, the more...  wait, they were _already_ mundane before you started.



Exactly.

Like I said before, it's not how fantastic (or mundane) something is, it's how well the DM portrays it. The idea that by simply limiting the number of fantasy elements in a campaign, you'll automatically increase the level of 'wonder' is ridiculous. Chances are, your audience has seen it before (out of the game), so mere scarcity isn't going to work. If you want to impress the players with some piece of the fantastic, the onus is on the DM to _make_ it seem fantastic; to describe --and use-- it in a compelling, memorable way.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 3, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Like I said before, it's not how fantastic (or mundane) something is, it's how well the DM portrays it. The idea that by simply limiting the number of fantasy elements in a campaign, you'll automatically increase the level of 'wonder' is ridiculous. Chances are, your audience has seen it before (out of the game), so mere scarcity isn't going to work. If you want to impress the players with some piece of the fantastic, the onus is on the DM to _make_ it seem fantastic; to describe --and use-- it in a compelling, memorable way.




I gotta disagree here...the frequency and types of creatures players encounter set their expectations for a particular campaign world.  If you encounter Red Dragons that cast spells and shape reality every game session...after about the 5th one you will not be amazed by it, and it will not be something wondrous (no matter how great the DM portrays or describes them)... in fact it will probably take more to amaze you with the overall world, now that this element has become a common occurrence.

On the other hand, if you've never encountered a red dragon, must scale the Razor Peaks, survive deadly traps and battle it's guardians in order to ask it 3 questions...there will be a sense of wonder there (unless the DM shatters it by inappropriately describing or characterizing it.

I kinda understand your point, but I think it doesn't take into consideration with books or an rpg, buy in of the world is created by player expectations, and what the GM/author sets them up to be.


----------



## Galloglaich (Oct 3, 2008)

Imaro said:


> I gotta disagree here...the frequency and types of creatures players encounter set their expectations for a particular campaign world.  If you encounter Red Dragons that cast spells and shape reality every game session...after about the 5th one you will not be amazed by it, and it will not be something wondrous (no matter how great the DM portrays or describes them)... in fact it will probably take more to amaze you with the overall world, now that this element has become a common occurrence.
> 
> On the other hand, if you've never encountered a red dragon, must scale the Razor Peaks, survive deadly traps and battle it's guardians in order to ask it 3 questions...there will be a sense of wonder there (unless the DM shatters it by inappropriately describing or characterizing it.
> 
> I kinda understand your point, but I think it doesn't take into consideration with books or an rpg, buy in of the world is created by player expectations, and what the GM/author sets them up to be.




And the greatest amazement and wonder comes from the sharp _contrast_ between the logical and familiar firmament of the realistic and the breaking of these rules by the fantastic.   If everything is fantastic there is no contrast.

G.


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Oct 3, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> In a quasi-medieval world, going to college and then getting an office job isn't really an option.  If you're the second or third son of a minor noble, you either go out and earn a fortune -- through conquest -- or you live in poverty, since you're not inheriting an estate with a steady income.
> 
> In a modern setting, sure, no one reasonable becomes an adventurer, but in a pre-modern setting?  Yeah, hop on the leaky boat and cross the ocean to fight savages.  At least you have a chance of making it.



Sorry, still doesn't work for me.  You're _completely right_, but my point is that I can't _play_ that person because I can't raise myself to their level of blind courage.  An unrealistic world illusions me into thinking I at least have half a chance.


Imaro said:


> I gotta disagree here...the frequency and types of creatures players encounter set their expectations for a particular campaign world.  If you encounter Red Dragons that cast spells and shape reality every game session...after about the 5th one you will not be amazed by it, and it will not be something wondrous (no matter how great the DM portrays or describes them)... in fact it will probably take more to amaze you with the overall world, now that this element has become a common occurrence.
> 
> On the other hand, if you've never encountered a red dragon, must scale the Razor Peaks, survive deadly traps and battle it's guardians in order to ask it 3 questions...there will be a sense of wonder there (unless the DM shatters it by inappropriately describing or characterizing it.



How do you keep the fantasticness of a lone dragon from being drowned out by the mundanity of everything else?


Galloglaich said:


> And the greatest amazement and wonder comes from the sharp _contrast_ between the logical and familiar firmament of the realistic and the breaking of these rules by the fantastic.   If everything is fantastic there is no contrast.



There is still the contrast between that and real life no matter how filled the game world is.


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 3, 2008)

SilvercatMoonpaw2 said:


> How do you keep the fantasticness of a lone dragon from being drowned out by the mundanity of everything else?




That's kind of like saying, "How do you keep your flashlight from being drowned out by the darkness all around it?"  The more mundane the world as a whole is, the more the fantastic elements stand out - the contrast strengthens them, it doesn't weaken them.


----------



## Fenes (Oct 3, 2008)

MMOG experiences. The first time you meet the red dragon is memorable, gets screen shotted, and all. The 6th time you meet it is just another battle.

If you can expect every animal to have some magic power, then the only suspense left is what kind of magic it has.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 3, 2008)

Dausuul said:


> That's kind of like saying, "How do you keep your flashlight from being drowned out by the darkness all around it?" The more mundane the world as a whole is, the more the fantastic elements stand out - the contrast strengthens them, it doesn't weaken them.





This...Exactly This.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 3, 2008)

Hussar said:


> (Yes, yes, Battle of Thermopyle and all that, but, for every Thermopyle, you have a LOT more Alamo's)



I don't think you can count Thermopylae as a victory in the D&D sense of the word. Holding off the enemy for a time before being slaughtered is not what most players are looking for in the game.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 3, 2008)

Imaro said:


> If you encounter Red Dragons that cast spells and shape reality every game session...after about the 5th one you will not be amazed by it, and it will not be something wondrous (no matter how great the DM portrays or describes them)...



If you run an encounter with red dragon poorly it won't seem wondrous, either. On the other hand, in my current campaign --though in some ways it's _drenched_ in oddities-- most of the encounters have been with humans. I _think_ I've managed to make them interesting. I like to think my players have killed and/or humiliated some fairly interesting personalities during the course of their checkered-like-a-race-flag career.



> ... in fact it will probably take more to amaze you with the overall world, now that this element has become a common occurrence.



I've found in order to amaze people you need to think up something amazing (pardon my tautology). Like I said before, scarcity alone isn't going to make a fictional construct interesting/amazing. Ultimately, it takes good writing (and performance).



> On the other hand, if you've never encountered a red dragon, must scale the Razor Peaks, survive deadly traps and battle it's guardians in order to ask it 3 questions...there will be a sense of wonder there (unless the DM shatters it by inappropriately describing or characterizing it.



We're basically agreeing here. The fact that the dragon encounter is rare isn't enough to make it wondrous. It still needs to be well executed. 



> I kinda understand your point, but I think it doesn't take into consideration with books or an rpg, buy in of the world is created by player expectations, and what the GM/author sets them up to be.



In what way aren't I taking player expectations into consideration? I agree that buy-in into the game setting is important, and I'm very interested in how different people approach the job of increasing player buy-in.


----------



## GlaziusF (Oct 3, 2008)

Quantarum said:


> Falling off a step ladder can do the same thing. Falling off a dire step ladder would be brutal.
> 
> -Q.




Yeah, it's a lot bigger and you'd probably hit some spikes on the way down.


----------



## Fenes (Oct 3, 2008)

The problem I see with "more fantastic" is that people tend to mistake "fantastic" for "interesting" when it comes to characterization. It's easy to fall into the trap of "it can use a special power, so it's interesting" when designing an NPC, and end up with a boring clichee instead of a character.


----------



## mmadsen (Oct 3, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Fair enough.  And I agree with this.  I'm not sure if D&D is the right vehicle for this though.  D&D has never really concerned itself with this sort of thing too terribly much.  Other than maybe, "You need a +1 weapon to hit this creature" or some such thing, that's about it.



What's peculiar about D&D is that, if you go back a few editions, a huge portion of the game was coming up with "mundane" solutions to problems -- just not in combat.  Now, of course, we moved toward rolling dice to solve all problems -- searching, disabling traps, etc. -- but back in the day that part was all free form, and then combat meant dice and clear-cut rules.


Hussar said:


> To me, D&D has always been far more 300 than mundane.



Even though _300_ is really, really over the top, it's not at all fantastic in D&D terms -- no spells, no glowing magic weapons, no magic at all, really, a few almost real monsters.

(Speaking of Spartans, I remember realizing that by the 3E rules a Spartan couldn't wield his spear one-handed.  How can you write a combat system where spear + shield isn't valid?)


Hussar said:


> Even back in the day, when the kill list was several pages long, I realized that I was playing a game that was pretty darn fantastical.  Again, even looking at very elementary encounters, say in Keep on the Borderland, you could send a party in, outnumbered 3 or 4 to 1 and have a reasonable expectation of winning.  Sure, a few guys might get smoked, but, by and large, you won.
> 
> Real life certainly doesn't work like that.  If you fight against 3:1 odds, by and large, you lose.  Badly.  ((Yes, yes, Battle of Thermopyle and all that, but, for every Thermopyle, you have a LOT more Alamo's))



No, a fight against 3:1 odds is not a guaranteed loss, not when you have the initiative and your troops are vastly superior to the enemy's.

At Agincourt, to name just one example, the English were outnumbered 10 to 1.  It turned out all right for them.

It's not utterly fantastic and unrealistic for some fighters to be dramatically more effective than others; it's just that D&D chooses fantastic and unrealistic methods for making some fighters more effective than others.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 3, 2008)

Galloglaich said:


> And the greatest amazement and wonder comes from the sharp _contrast_ between the logical and familiar firmament of the realistic and the breaking of these rules by the fantastic.   If everything is fantastic there is no contrast.



This is a lot more true in traditional narrative forms like novels or film. In RPG's... not so much. My guess is that this is mainly because RPG's are disproportionally about exploring the fantastic, and let's face it, the highly contrived --"it's a non-stop world of adventure". For the most part, RPG's aren't about introspection and serious human drama, the kinds of things that make the mundane interesting and compelling in fiction. This might explain why historical RPG's, do not, as a subgenre, exist.

Also, contrast is important... but it doesn't need to be between the fantastic and the mundane. There seems to be this underlying assumption here that all fantastic things are the same (like happy families). I heartily disagree with that. There's plenty of room for interesting contrasts between impossible things.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 3, 2008)

Mallus said:


> If you run an encounter with red dragon poorly it won't seem wondrous, either. On the other hand, in my current campaign --though in some ways it's _drenched_ in oddities-- most of the encounters have been with humans. I _think_ I've managed to make them interesting. I like to think my players have killed and/or humiliated some fairly interesting personalities during the course of their checkered-like-a-race-flag career.




Okay, no one is arguing that a badly run NPC/encounter/etc. isn't a badly run NPC/encounter/etc. However, I think the point of this thread in comparing the nature of mundane and fantastic, is in assuming a good DM, since a poor DM will fail on both ends of the axis and to use the poor DM as a basis really proves nothing.



Mallus said:


> I've found in order to amaze people you need to think up something amazing (pardon my tautology). Like I said before, scarcity alone isn't going to make a fictional construct interesting/amazing. Ultimately, it takes good writing (and performance)..




I will disagree with this to an extent. As a kid, I had read about dragons, in different fiction books...but the first time I and my friends fought one in D&D it was a monumentous occasion. These were (at least in our minds) the Big Bad's of the setting, The DM used their mystique and rarity in his campaign world to help inspire this feeling of wonder, excitement and fear...so no, I don't agree that rarity does not help in creating this feeling, and sometimes it *can* be all that's necessary to invoke said feelings.




Mallus said:


> We're basically agreeing here. The fact that the dragon encounter is rare isn't enough to make it wondrous. It still needs to be well executed.




Okay, why don't you presuppose a good DM is actually running this hypothetical game. Now if the DM runs the above encounter or even similar encounters to the above over and over again does it keep it's wonderous nature or does it become ho-hum...even if the Dragon NPC is played well it becomes something they've done a million times and thus nothing to get excited about.



Mallus said:


> In what way aren't I taking player expectations into consideration? I agree that buy-in into the game setting is important, and I'm very interested in how different people approach the job of increasing player buy-in.




Because you're whole argument seems to be based on the assumption that the DM is sub-par at running NPC's and encounters. This isn't even the point of this thread, a bad DM is a bad DM whether he is using lots of the fantastical or mostly mundane. 

Now a good DM sets up player expectations in the way he structures his campaign setting...by making the fantastical rare he invokes a greater sense of wonder from his players when it is encountered. By making it common, he invokes a sense of magic is commonplace and not something to be looked at with wonder and awe, but to be easily utilized, understood, and conquered. Neither of these assumptions in a game world is better than the other, but D&D 4e definitely leans towards the latter without heavy modifications and tweaking.


----------



## mmadsen (Oct 3, 2008)

SilvercatMoonpaw2 said:


> Sorry, still doesn't work for me.  You're _completely right_, but my point is that I can't _play_ that person because I can't raise myself to their level of blind courage.  An unrealistic world illusions me into thinking I at least have half a chance.



You don't need an unrealistic world at all to have at least half a chance.  There are plenty of real-life examples of small bands of adventurers making their fortunes.  You really must read Bernal Díaz del Castillo's _The Discovery and Conquest of Mexico_, about his time with Cortez.  A handful of men conquered an empire, centered on a lake in a volcano, ruled by evil priests, who sacrificed victims atop pyramids.

If you suppress your modern sympathy for the cultures that get trampled, colonial adventurers are perfect analogs for D&D adventurers, and they conquer even greater odds than you'd find plausible in the game.


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Oct 3, 2008)

Dausuul said:


> That's kind of like saying, "How do you keep your flashlight from being drowned out by the darkness all around it?"  The more mundane the world as a whole is, the more the fantastic elements stand out - the contrast strengthens them, it doesn't weaken them.



An idea does not necessarily follow the same rules.  In the realm of the mind the more common idea can overwhelm the others.

Besides, I take the contrast as between the real world and the fictional.  If the fictional world just replicates the real world then the the tiny, tiny fraction of fantastic is sure to get overwhelmed by the total mundane.


Mallus said:


> This is a lot more true in traditional narrative forms like novels or film. In RPG's... not so much. My guess is that this is mainly because RPG's are disproportionally about exploring the fantastic, and let's face it, the highly contrived --"it's a non-stop world of adventure". For the most part, RPG's aren't about introspection and serious human drama, the kinds of things that make the mundane interesting and compelling in fiction. This might explain why historical RPG's, do not, as a subgenre, exist.
> 
> Also, contrast is important... but it doesn't need to be between the fantastic and the mundane. There seems to be this underlying assumption here that all fantastic things are the same (like happy families). I heartily disagree with that. There's plenty of room for interesting contrasts between impossible things.



This.


mmadsen said:


> You don't need an unrealistic world at all to have at least half a chance.  There are plenty of real-life examples of small bands of adventurers making their fortunes.  You really must read Bernal Díaz del Castillo's _The Discovery and Conquest of Mexico_, about his time with Cortez.  A handful of men conquered an empire, centered on a lake in a volcano, ruled by evil priests, who sacrificed victims atop pyramids.
> 
> If you suppress your modern sympathy for the cultures that get trampled, colonial adventurers are perfect analogs for D&D adventurers, and they conquer even greater odds than you'd find plausible in the game.



This isn't about what other people can do.  It's about what I can think I could do.  I'd never even be able to think of doing what those people did.

Plus having read histories of how those conquests went I don't consider them implausable at all.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 3, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Okay, no one is arguing that a badly run NPC/encounter/etc. isn't a badly run NPC/encounter/etc.



What I'm saying is that limiting the amount of fantastic elements in a campaign doesn't make good DM'ing any easier. Conversely, the inclusion of a lot of wahoo doesn't make good DM'ing any harder.  



> I will disagree with this to an extent. As a kid, I had read about dragons, in different fiction books...but the first time I and my friends fought one in D&D it was a monumentous occasion.



Okay... but now how do feel when your PC's encounter a dragon? Is it still a momentous occasion? Are your memories all campaign-specific? Don't all the other times you've read about something (or encountered it in an RPG) don't into your reaction vis a vis how 'wondrous' it is?  



> ...even if the Dragon NPC is played well it becomes something they've done a million times and thus nothing to get excited about.



In my games a dragon is just another kind of person. Another NPC. I'm not going to stop using NPC's because my players have seen them a million times before. I'm going to attempt to create interesting NPC's. 



> Because you're whole argument seems to be based on the assumption that the DM is sub-par at running NPC's and encounters.



On the contrary, my position in based on myself and my experiences as a good DM. 



> ...a bad DM is a bad DM whether he is using lots of the fantastical or mostly mundane.



I find the opposite is true as well, which all I'm really trying to say. 



> By making it common, he invokes a sense of magic is commonplace and not something to be looked at with wonder and awe, but to be easily utilized, understood, and conquered.



Magic is looked at that way in D&D because that's what it _is_. A tool that increases the player's chances of success. When it's made into more than that it's because of the DM's creativity and descriptive abilities. Not even extreme rarity can make a +1 longsword evoke a sense of awe.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 3, 2008)

SilvercatMoonpaw2 said:


> An idea does not necessarily follow the same rules. In the realm of the mind the more common idea can overwhelm the others.
> 
> Besides, I take the contrast as between the real world and the fictional. If the fictional world just replicates the real world then the the tiny, tiny fraction of fantastic is sure to get overwhelmed by the total mundane.





Uhm...you seem to be making an assumption that may be true *for you* but there is no reason that a tiny fraction of the fantastic will be overwhelmed by the real world. I mean honestly, how have games like the nWoD, Call of Cthulthu, Unknown Armies, etc. survived. Their setting is mostly the real world with a smattering of (usually hidden) supernatural elements. No gonzo, all over the place, fantastical...yet I don't think the inherent fantasy in these games is overwhelmed by the mundane.




Mallus said:


> What I'm saying is that limiting the amount of fantastic elements in a campaign doesn't make good DM'ing any easier. Conversely, the inclusion of a lot of wahoo doesn't make good DM'ing any harder..




Again back to the "good" DM'ing, "bad" DM'ing thing. Who asserted that the amount of fantastic elements in any way affected how easy or hard a game is to run? I think what people are arguing is that D&D 4e doesn't give enough of the mundane for those DM's who do run campaigns that utilize it extensively. In other words there isn't enough balance...wahoo has been catered to and continues to be catered to in 4e while the elements one might find in Sword & Sorcery are really lacking.



Mallus said:


> Okay... but now how do feel when your PC's encounter a dragon? Is it still a momentous occasion? Are your memories all campaign-specific? Don't all the other times you've read about something (or encountered it in an RPG) don't into your reaction vis a vis how 'wondrous' it is?.




Uhm...yes. In general it is because I don't generally run wahoo games. If you're fighting a monster in one of my games, it is usually a singular being, the last of it's kind, a mutation, a creation of an earlier age, something summoned, etc. I tend to take inspiration from Lankhmar, The Elric Saga, Corum, Hawkmoon, etc. 

I don't run the type of game where you fight an encounter with a chimera, 2 young dragons and an illithid...then 10 minutes later you run into a beholder, 4 vampires, and 2 liches...that's just not my style. Now cultist, trained animals, degenerate men, assasins, enforcers, warrior agents of deities, barbaric clans, corrupt rulers, wild animals,etc. are the "common" adversaries of my games. 



Mallus said:


> In my games a dragon is just another kind of person. Another NPC. I'm not going to stop using NPC's because my players have seen them a million times before. I'm going to attempt to create interesting NPC's.




Good for you and I am not advocating...not using NPC's because they have been used before (that's just silly). What I am advocating is that IMO, some creatures can be *more* than just another NPC by using rarity as a tool. Let's take dragons...

In one game there may be 5 dragons total, ancient beings imprisoned when the world was made by the Old gods because they were a force that could challenge the Old god's power. Since their imprisonment only a few individuals have ever located and found their prisons, and most believe they are pure myth. Yet it is rumored they have knowledge beyond compare and can answer any question.

In another game, every town has a dragon scholar in it, that can answer questions for the right price or if you perform a task for them. They were defeated by the Kimorra empire and thus charged with providing it's citizens with their ancient knowledge. 

I'm sorry but the rarity in the first example contributes to setting a certain feel in your game world, while the common nature in the below example creates a totally different feel, even though they're both examples of dragons.



Mallus said:


> On the contrary, my position in based on myself and my experiences as a good DM.







Mallus said:


> I find the opposite is true as well, which all I'm really trying to say.




Ok, but what exactly are you arguing as far as more mundane vs. more fantastical??? Because again it swems like you are debating which is easier to DM well, and that's a null point. 



Mallus said:


> Magic is looked at that way in D&D because that's what it _is_. A tool that increases the player's chances of success. When it's made into more than that it's because of the DM's creativity and descriptive abilities. Not even extreme rarity can make a +1 longsword evoke a sense of awe.




No, magic isn't just a tool that increases the player's chances of success. What about the magical abilities of their adversaries (this is magic they may not understand or may fear), what about non-combat magic that allows certain things to exist (this is magic for the DM and his purposes)? Now it is up to the DM to determine the role that the above and various other "types" of magic play in his particular campaign. The problem people are talking about here is the fact that D&D keeps pushing this further out so that the options become more limited without more and more modification. In other words, if all you give me are magical monsters, items, transportation, etc. it becomes more work to tone it down in my own campaign than if you balanced it out some.

Really, let your players go 5 to 10 levels without discovering any magical weapons or items...then allow them to find the +1 sword. Now, you're telling me they wouldn't be awed at discovering said item? It would be like excalibur to them especially if this is the rarity of magic items in your world.


----------



## The_Gneech (Oct 3, 2008)

Just as an aside, people interested in this topic might find this thread over at Paizo of interest:

4E's Rejection of Gygaxian Naturalism

Same basic topic, slightly different spin.

-The Gneech


----------



## Tetsubo (Oct 3, 2008)

I have successfully challenged players with giant snapping turtles; giant gar; blind, cave-dwelling, albino electric eels and bears. Animals (and there giant versions) make great low-level threats. Remember, a cat can take out a Commoner.


----------



## Tetsubo (Oct 3, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> I don't think you can count Thermopylae as a victory in the D&D sense of the word. Holding off the enemy for a time before being slaughtered is not what most players are looking for in the game.




What warrior wouldn't want to go down in the annals of history? The greatest last stand ever recorded. To die with honor amongst your companions...


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Oct 3, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Uhm...you seem to be making an assumption that may be true *for you*…………



I work with what I have.


Imaro said:


> ………but there is no reason that a tiny fraction of the fantastic will be overwhelmed by the real world.



It's what happens for me.


Imaro said:


> Good for you and I am not advocating...not using NPC's because they have been used before (that's just silly). What I am advocating is that IMO, some creatures can be *more* than just another NPC by using rarity as a tool. Let's take dragons...
> 
> In one game there may be 5 dragons total, ancient beings imprisoned when the world was made by the Old gods because they were a force that could challenge the Old god's power. Since their imprisonment only a few individuals have ever located and found their prisons, and most believe they are pure myth. Yet it is rumored they have knowledge beyond compare and can answer any question.
> 
> ...



Ah, and here we go.  The problem with me may be that I've read so many books and seen so many programs on the fantastic things that exist in the real world that my equivalent of other peoples' need to have a grounding in "real world stuff" is still fantastic.  So when I experience mundane grounding I'm actually I'm being _lowered_ from my base point.

That work?


----------



## Imaro (Oct 3, 2008)

SilvercatMoonpaw2 said:


> I work with what I have.
> 
> It's what happens for me.




Uhm...ok, that's why I preceded my comment with the whole "for you" thing. But you aren't the only person playing D&D.



SilvercatMoonpaw2 said:


> Ah, and here we go. The problem with me may be that I've read so many books and seen so many programs on the fantastic things that exist in the real world that my equivalent of other peoples' need to have a grounding in "real world stuff" is still fantastic. So when I experience mundane grounding I'm actually I'm being _lowered_ from my base point.
> 
> That work?




Ah, and here you have totally missed the point of my example. In both examples...dragon's are real. Now whether they are common and you trip over them as you walk down the street, or they are rare and hard to find, and possibly only a myth is a matter of presentation. In one example the use of the mundane highlights and accentuates the dragons existence in a certain way, in the other their very lack of rarity and easy accessibility highlights their existence in another way. This is used to evoke different moods and styles within the campaign world. 

Now how exactly does your having experienced a higher level of "fantastic" mundane things in real life have anything to do with 

1. Accepting the notion that dragons exist within the gameworld (which is the first issue)

2. Accepting the level and emphasis of the mundane being used by the DM to accentuate dragons in a certain light...

Are you saying it isn't hard for you to suspend your disbelief that dragons do exist...but you have a harder time accepting that they are rare in a mundane-esque campaign world as opposed to buying in that they can be everywhere and as common as cats (along with numerous other fantastic and deadly beasts) in a more fantastical campaign world?

If anything this seems like a preference for your part on a certain type of fantasy, and maybe a lack of imagination in being able to accept a fantasy that doesn't subscribe to what you feel are acceptable fantasy tropes.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 3, 2008)

Tetsubo said:


> What warrior wouldn't want to go down in the annals of history? The greatest last stand ever recorded. To die with honor amongst your companions...




Indeed. If the story is a good one, going down while fighting the good fight isn't a bad way to go out.


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Oct 3, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Uhm...ok, that's why I preceded my comment with the whole "for you" thing. But you aren't the only person playing D&D.



I noticed.  I just thought you were making a comment about how I shouldn't do that, while I was saying that I can't figure out any other way to do it.


Imaro said:


> Ah, and here you have totally missed the point of my example. In both examples...dragon's are real. Now whether they are common and you trip over them as you walk down the street, or they are rare and hard to find, and possibly only a myth is a matter of presentation. In one example the use of the mundane highlights and accentuates the dragons existence in a certain way, in the other their very lack of rarity and easy accessibility highlights their existence in another way. This is used to evoke different moods and styles within the campaign world.



I was taking your example to be an illustration of differing levels of fantasticness.  My mistake.


Imaro said:


> Now how exactly does your having experienced a higher level of "fantastic" mundane things in real life have anything to do with
> 
> 1. Accepting the notion that dragons exist within the gameworld (which is the first issue)
> 
> ...



I'm saying that maybe my expectations are so high that there are certain ways of doing things that seem to me like they aren't even trying.

Also yes, it does make more sense to me that in something where some fantastic elements exist that the world have a baseline fantasticness.


Imaro said:


> If anything this seems like a preference for your part on a certain type of fantasy, and maybe a lack of imagination in being able to accept a fantasy that doesn't subscribe to what you feel are acceptable fantasy tropes.



I feel the exact same way when people denounce an overabundance of fantasticness.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 3, 2008)

SilvercatMoonpaw2 said:


> ...
> 
> I feel the exact same way when people denounce an overabundance of fantasticness.




I just wanted to point out how you replied here with an *over*abundance of fantasticness. I think this is the key issue with D&D 4e, it really is an overabundance. I don't think most people denouncing the fantasticness would be doing so if the game catered to both ends of the axis equally, or even if their was more support for the wahoo fantasticness and adequate for mundane...but there isn't. It assumes that all want to play in a game with wahoo trappings, and I don't think all previous editions necessarily did that. I also don't see it as an improvement.


----------



## RFisher (Oct 4, 2008)

Like I said before, having a single fantastic element does help it stand out. And yes, I’ve seen the same group have very different reactions to the same monster in two campaigns for this reason. I don’t think it had that much to do with the skills of the DMs.

BUT, I don’t really think it’s that big a thing. I think it really just comes down to what kind of tone you want for your game. Anywhere on the continuum works.

And I do want to repeat that it’s over _systemization_ of fantastic elements that I think really drains the life out of things. But maybe that’s just me.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 4, 2008)

> It seems like a dude in chainmail and a sword fighting a bear and dying has become blase', and I guess in a world full of wizards lobbying fireballs at ice-breathing white dragons, it would.



I think this is not an entirely correct assumption. It's been pretty true for every edition of D&D to varying degrees, but I don't think it is a necessary result.

However, in my mind, rather than ratcheting up the dude with the sword fighting a bear, I would ratchet down the wizard with the fireball (and mostly leave the dragon alone). 

One of my earliest thoughts in picking up D&D, coming from other games, was "Why do the wizards get it so easy?" In 2e, when I started, magic missiles already beat swords (I don't care if it's less damage, I will always do it, and I will do it from far enough away that it won't matter). Fireballs definitely beat +1 swords. An entire class of defenses -- the saving throws -- were only used against magical effects. 

3e, to a certain extent, helped this with feats, making saves more universal, and expanding your martial options with things like tripping and sundering. These helped to varying degrees. Feats were perfect. Saves were still mostly magical, but they could be expanded. Tripping and sundering weren't usually good options, and could be pretty wonky when they were used. 

4e continued this trend, but went the extra step of turning fighters into "spellcasters" of a sort. It took 3e's markup and kicked it up to 11.

They went the other way too, a bit (they stripped out rituals and focused wizards on attack magic). But imagine if they would've gone the other way around totally. Instead of making "vancian martial classes," what if they took the magical classes and toned them down so that they required attack rolls, against AC, and did damage comparable to weapons. So your fighters have +1 swords and you have +1 spells. So your fighters can (easily) sunder and trip and cause all sorts of havoc, and you can slow and daze and cause different kinds of havoc.

Imagine if lobbing a fireball used the same mechanics as shooting an arrow. Now imagine lobbing a fireball against a bear to be no more or less effective than shooting an arrow at said bear. And that ice-breathing dragon is going to be a bigger threat to BOTH of you, 'cuz this bear is hard enough as it is!

I think 4e decided, to a certain extent, that most people didn't have fun fighting bears, and so went on the other side of the equation, embracing gee-whiz bang-pow fantastic with full unironic gusto, now with more everything. It might be a savvy move to open up the moments of fun in the game, but it certainly alienates those who like a more "mundane" feel, because such a feel is now even harder to achieve than it was before (not that it was ever particularly easy). 



> So has D&D drifted too far from mundane into fantastical? Is it a bad thing? Can a balance between truly magical and fantastical elements (warlocks, demons, potions of fire-breath) be struck with historical or mundane elements (grizzly bears, fighters, bec-de-corbins?) without one or the other suffering?




To answer the first questions, that depends. It's a taste issue. 4e is certainly MORE FANTASTICAL, but some are going to love it, some are going to loathe it, and WotC is betting more love it/are neutral to it than loathe it (and is probably also betting that new players are more likely to love this than loathe this). For the mundano-fantasists, it's a bigger problem now than it was (and it was always a bit of a problem at least). 

To answer the second question, the answer is yes, of course it can be. But you have to _set out to make it that way_. 4e especially was never at all interested in making it that way. 

My belief, personally, is that I enjoy a D&D game where it is mixed more than I enjoy a game that's all one or the other. Part of this is because D&D, to me, has always meant something of a delightful cocktail of fantastic elements, and you need to mix high magic and mundane if you're going to be able to pull of a large spectrum of that cocktail. To cram Conan and LotR and Harry Potter and Eragon and the Grey Mouser and Warhammer all into the same pot is going to require a pretty big and open pot, one that doesn't say that a bec-de-corbin and a chain shirt is pointless, but one that also says that exploding barrels of alchemists' fire, crashing airships, and granting wishes is just fine.

There is a balance that can be struck. I believe this quite fundamentally. But that balance has to be a goal. Specifically, I think a "tiers" kind of system, or even just the very origins of levels, can work for that, but 4e works against that at both ends. The low levels are no longer mundane at all. The high levels are no longer entirely world-altering in the slightest. 4e's desire to "expand the sweet spot" shouldered aside both of these methods, and thus the 1-20 (or so) feeling of _growing your character_. 

The idea should be that you go from stabbing sewer rats with a rusty knife and being spat on by beggars at 1st level to towering over the fallen corpses of an entire pantheon of deities who dared to give you a rude introduction at the tippy top. This is the growth that I am looking for. With your chain mail and polearm, you begin; with your dragon-skinned coat and halo of swords you end. 4e is not as good as earlier editions at delivering this growth. This is a (probably necessary) consequence of delivering on the promise of expanding the sweet spot. 

I'll come at this again for extra force:

It is not only *possible* to meld the mundane and the fantastic into a coherent and internally balanced system, I think it would make the *best* game of D&D. I think the level system is, perhaps, the most ideal way to integrate this into the game. I don't believe 4e was at all interested in preserving the mundane. I think this has been part of why 4e doesn't do it for me, since, for me, that makes the game worse.


----------



## GlaziusF (Oct 4, 2008)

I just wrote a message on a slate in my hands and as I wrote it it appeared across the room on a panel in inch-high letters that didn't resemble my handwriting.

Then I tapped the slate with my stylus and the message vanished, but now anyone can see it from anywhere in the world.

This is a real thing that, by the time you read this, I will just have done. But doesn't it sound fantastic?

What prevents you from browsing the Internet and just sort of getting a glazed look in your eyes at the magnificence of it all is that the Internet is predictable. It tends to work in a way that you can understand.

To keep things feeling magical and not technological, they can't be used in your world in the same way that technology is used. They also can't become predictable to your players. But how much they buy it is up to them and up to you.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 6, 2008)

Imaro said:


> If you encounter Red Dragons that cast spells and shape reality every game session...after about the 5th one you will not be amazed by it, and it will not be something wondrous (no matter how great the DM portrays or describes them)... in fact it will probably take more to amaze you with the overall world, now that this element has become a common occurrence.
> 
> On the other hand, if you've never encountered a red dragon, must scale the Razor Peaks, survive deadly traps and battle it's guardians in order to ask it 3 questions...there will be a sense of wonder there (unless the DM shatters it by inappropriately describing or characterizing it.



You seem to be running together the expectations of the PCs (which are fictional expectations in a fictional world) with the expectations of the players (which are real expectations in the real world). The extent to which my players are amazed by a creature tends to depend upon (i) their knowledge of its stats/game mechanical abilities, and (ii) the extent of those abilities relative to the PCs.

My players can also be amazed by particular plot twists, thematic escalations etc, but in my experience whether one uses a common or rare creature to make such story moves is neither here nor there, as far as the success of the move is concerned.



Imaro said:


> the first time I and my friends fought one in D&D it was a monumentous occasion. These were (at least in our minds) the Big Bad's of the setting, The DM used their mystique and rarity in his campaign world to help inspire this feeling of wonder, excitement and fear



My players are about to fight Tharizdun in voidal form, as the climax of a long Rolemaster campaign. I think it will be a fairly momentous fight. This has nothing to do with the rareity of voidal beings in the game, which have been pretty common story elements for the past 10 or more levels (which is probably 3 or 4 years of real time). It has everything to do with the campaign coming to a climax.



Imaro said:


> Now a good DM sets up player expectations in the way he structures his campaign setting...by making the fantastical rare he invokes a greater sense of wonder from his players when it is encountered.



The first sentence is true but pretty trite. The second sentence is (as a generalisation) false. What will invoke a "sense of wonder" depends on many things. Some players may be easily awed by the fantastic. Others not. What awes particular players in a particular game depends on factors pretty local to that group and that game. The relative densities of the mundane and the fantastic has no uniform causal role that I can see.



Galloglaich said:


> And the greatest amazement and wonder comes from the sharp _contrast_ between the logical and familiar firmament of the realistic and the breaking of these rules by the fantastic.



In D&D the fantastic does not break the rules. So I don't fully grasp the point of this remark.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 6, 2008)

pemerton said:


> You seem to be running together the expectations of the PCs (which are fictional expectations in a fictional world) with the expectations of the players (which are real expectations in the real world). The extent to which my players are amazed by a creature tends to depend upon (i) their knowledge of its stats/game mechanical abilities, and (ii) the extent of those abilities relative to the PCs.




Uhm so taking the fact that your players are amazed by unfamiliarity with...
1. Knowledge of it's stats/game mechanical abilities
2. The extent of those abilities relative to the PC's...

If they encounter things more then they will have a greater understanding of it's abilities and the relative power of them compared to themselves.  You just supported the whole rarity idea here.



pemerton said:


> My players can also be amazed by particular plot twists, thematic escalations etc, but in my experience whether one uses a common or rare creature to make such story moves is neither here nor there, as far as the success of the move is concerned.




I'd beg to differ, especially after your statements above.  If the final encounter of a grand story is something the players have faced over and over again...how does that grand finale not become lessened when compared to the excitement and trepidation of facing an unknown or unfamiliar adversary?



pemerton said:


> My players are about to fight Tharizdun in voidal form, as the climax of a long Rolemaster campaign. I think it will be a fairly momentous fight. This has nothing to do with the rareity of voidal beings in the game, which have been pretty common story elements for the past 10 or more levels (which is probably 3 or 4 years of real time). It has everything to do with the campaign coming to a climax.




Yeah, because it being Tharizdun has absolutely nothing to do with it?   Well then just replace him with a voidal form goblin and see if it's the same effect when the climactic battle begins, or when they talk about it later.



pemerton said:


> The first sentence is true but pretty trite. The second sentence is (as a generalisation) false. What will invoke a "sense of wonder" depends on many things. Some players may be easily awed by the fantastic. Others not. What awes particular players in a particular game depends on factors pretty local to that group and that game. The relative densities of the mundane and the fantastic has no uniform causal role that I can see.




I'm sorry but the familiar doesn't invoke awe or wonder...because it is the familiar.  The unknown, unexpected does.  The DM decides through his design what those parameters are (as far as the level of fantasy that is common or ordinary).  You basically support this idea in your above posts, so I mean...what exactly is your argument (logically) here, where you claim the exact opposite?


----------



## Hussar (Oct 6, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> /snip
> 
> At Agincourt, to name just one example, the English were outnumbered 10 to 1.  It turned out all right for them.
> 
> It's not utterly fantastic and unrealistic for some fighters to be dramatically more effective than others; it's just that D&D chooses fantastic and unrealistic methods for making some fighters more effective than others.




As I said in the latter part of my post, for every example of where they beat the odds, I'm betting you can find a whole lot more examples where they didn't.  The truth of the matter is, when you're outnumbered, by and large, you lose.  Not always, that's true.  Particularly if you have a huge technological superiority.  But, we're talking 2nd level characters going into Cave C in the Caves of Chaos.  And regularly expecting to defeat these kinds of odds.

Like I said, I've always considered D&D to be pretty wahoo.  Hundreds of kills before 5th level were not unheard of back in the day.  

But, I've strayed off topic.

On whether you need mundane to make fantastic more interesting, I'm not convinced.  Look at authors like China Mieville.  His world is incredible fantastic, yet very believable.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 6, 2008)

Hussar said:


> ...
> 
> But, I've strayed off topic.
> 
> On whether you need mundane to make fantastic more interesting, I'm not convinced.  Look at authors like China Mieville.  His world is incredible fantastic, yet very believable.




Well I've only read Perdido Street Station, but my impression from that book (what I can remember anyway) was that China Mieville often used mundane things to contrast with the very weird fantasy of his world.  The opening chapter starts with two people just having breakfast (regardless of how alien one of them is) with very mundane concerns and actions.  The artist community, the university politics, etc. are a few examples of the mundane that I think make his world much more vibrant in a familiar contratsing sharply with the weird way... that allows it's readers to relate better and highlights the alienness of it all better than if it was just alienness with no anchoring in the mundane.  YMMV of course


----------



## pemerton (Oct 6, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Uhm so taking the fact that your players are amazed by unfamiliarity with...
> 1. Knowledge of it's stats/game mechanical abilities
> 2. The extent of those abilities relative to the PC's...
> 
> If they encounter things more then they will have a greater understanding of it's abilities and the relative power of them compared to themselves.  You just supported the whole rarity idea here.



I didn't say they were amazed by unfamiliarity with those things. They tend to be amazed by familiarity with them - casting Presence (a Rolemaster spell) and learning that there is a 50th level Presence nearby causes them to be amazed. Not by the rarity, but by the power (and the implications that power has for the upcoming confrontation with their PCs).



Imaro said:


> If the final encounter of a grand story is something the players have faced over and over again...how does that grand finale not become lessened when compared to the excitement and trepidation of facing an unknown or unfamiliar adversary?



Well, the PCs in my game have already faced down Tharizdun in dreamcrystal form twice, have rescued him in child simulcrum form once (not knowing back then who he was), have captured and kidnapped him in fallen-to-earth-and-weakened-and-imprisoned form once, and now have to engage him in full-strength voidal form. The issue of familiarity or unfamiliarity is not really relevant. Their interest is (i) in the story and (ii) in the game-mechanical resolution of the action.



Imaro said:


> I'm sorry but the familiar doesn't invoke awe or wonder...because it is the familiar.  The unknown, unexpected does.



That depends a lot on the details. I frequently listen to the Ring Cycle on CD as I work, and it continues to evoke awe and wonder in me (in some ways more over time, as the subtelty and implications of the work become more evident). The first time I ever handled a Euro it was new to me, and I guess I got a bit of a thrill, but nothing that I'd describe as awe or wonder.



Imaro said:


> what exactly is your argument (logically) here, where you claim the exact opposite?



My contention is that what produces awe or wonder in the players of an FRPG is (at least in many cases) not very closely connected to what would create awe and wonder in the PCs in the gameworld. The players are surrounded by the familiar (their friends, their house/gaming room, their dice, etc) and are engaging in a shared act of narration. I think what will produce awe and wonder is the elements of that narration - plot, theme, delivery etc - and that the rarity, in the fiction, of particular tropes (dragons, spells, etc) is not a big contributor to this.

To put it another way - Graham Greene's The End of the Affair invokes, in me at least, far more awe and wonder than does the typical fantasy story, although it deals almost entirely with the mundane. This is because it is well written. I think much the same is true for an RPG (making appropriate allowances for the difference of medium).


----------



## pemerton (Oct 6, 2008)

More succintly: roleplaying my PC's awe and wonder isn't a surefire recipe for my own awe and wonder. My awe and wonder depends upon something moving me _at the gaming table_. And that's a function of the story being told, not the rarity of the dragons/scorpions/whatever that figure in the story.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 6, 2008)

pemerton said:


> I didn't say they were amazed by unfamiliarity with those things. They tend to be amazed by familiarity with them - casting Presence (a Rolemaster spell) and learning that there is a 50th level Presence nearby causes them to be amazed. Not by the rarity, but by the power (and the implications that power has for the upcoming confrontation with their PCs).




Uhm, again...rarity or does every comoner, housecat and street urchin have a level 50 presence? Is a level 50 presence a common thing in your campaign? Or is it something that wow's the players because it's rare? I'm sure if everyone including the PC's had this level of Presence it wouldn't inspire awe, it would probably be just another ho-hum fight. 



pemerton said:


> Well, the PCs in my game have already faced down Tharizdun in dreamcrystal form twice, have rescued him in child simulcrum form once (not knowing back then who he was), have captured and kidnapped him in fallen-to-earth-and-weakened-and-imprisoned form once, and now have to engage him in full-strength voidal form. The issue of familiarity or unfamiliarity is not really relevant. Their interest is (i) in the story and (ii) in the game-mechanical resolution of the action.




That's great your players should be engaged in the story, and I will say it's probably more a testament to your skills as a good DM that your players have not become bored silly by Tharizdun at this point...I know I probably would, regardless of how engaging the story is... I'd just be sick of it revolving around Tharizdun.



pemerton said:


> That depends a lot on the details. I frequently listen to the Ring Cycle on CD as I work, and it continues to evoke awe and wonder in me (in some ways more over time, as the subtelty and implications of the work become more evident). The first time I ever handled a Euro it was new to me, and I guess I got a bit of a thrill, but nothing that I'd describe as awe or wonder.




And see here again we differ, I have shows, songs, etc I enjoy...but after seeing them or hearing them that first time, they never give me that first feeling of awe or wonder I had when first watching them. I can get close by not watching or llistening to them for a while...but if I watched or listened to the same thing every day it would bore me to tears.



pemerton said:


> My contention is that what produces awe or wonder in the players of an FRPG is (at least in many cases) not very closely connected to what would create awe and wonder in the PCs in the gameworld. The players are surrounded by the familiar (their friends, their house/gaming room, their dice, etc) and are engaging in a shared act of narration. I think what will produce awe and wonder is the elements of that narration - plot, theme, delivery etc - and that the rarity, in the fiction, of particular tropes (dragons, spells, etc) is not a big contributor to this.




First let me say you are describing one playstyle of D&D...without taking into consideration the fact that D&D doesn't have to be played as shared act of narration with heavy plots, themes, etc.  So how does your theory account for those who still experience a sense of wonder or awe in the game but do not play in this style?  I think a sense of awe and wonder can be invoked in Sword and Sorcery as well as sandbox games, without requiring the deep plots, and themes you allude to above. 

Also, above you still provide support for rarity being a major factor in producing this feeling. You keep giving examples of one thing in your game...then try to argue the opposite with non-gaming examples.



pemerton said:


> To put it another way - Graham Greene's The End of the Affair invokes, in me at least, far more awe and wonder than does the typical fantasy story, although it deals almost entirely with the mundane. This is because it is well written. I think much the same is true for an RPG (making appropriate allowances for the difference of medium).




I can't very well argue about what inbvokes awe or wonder in you. However, it is more likely something rare will invoke these feelings in me than the common everyday things I experience. Now there's always exceptions to the rule...but talking generally no, the mundane very rarely invokes awe or wonder in me, yet it does serve well for helping me realize what those rare or unique things are that do.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 6, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Well I've only read Perdido Street Station, but my impression from that book (what I can remember anyway) was that China Mieville often used mundane things to contrast with the very weird fantasy of his world.  The opening chapter starts with two people just having breakfast (regardless of how alien one of them is) with very mundane concerns and actions.  The artist community, the university politics, etc. are a few examples of the mundane that I think make his world much more vibrant in a familiar contratsing sharply with the weird way... that allows it's readers to relate better and highlights the alienness of it all better than if it was just alienness with no anchoring in the mundane.  YMMV of course




The main character is having breakfast with a beetle headed woman, who cannot talk, whom he just had sexual relations with.  Umm, that's about as bizarre as you can get.  Of course, some things are going to be somewhat mundane, but, methinks you're stretching a bit here.  Yes, the manticore poops in the forest, but, it's still a frickin' manticore!  

Honestly, I cannot see how you can make the statement that a "more mundane" setting evokes sense of wonder more than a more fantastical one.  That's simply a matter of taste.  Hyboria is not more wonder inducing than Narnia.  Middle Earth is not more inherently wonderous than Bas Lag.  The wonder comes in the writing, not in the bones of the setting.

As far as D&D going too far into the fantastic, look at the make-up of your last five campaigns.  Mine have not heavily featured humans in a very long time.  Current 3.5 campaign has 2 humans, a tiefling, a lupin and a grippli.  Last campaign had warforged, shifter, gnome and a human, campaign before that ended with an orc, a human, a kobold, a pseudo dragon, and a goliath (and had featured a veritable menagerie of races before).  

Even going way back to the beginning, the campaigns I played in regularly featured non-humans as PC's.  And PC casters of course.  So, pretty much every aspect of the game had spells and fantastic races.

Is 4e really so different here?


----------



## Mallus (Oct 6, 2008)

pemerton said:


> More succintly: roleplaying my PC's awe and wonder isn't a surefire recipe for my own awe and wonder. My awe and wonder depends upon something moving me _at the gaming table_. And that's a function of the story being told, not the rarity of the dragons/scorpions/whatever that figure in the story.



Thanks Pem, for summing up what I was trying to say earlier in this thread.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 6, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Honestly, I cannot see how you can make the statement that a "more mundane" setting evokes sense of wonder more than a more fantastical one. That's simply a matter of taste. Hyboria is not more wonder inducing than Narnia. Middle Earth is not more inherently wonderous than Bas Lag. The wonder comes in the writing, not in the bones of the setting.?




Your interpreting what I'm arguing wrong.  I'm arguing *for me* I find settings like Hyboria, The Young Kingdoms and Lankhmar resonate better as far as the fantastic actually being, well...fantastic.

Others are arguing it doesn't matter and has no effect...I disagree, regardless of whether you enjoy wahoo or toned down fantastical elements, it has an effect.  The stories of Fafhrd, Conan, Elric and Corum would have a totally different feel in Middle Earth or Narnia.  I don't even know if you could tell their stories correctly in those worlds.  

It's all taste and I'm not arguing one is better than the other.  That said I do feel D&D is leaning more and more towards one side of the fence.



Hussar said:


> As far as D&D going too far into the fantastic, look at the make-up of your last five campaigns. Mine have not heavily featured humans in a very long time. Current 3.5 campaign has 2 humans, a tiefling, a lupin and a grippli. Last campaign had warforged, shifter, gnome and a human, campaign before that ended with an orc, a human, a kobold, a pseudo dragon, and a goliath (and had featured a veritable menagerie of races before).
> 
> Even going way back to the beginning, the campaigns I played in regularly featured non-humans as PC's. And PC casters of course. So, pretty much every aspect of the game had spells and fantastic races.
> 
> Is 4e really so different here?




Uhm, even 3.5 had stats for animals (as in not monsters but real animals).  Before 4e, D&D seemed a mix between the more mundane type of fantasy (especially if one confined play to lower levels), and the wahoo fantasy...now it seems much more positioned in the wahoo category.  It's not just about player races, it's about the whole feel of the game.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 6, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Well I've only read Perdido Street Station, but my impression from that book (what I can remember anyway) was that China Mieville often used mundane things to contrast with the very weird fantasy of his world.



Thanks for bringing this up, Imaro. This kind of contrast, juxtaposition, really, of the exotic and the mundane is a staple of the campaigns I run and obviously, I'm all for it. 

But let's be clear, this technique isn't about keeping fantasy elements _rare_. It's not about a majority of mundane encounters punctured by infrequent encounters with the fantastic. It's about the realistic and the fantastic coexisting in the same time and place. In Mieville's Bas-Lag novels, the fantastic is omnipresent, but it exists side by side the mundane, even the banal. 

This is how the fantastic should be grounded in the (more) real. Note that this can happen _within_ the same character, like Lin the khepri artist in PSS. Put another way... it's not the number of dragon encounters that matter, it's whether your dragons seem _grounded_.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 6, 2008)

> Uhm, even 3.5 had stats for animals (as in not monsters but real animals). Before 4e, D&D seemed a mix between the more mundane type of fantasy (especially if one confined play to lower levels), and the wahoo fantasy...now it seems much more positioned in the wahoo category. It's not just about player races, it's about the whole feel of the game.




True, but, I'm not talking about how the books were written.  I'm talking about what actually happened at your table.  At my table, the fantastic was pretty omnipresent.  Every encounter, every scene featured the fantastic - be it in the form of the PC characters, magic spells, items, whatever.  

So, arguing that 4e has suddenly become more fantastic because it de-emphasises aspects, like combat stats for house cats, sidesteps the point somewhat.  If most groups out there featured wizards, various non-human races as PC's and magic items, then the fantastic was pretty much omni-present during play.

What the campaign setting looks like outside of the characters?  Other than DM's, who cares?  No one else ever sees it.  It doesn't matter and doesn't have any existence outside the brain of the DM.  What actually happens at the table matters most.  If most tables were, as I said, featuring the fantastic, then there really hasn't been much of a change at all.

In other words, D&D games never looked like Conan, as much as people may have wanted them to.  The existence of PC caster classes put a spike in that balloon.  D&D games have always been wahoo, right from day one.  4e is just the first edition to not pretend that this isn't true.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 6, 2008)

Hussar said:


> True, but, I'm not talking about how the books were written. I'm talking about what actually happened at your table. At my table, the fantastic was pretty omnipresent. Every encounter, every scene featured the fantastic - be it in the form of the PC characters, magic spells, items, whatever.
> 
> So, arguing that 4e has suddenly become more fantastic because it de-emphasises aspects, like combat stats for house cats, sidesteps the point somewhat. If most groups out there featured wizards, various non-human races as PC's and magic items, then the fantastic was pretty much omni-present during play.
> 
> ...





Uhm...wow, now you're telling me how I ran my games?  Actually my games were alot closer to The Young Kingdoms (where there are actually races besides humans) and Lankhmar in 3.5 than what you're describing.  This is what I came up on as far as fantasy goes way before I had ever read LotR.  It wasn't all that hard to find alternatives to the base system.  Some examples I used were snatching out full casters and replacing them with the Warlock, DuskBlade, etc.... limited multi classing into caster classes and no full caster single classes( this you could od with almost any edition), the spell system from Dark Legacies, and so on.  I know it was very much possible to run this type of game...unless one was hellbent on using everything in the game instead of picking and choosing (especially in 3.5).  

And that is the crux of what I'm getting at.  Earlier editions had the tools to create a more swords & sorcery type game, yeah you had to subtract stuff but the things you needed were there.  In 4e I just don't see it and I think it's another one of my dissapointments with it.  

Also I just wanted to say you are making some pretty big generalizations about playstyles and campaigns, where are you getting this stuff from.  I have experienced a few games ran by different people and I wouldn't go so far as to claim they were all wahoo fantasy. Maybe those are just the type of campaigns you create and enjoy.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 6, 2008)

Hussar said:


> In other words, D&D games never looked like Conan, as much as people may have wanted them to.  The existence of PC caster classes put a spike in that balloon.  D&D games have always been wahoo, right from day one.  4e is just the first edition to not pretend that this isn't true.




'Cept maybe for those of us who played in campaigns that were all-fighter-types with a few multiclasses floating around. Not a whole hell of a lot of spellcasting in our games and D&D held up just fine.

D&D always had the _potential_ to be wahoo 24/7, but it also had the potential and _support_ to be something else.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 7, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I'm talking about what actually happened at your table. At my table, the fantastic was pretty omnipresent. Every encounter, every scene featured the fantastic - be it in the form of the PC characters, magic spells, items, whatever.
> ...
> D&D games have always been wahoo, right from day one. 4e is just the first edition to not pretend that this isn't true.




Your logic is leaping more than a bullywug on a pogostick, mang. 

What happened at your table didn't happen at everyone's table. D&D has, up until 4e, at least kind of tangentially made allowances for people to play non-wahoo games (3e had the "hidden subsystem" of E6, and NPC classes, and NPC's who were level 5 fighters who just did NPC things and didn't fight goblins, after all.)

4e is just the first edition to pretend that everyone who played D&D was playing middle-of-the-road by-the-book D&D, or even WANTED to play that.

That, IMXP, was almost NEVER true. People took the D&D rules and did weird things with them and, more often than not, made it work. 

One of the things that was easier to make work was a non-wahoo game. Heck, Eberron, the setting made by 3e, for 3e, was distinctly non-wahoo fantasy in many respects (culling from noir, nobody's high-level, PC's aren't the only adventurers, etc., etc.). Wahoo fantasy isn't even defined, I would think, by the preponderance of spellcasters (since it's entirely possible to have low-level "mundane magic" be very non-wahoo). 

4e pretends that no one really liked to play that way, and that's part of where 4e doesn't support some peoples' play styles, because some people actually enjoy that playstyle. I can't help but feel these people were like fans of _Firefly_. They just liked something that not enough other people liked to make it worthwhile from a mass production standpoint.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Oct 7, 2008)

This is neither for or against, but just another example to throw in for discussion.

The Temeraire series by Naomi Novick. It is set during the Napoleonic War except in this world there are various breeds of Dragons, many of which are used to form a "Air Corps".

The interesting aspect though is how Dragons are viewed by both different people of the populace as well as the reader. For the reader since Dragons are a common character in the series it feels normal and right to have them everywhere. This goes for their crews as well as nations where Dragons are part of the culture/society like China.

However, for your average person in London a Dragon is a terrifying scene and most people will run for shelter and hide if a Dragon thinks about landing in London. Even the extremely small courier Dragons cause much trepidation amongst the general populace.

Just more food for thought


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Oct 7, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> 4e is just the first edition to pretend that everyone who played D&D was playing middle-of-the-road by-the-book D&D, or even WANTED to play that.



While I agree the surface feel of 4e is more magical, I feel that 4e is actually the easiest to turn into a less-magical, less-hyper-high-fantasy then any D&D system before.

The way math, fluff/mechanics separation, classes, balance, items, etc. is handled it is EXTREMELY easy to turn it into almost a Medieval-Europe rpg.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 7, 2008)

> While I agree the surface feel of 4e is more magical, I feel that 4e is actually the easiest to turn into a less-magical, less-hyper-high-fantasy then any D&D system before.




That's as may be, but there's no actual support in the rules for a more mundane game.

Some actual rules support is usually better than some theoretical rules possibility.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 7, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Uhm...wow, now you're telling me how I ran my games?  Actually my games were alot closer to The Young Kingdoms (where there are actually races besides humans) and Lankhmar in 3.5 than what you're describing.  This is what I came up on as far as fantasy goes way before I had ever read LotR.  It wasn't all that hard to find alternatives to the base system.  Some examples I used were snatching out full casters and replacing them with the Warlock, DuskBlade, etc.... limited multi classing into caster classes and no full caster single classes( this you could od with almost any edition), the spell system from Dark Legacies, and so on.  I know it was very much possible to run this type of game...unless one was hellbent on using everything in the game instead of picking and choosing (especially in 3.5).
> 
> And that is the crux of what I'm getting at.  Earlier editions had the tools to create a more swords & sorcery type game, yeah you had to subtract stuff but the things you needed were there.  In 4e I just don't see it and I think it's another one of my dissapointments with it.
> 
> Also I just wanted to say you are making some pretty big generalizations about playstyles and campaigns, where are you getting this stuff from.  I have experienced a few games ran by different people and I wouldn't go so far as to claim they were all wahoo fantasy. Maybe those are just the type of campaigns you create and enjoy.




What am I basing this on?  How about just about every module produced for the past thirty years?  The game designers assumed that you would have a balanced party - 3 fighters, a cleric, wizard and thief.  All the way forward from there.  

All fighter party?  Sure, I'm sure someone played that.  But, would you think that's common?



			
				KM said:
			
		

> That's as may be, but there's no actual support in the rules for a more mundane game.
> 
> Some actual rules support is usually better than some theoretical rules possibility.




I've seen this one a few times.  4e S&S game.  1 house rule.  All PC's must be martial classes. 

Done.

There.  I just made a 4ed game that is a thousand times closer to Conan than 3e ever was because I don't need clerics or any sort of divine healing.  One house rule.  That's all it takes to make a mundane game.  Poof, done.

I have a nicely balanced game, I don't have to worry about pretty much any issues like not having casters, either give the PC's magic items as warranted (after all, S&S genre has lots of magic items and weapons) and pick and choose appropriate monsters and opponents.

That's a whole lot more simple than E6.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 7, 2008)

> All PC's must be martial classes.
> 
> Done.




Depending upon the "mundane" you're going for, no, it's not. 

Because you're STILL seven or eight cuts above any town guard.

S&S, maybe, but S&S is hardly the benchmark or the endpoint of a "mundane" game.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 7, 2008)

A further thought about playstyles.

While I may be painting with a pretty broad brush, aren't you guys doing the same?  You're claiming that people didn't play the way I'm proposing.  Based on what?  Personal experience?

At least I can point to some pretty concrete evidence.  Just about every module assumes at the very least, a cleric and a wizard in the party.  The game assumes that you will have at least a cleric and quite strongly suggests that you have a wizard too.  The vast majority of game rules from 3.5 and earlier deal with magic - why the very strong focus on this if few people actually use these rules?  Drow as a PC race.  Minotaurs as a PC race (note this is still 1e).  On and on.

Maybe it's a problem with definition.  I see anything other than plain jane humans as fantasy.  Yes, elves are fantastic.  Undying (or at least close enough to it) faeries are fantastic.  Dwarves are fantastic.  Orcs are fantastic.  Wizards are fantastic.  If it doesn't exist in the real world, it's fantastic.

Imaro - I see no difference between a full caster and a warlock when it comes to the fantastic.  With a warlock, you are going to see magic used in each and every encounter in the game.  Every single time.  How is that not wahoo?  And, conversely, how is that remotely low magic?  Note, sword and sorcery as a genre is not low magic.  Elric is S&S and is most certainly not low magic.

To me, the fact that pretty much every group out there had elves, wizards, clerics, whatever makes D&D pretty wahoo.  It's fantastic right from the get go.  If I wanted to play a mundane game, I'd use Chivalry and Sorcery or GURPS.  D&D just doesn't fit the bill very well.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 7, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Depending upon the "mundane" you're going for, no, it's not.
> 
> Because you're STILL seven or eight cuts above any town guard.
> 
> S&S, maybe, but S&S is hardly the benchmark or the endpoint of a "mundane" game.




But, in D&D, by 3rd level, you're seven or eight cuts above any town guard.  So, D&D is mundane for maybe 2 levels and then it's fantastic.  It's the nature of the level system.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 7, 2008)

> But, in D&D, by 3rd level, you're seven or eight cuts above any town guard. So, D&D is mundane for maybe 2 levels and then it's fantastic. It's the nature of the level system.




Right. 

But, as I said above, some actual rules support is usually better than some theoretical rules possibility. 4e has no actual rules support. 3e at least had 3 levels (and, again, depending on the campaign, that could go even longer).


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Oct 7, 2008)

Well one can always simply refluff/reskin monsters to stay constant. I have run games where by simply refluffing and reskinning higher level monsters it has made it feel like the PCs even at higher levels are still wary of town guards.

Since a level is abstract, just by how you approach a power and a level, a level 10 can seem like a god, or it can seem like a weakling.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 7, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Thanks Pem, for summing up what I was trying to say earlier in this thread.



No worries.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 7, 2008)

Hussar said:


> While I may be painting with a pretty broad brush, aren't you guys doing the same?  You're claiming that people didn't play the way I'm proposing.  Based on what?  Personal experience?




See, here's the difference: We aren't telling you that _your_ play style didn't happen or is badwrongfun, we aren't even implying it. We're saying that these other play styles _did_ happen because we saw them happening and participated. We're saying that _your_ play style wasn't universal.

So yes, in effect, there are people who didn't play the way you're proposing and we are basing that on actual experience.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 7, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> That's as may be, but there's no actual support in the rules for a more mundane game.
> 
> Some actual rules support is usually better than some theoretical rules possibility.




Moreover, the GSL as-is contains language specifically forbidding 3pp from publishing such a (much needed, IMHO) varient.

RC


----------



## Hussar (Oct 7, 2008)

billd91 said:


> See, here's the difference: We aren't telling you that _your_ play style didn't happen or is badwrongfun, we aren't even implying it. We're saying that these other play styles _did_ happen because we saw them happening and participated. We're saying that _your_ play style wasn't universal.
> 
> So yes, in effect, there are people who didn't play the way you're proposing and we are basing that on actual experience.




Are you honestly going to claim that a no caster, no non-human party was anything other than an extreme rarity in any edition of D&D?

While, it may be true that "my playstyle" wasn't universal, I'm thinking that it was a heck of a lot more common than what you're referring to.

How's this for a test?  Show me a D&D setting, whether TSR/WotC or 3rd party that's low magic/mundane and I'll match it with two settings that are not.  We'll see who runs out of settings first.



> Right.
> 
> But, as I said above, some actual rules support is usually better than some theoretical rules possibility. 4e has no actual rules support. 3e at least had 3 levels (and, again, depending on the campaign, that could go even longer).




Just a quibble, but it's two levels.  By third, you're able to take several times the punishment that a town guard could take.  That's stretching the point don't you think?  Two whole levels out of 20 where you have a mundane campaign?  And, even then, it's not really mundane at the vast majority of tables.  

Then again, I suppose if we define warlocks and elves as mundane, then I suppose it could be pushed further.


----------



## LostSoul (Oct 7, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> That's as may be, but there's no actual support in the rules for a more mundane game.




There's no _fluff_ support.

The rules, I would think, should work just fine.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 7, 2008)

> There's no fluff support.
> 
> The rules, I would think, should work just fine.




Not really.

How I'm defining "mundane" is "your character is no more powerful than an especially clever or strong farmer." That definition is key, because 4e's 1st level heroes are well beyond any common NPCs. Their encounter and daily powers, at least, are things that no basic human guard is really capable of. 

There's two ways to make this more mundane. The first is to cut out PC powers so that they are more in line with basic effects. This, I'm fairly sure, will wildly unbalance the game when you go up against a group of kobolds with only basic attacks, and, moreover, gets rid of character options, which are a lot of fun to have.

The second is to give NPC commoners abilities that are similar to PC powers, so that every town guard has the Fighter class template (for instance). This gets more than a little wahoo as now every priest in the temple can heal people back from the brink of death and blast holy light out.

This only addresses "wahoo" powers, and doesn't address things like death and dying and healing surges, either, all of which can become fairly important when it is key that your PC feels like any other member of this fantasy world. 

Those are pretty fundamental rules issues in 4e. Dismantling the powers system alone would throw things at least a little off. 

There's also the missing mundane systems like craft skills to account for. 

That's not to really say it couldn't be done, especially by a clever and observant designer (especially one working outside WotC for a 3pp, with no concern about brand identity). But that is to say that 4e still doesn't have support for it. 3e may have only had two levels of support (though, again, that varied -- in Eberron, you feel pretty mundane for about 4 levels because NPC's do have class levels that are above yours. And after about level 7, you feel more wahoo, because they don't! E6 pretty much has the idea that there are 6 levels of "mundane-ish" in a PC, and to stop regular advancement after that!), but it was _something_, and something that 4e distinctly lacks.


----------



## LostSoul (Oct 7, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Not really.
> 
> How I'm defining "mundane" is "your character is no more powerful than an especially clever or strong farmer." That definition is key, because 4e's 1st level heroes are well beyond any common NPCs. Their encounter and daily powers, at least, are things that no basic human guard is really capable of.




All you need to do is refluff what a farmer is.

Drunk Farmer = Bugbear Warrior (Brute 5)
Change morningstar to cudgel.
Change skullthumper to drunken smash.
Change predatory eye to sucker punch.

There.  1st level PCs are well beneath a common NPC.


----------



## Switchblade (Oct 7, 2008)

Mallus said:


> PSS. Put another way... it's not the number of dragon encounters that matter, it's whether your dragons seem _grounded_.





Am I the only one who got a vision of a dragon on a therapists couch having a midlife crisis? 
"I look at my horde and the virgin sacrifices and think "is this all their is to life? Where did it all go wrong?"
Or a dragon doing yoga-esque exercises and "grounding his worries"
 
Oh. Just me.

I'll get my coat


----------



## Mallus (Oct 7, 2008)

Switchblade said:


> Oh. Just me.



Don't worry, it's not just you. While that wasn't _exactly_ what I meant, I have to say, a dragon in therapy could totally happen in my current 3.5 game.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Oct 7, 2008)

LostSoul put it well. I myself prefer low-power games, and that is how I play 4e as well. I can play 4e and have the characters with no need for new rules or anything, feel like they are still weak characters and very much still under the restraints that we ourselves feel and are far, far from hero-level status.

It is all in how one describes, plays out and populates the world. A level is completely abstract, damage amount is completely abstract, so much of D&D from the beginning is completely abstract that is extremely easy to alter the feeling of it.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 7, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Are you honestly going to claim that a no caster, no non-human party was anything other than an extreme rarity in any edition of D&D?
> 
> While, it may be true that "my playstyle" wasn't universal, I'm thinking that it was a heck of a lot more common than what you're referring to.
> 
> How's this for a test?  Show me a D&D setting, whether TSR/WotC or 3rd party that's low magic/mundane and I'll match it with two settings that are not.  We'll see who runs out of settings first.




How many different historical greenbooks did TSR produce in 2nd edition? Celts, Vikings, Crusades, Mighty Fortress, Age of Heroes, Rome. Excluding Age of Heroes which is a bit more wahoo, we're looking at 5 different campaign spins right there with very low levels of magic and very few spellcasters and very few fantastic monsters.

I have no idea how many people actually played in campaigns like these, but it's not like there was lack of support. Even the Complete Fighters Handbook, back in the day, talked about playing all military, all fighter campaigns. 

Looking at more recent developments, Green Ronin's Sanctuary setting isn't completely devoid of spellcasters, but they are significantly hampered and the setting is much more mundane than most.

There have been PLENTY of people on these very boards who have talked about playing low-magic and grittier campaigns, with a lot fewer magic items, a lot less spellcasting. Many have, indeed, lamented that 3e wasn't very amenable to that style (something I believe they are wrong about, but there it is). Clearly, it's not exactly some weird outlier of a campaign idea to focus on the more mundane or less wahoo.


----------



## amysrevenge (Oct 7, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> How I'm defining "mundane" is "your character is no more powerful than an especially clever or strong farmer."
> [snip]
> There's two ways to make this more mundane. The first is to cut out PC powers so that they are more in line with basic effects. This, I'm fairly sure, will wildly unbalance the game when you go up against a group of kobolds with only basic attacks, and, moreover, gets rid of character options, which are a lot of fun to have.




Oh my.

I can see the appeal of such a game, but why in the world would you use ANY version of D&D to play it?  

I think that keeping the PCs as "no more powerful than a farmer" would suggest that a group of kobolds SHOULD smash them to pieces.


----------



## Desdichado (Oct 7, 2008)

I've come to the realization over the last few years that what I've long professed and what I actually do in this regard are at odds.

I've long been a fan of "low fantasy" and that means low level PC's fighting feral housecats in the forest and being seriously threatened by them, right?

Well, it turns out my games feature a lot of the fantastic after all.  I didn't really think that it was all that fantastic, but on reflection, it is.  Sure; I like to have random thugs attack the PC's frequently, but I rarely put them up against animals.  I their serious (as opposed to simply random) encounters are always with something weird.

Part of the reason for this is that I tend to run games like fantasy X-files.  Sure, the fantasy world itself might not be too fantastic, really, but the PCs tend to have jobs that ensure they go out of their way to find what there is and confront it.  So, I certainly don't think of myself as a high fantasy type guy, but I have relatively fantastical campaigns after all.  

Then again, high fantasy is not equivalent to high wahoo.  The two are only tangentially related.

That said, laser bears or lightning scorpions aren't my idea of fantasy.  That is, to a certain extent, lasersharking.  I like my fantasy creatures to be more coherent than simply "it's a scorpion, except really big and it shoots lightning out of its tail."  To be unusual or unique, a creature doesn't require some mechanical gizmo.  In fact, I think the "lets just give him lightning damage" syndrome is counterproductive to making interesting creatures.  A crutch, if you will.

More and more I'm inspired by an almost pseudo-scientific take, influenced by Barsoom.  Edgar Rice Burroughs sent John Carter to a fantasy planet, and did he have actual Earth animals on his fantasy planet?  Of course not, that would ridiculous.  He had animals that filled the same _role_ but a banth was fundamentally different from a lion; a calot was fundamentally different from a dog, and a thoat was fundamentally different from a horse.  They just stood in the same role.

My latest fantasy settings, if I'm going to include mundane animals (like people) I want to have some kind of backstory explaining why regular earth animals (and people) are on this completely different world, and how did they get to be the same?  The way evolution works, there's no way that a different world would end up with wolves exactly, or bears, or people, unless they were brought there.

So I tend to have an earth-diaspora; people came to my fantasy world in the distant past, bringing with them some (but not all) of their animals, and then they adapted slightly in unique ways to their new environment.

However, the _native_ animals are much, _much_ more alien.  More like the banths, thoats and calots, or even more alien yet.

Sigh.  I'm rambling, aren't I?  I'm not sure where I'm weighing in on the question, other than talking about things I've done in the past about the issue.  I've certainly seen an evolution of my viewpoint just in the last few years.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 8, 2008)

> All you need to do is refluff what a farmer is.
> 
> Drunk Farmer = Bugbear Warrior (Brute 5)
> Change morningstar to cudgel.
> ...




Well, it does suggest something a little odd about a world filled with drunken farmers that are about the same level of threat as a DIRE WOLF.

But yeah, I agree, you're basically right. With enough prep time, this kind of nudging could probably hide a lot of the wahoo in 4e abilities, it's true (dire wolves become "angry junkyard dogs" or whatever). It is extra work that I don't have to do if I just stick to playing low-level 3e (where an angry junkyard dog really is a level 2-3 challenge! For the whole party!), though.  

It's also the kind of nudging where, if a 3rd party publisher did it FOR me and gave it to me in a nice, shiny hardcover, I would happily pay $35 for it.

The re-fluffing is good, but it won't solve all the problems, either (I mentioned before HP and the death and dying rules as a pretty thick inhibitor to playing a character who is on par or less than many NPC's). 



> I can see the appeal of such a game, but why in the world would you use ANY version of D&D to play it?
> 
> I think that keeping the PCs as "no more powerful than a farmer" would suggest that a group of kobolds SHOULD smash them to pieces.




People have used every version of D&D to play it, and have enjoyed themselves well enough. And the way around the "kobold smash!" idea is that kobolds aren't necessarily any more powerful than a farmer, either. The PC's and monsters and NPC's aren't different categories of creature occupying different "tiers" that never overlap or interact.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 8, 2008)

billd91 said:


> How many different historical greenbooks did TSR produce in 2nd edition? Celts, Vikings, Crusades, Mighty Fortress, Age of Heroes, Rome. Excluding Age of Heroes which is a bit more wahoo, we're looking at 5 different campaign spins right there with very low levels of magic and very few spellcasters and very few fantastic monsters.
> 
> I have no idea how many people actually played in campaigns like these, but it's not like there was lack of support. Even the Complete Fighters Handbook, back in the day, talked about playing all military, all fighter campaigns.
> 
> ...




I already said that there are some out there.  Sure.  But, overwhelmingly, there are more fantastic settings out there than mundane.  The fact that you have to go to twenty year old out of print books pretty much says it all doesn't it?  Which is more popular?  Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Planescape and Dark Sun or one of those green book TSR products?  Never mind Scarred Lands, Iron Kingdoms, Ptolus, or a plethora of products.

I like less fantastic actually.  I really do.  When I'm playing GURPS.  D&D?  Why?  I can't imagine a less suitable system.  The level system alone doesn't work for a low fantastic setting.  When a character by third level (in any edition) is pretty much unkillable by a town guard, you're already into wahoo country.

You want grim and gritty, play Warhammer fantasty.  GURPS fantasy.  Chivalry and Sorcery works as well.  D&D?  Sure, you can fold, spindle and maul it into shape, but, it takes a huge amount of work to do so.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Oct 8, 2008)

Hussar said:


> I already said that there are some out there.  Sure.  But, overwhelmingly, there are more fantastic settings out there than mundane.  The fact that you have to go to twenty year old out of print books pretty much says it all doesn't it?  Which is more popular?  Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Planescape and Dark Sun or one of those green book TSR products?  Never mind Scarred Lands, Iron Kingdoms, Ptolus, or a plethora of products.
> 
> I like less fantastic actually.  I really do.  When I'm playing GURPS.  D&D?  Why?  I can't imagine a less suitable system.  The level system alone doesn't work for a low fantastic setting.  When a character by third level (in any edition) is pretty much unkillable by a town guard, you're already into wahoo country.
> 
> You want grim and gritty, play Warhammer fantasty.  GURPS fantasy.  Chivalry and Sorcery works as well.  D&D?  Sure, you can fold, spindle and maul it into shape, but, it takes a huge amount of work to do so.





> Argument supporting high fantasy, wahoo-styled settings





> Dark Sun


----------



## Hussar (Oct 8, 2008)

You don't think that Dark Sun is a highly fantastic setting?  Nowhere did I say high fantasy, because that would certainly be wrong.  But, in Dark Sun, you have the following:


PC's start at 4th level (so much for the whole Strong Farmer thing)
Psionics
Giant Grasshoppers as a PC race (actually, scratch that, giant, psionic grasshoppers as a PC Race)
Wizards who kill the land by casting their spells
A land ruled by a godlike Dragon

So, how is this not highly fantastic and pretty wahoo to boot?  Using KM's defintions of Wahoo, starting at 4th level already puts it into wahoo territory.


----------



## Desdichado (Oct 8, 2008)

Hussar said:


> You want grim and gritty, play Warhammer fantasty.  GURPS fantasy.  Chivalry and Sorcery works as well.  D&D?  Sure, you can fold, spindle and maul it into shape, but, it takes a huge amount of work to do so.



No, it really doesn't take a huge amount of work at all.  In fact, it's incredibly simple.

For my latest lowish fantasy game, all I did was finish the game before the PC's got above about 6th-7th level.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 8, 2008)

Hobo said:


> No, it really doesn't take a huge amount of work at all.  In fact, it's incredibly simple.





Seconded.


----------



## Rallek (Oct 8, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Are you honestly going to claim that a no caster, no non-human party was anything other than an extreme rarity in any edition of D&D?





One of the groups I've run games for loves to play exactly this. They love gritty, they love low magic, they love low fantasy, and they especially love to do all of those at once. 

Now in fairness we generally use Warhammer to get that particular fantasy fix, but we've done it with D&D in 2nd ed, 3rd ed, and even 3.5. I don't mean to suggest that it's how everyone plays, but it's how they (that group) like to play more often than not.

Just my 2cp.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 10, 2008)

Hobo said:


> No, it really doesn't take a huge amount of work at all.  In fact, it's incredibly simple.
> 
> For my latest lowish fantasy game, all I did was finish the game before the PC's got above about 6th-7th level.




So, basically, to get your lowish fantasy game in D&D, it was so simply that you had to throw out 3/4 of the game?

I can do low fantasy in 4e with one house rule.  All PC's must be martial source characters.  Done.  I can play 30 levels, not chuck out anything.  Might have to fiddle a bit with some of the expected bonuses, and of course, pick and choose what opponents to use, but, that one house rule, that doesn't force me to yank out most of the rules in the book, makes a lowish fantasy game in 4e.

Which, I believe was always my point.  If you have to massively rewrite your game to serve the game that you want to play, why not pick a game that works?

I also find it incredibly ironic that Raven Crowking, someone who has repeatedly stated that he needs SIX HUNDRED PAGES of house rules for his 3.5 game, would then say that it's easy to change D&D to fit a different model.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 10, 2008)

> So, basically, to get your lowish fantasy game in D&D, it was so simply that you had to throw out 3/4 of the game?




Like I'm seeing over in the "How Long Is Your Campaign" thread, that's not too unusual. Giant chunks of the game are going unused, by everyone. The option is there to use it if you want to, but if you use that chunk, you're ignoring the other chunk.

There's just so much *stuff* in 30 levels that it's nigh-impossible to use it all in even a game that lasts two years, even at a normal rate of advancement. 1/4th of D&D can easily keep you going for a year or more at a time, as long as it's the _right_ 1/4th.

The purpose of the other 3/4ths is to broaden appeal, not to enhance a single game.


----------



## AllisterH (Oct 10, 2008)

Since when did DARKSUN not become highly fantastical?


----------



## AllisterH (Oct 10, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Right.
> 
> But, as I said above, some actual rules support is usually better than some theoretical rules possibility. 4e has no actual rules support. 3e at least had 3 levels (and, again, depending on the campaign, that could go even longer).




And again..here's where I wonder what scale you're judging 4e on.

By RAW, a guard in 4E is a standard encounter for a 3rd level PC. Previous editions, at 3rd level, a guard isn't even a standard encounter....


----------



## Imaro (Oct 10, 2008)

First let me say "lowish fanasy" at least IMHO, doesn't mean no magic.  I can't think of a fantasy S&S story that doesn't have some type of magic.

Second, if you really want a low fantay setting in 3.5 check out Dark Legacies...it's worth it alone for their take on priests and casters.  In fact it's basically Warhammer for D&D.  






















Ah, the joys of the OGL


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 10, 2008)

> By RAW, a guard in 4E is a standard encounter for a 3rd level PC. Previous editions, at 3rd level, a guard isn't even a standard encounter....




A guard is also a 19th level encounter in 4e.

What's the level of the guard?

Depends on what you want them to achieve.

The guard isn't meant to simulate anything, just to fight PC's at 3rd level with a combat smackdown.

Unless you're suggesting that 4e committed the Sin of Simulation selectively?


----------



## AllisterH (Oct 10, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> A guard is also a 19th level encounter in 4e.
> 
> What's the level of the guard?
> 
> ...




How do you figure the level of a standard guard is 19th level? Keep in mind that even in 1e, you could modify a guard to be 19th level but that's not what people would consider standard.

I think the difference is that in 4E, there's a clear difference not only between "farmer McGee" and the PCs.

There's ALSO a clear difference between Farmer McGee and Bob the bandit which I think wasn't as clear cut as before in earlier editions.

For example, we've been focusing on "what is a normal farmer like in 4E when compared to the PCs" but what about the local bandit when compared to the farmer?

To me, 4E characters start off stronger than Joe Sixpack who is a carpenter by trade but not as strong as Officer McCleary who walks his beat every day. They exist in that in-between state.

This _IS_ different than before where the PCs start off as (slightly) stronger than EITHER  McCleary or Joe.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 10, 2008)

> For example, we've been focusing on "what is a normal farmer like in 4E when compared to the PCs" but what about the local bandit when compared to the farmer?




The farmer and the bandit are nothing unless they interact with the PC's, and then you can't measure their combat powers unless you specifically intend them to be fought. 

There are no "standard guard" stats. There are no "standard bandit" stats. There's a 3rd level guard in the MM, but 3rd level guards don't man the garrisons. A 3rd level guard might fight the PC's, but so might a 19th level guard, depending upon what the campaign calls for.

You can't compare your PC to a typical farmer or guard or bandit because the MM stats don't represent a typical farmer or guard or bandit, they just represent a singular monster option. 

4e, as has often been said, isn't simulating anything.

But hey, if it doesn't cause a problem for you, if you can grok it fine, that's cool. But that's not what I'm seeing in the MM or the DMG. I'm seeing a single 3rd-level guard that the PC's fight, not a world filled with 3rd-level guards.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 10, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> The farmer and the bandit are nothing unless they interact with the PC's, and then you can't measure their combat powers unless you specifically intend them to be fought.
> 
> There are no "standard guard" stats. There are no "standard bandit" stats. There's a 3rd level guard in the MM, but 3rd level guards don't man the garrisons. A 3rd level guard might fight the PC's, but so might a 19th level guard, depending upon what the campaign calls for.
> 
> ...




But, what does this have to do with the idea of fantastic vs mundane?

It's entirely the DM's job to make his setting believable.  The idea that all guards are exactly the same level of competence is not particularly believable. 

It wouldn't be believable for the guards in some small backwater, one horse town to be 19th level.  Then again, why are the 19th level characters in this one horse town fighting guards?  It would be believable that that floating outpost in the middle of the Astral Sea has 19th level guards.  

Context is everything.  The idea that every manticore is exactly the same as every other manticore (other than hit points) wasn't particularly true in 3e.  The only problem was, it was too damn hard to adjust the stats.


----------



## mmadsen (Oct 11, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> How I'm defining "mundane" is "your character is no more powerful than an especially clever or strong farmer." That definition is key, because 4e's 1st level heroes are well beyond any common NPCs. Their encounter and daily powers, at least, are things that no basic human guard is really capable of.



I don't think that's a widely held definition of mundane.  While discussing fantasy and adventuring, I would consider Lancelot, Conan, the Three Musketeers, various pirates and mercenaries, etc. all quite mundane -- their "powers" are in no way magical.

Are they skilled fighters?  Certainly?  Are they unbelievable?  No, not at all.

Are they first-level characters?  No.  I don't particularly mind that 4E makes starting characters competent by default, but I do mind that they still call this _first level_, and there's no good way to make a character like Bilbo -- an "everyman" character who is not yet an accomplished adventurer.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 11, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> But, what does this have to do with the idea of fantastic vs mundane?




Well, I was responding to someone who said that 1st level PC's weren't stronger than a typical guard, mostly by pointing out that there is no such thing as a "typical guard" in 4e. 

But, with the ability to blast divine radiance and shoot magical lasers and miss someone and still hurt them and to pop back up from the dead 5% of the time, when most "common folk" don't have those powers, makes the PC's at least one obvious cut above mundane. They are exceptional people, not just "very good," but truly in a class by themselves that no normal farmer can achieve. 

For me, a "mundane" campaign depends on PC's being on the same continuum as farmers and town guards and guys who study books in towers. They need to be relatable to your "typical NPC." In 4e, they're really not, because there is no such thing as a "typical NPC." Or, perhaps rather, a "typical NPC" is actually just a plot device without stats, so the PC's already exceed them by virtue of being able to make attack rolls AND being able to be part of the plot.  



			
				mmadsen said:
			
		

> Are they first-level characters? No. I don't particularly mind that 4E makes starting characters competent by default, but I do mind that they still call this first level, and there's no good way to make a character like Bilbo -- an "everyman" character who is not yet an accomplished adventurer.




Yeah, we get to the same place, even if we start off a little different.  

"Unbelievable" can just be fairly subjective, so I was mostly trying to locate it in what NPCs of the world can also do. An everyman character's defining characteristic is that  he doesn't do anything, power-wise, that is above and beyond what a "typical NPC" can do. He achieves a level of power no greater than a highly-trained anybody. You could see any Joe Dirtfarm going on this adventure, but for some reason, fates or chance have chosen your PC, perhaps even against his will, and you're thrust into something greater.


----------



## Staffan (Oct 11, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Consider Buffy the Vampire Slayer. If you examine the show'ss trappings; SoCal vampires, suburban demons, 98 lbs kung-fu schoolgirls, eventually, robots, it looks like an utter mess.



*Eventually* robots? I don't think 8 episodes in qualifies as "eventually".


----------



## Hussar (Oct 12, 2008)

> But, with the ability to blast divine radiance and shoot magical lasers and miss someone and still hurt them and to pop back up from the dead 5% of the time, when most "common folk" don't have those powers, makes the PC's at least one obvious cut above mundane. They are exceptional people, not just "very good," but truly in a class by themselves that no normal farmer can achieve.




First level clerics and wizards in 3e can blast away and whatnot.  Heck, by 3rd level, a wand of magic missile isn't out of reach for the wizard.  My current 2nd level party has a wand of cure light wounds, so, healing is virtually unlimited as it stands.

"Hurt someone on a miss" is not more arcane.  More abstract, sure, but, not less mundane.

I guess, I'm just not seeing a huge difference between the editions when it comes to the level of mundane vs fantastic.  While the "average town guard" isn't defined by 4e mechanics, that doesn't mean it's not defined by 4e campaigns.  Again, making your setting believable is the DM's job, not the job of the mechanics.


----------



## AllisterH (Oct 12, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> IAre they first-level characters? No. I don't particularly mind that 4E makes starting characters competent by default, but I do mind that they still call this _first level_, and there's no good way to make a character like Bilbo -- an "everyman" character who is not yet an accomplished adventurer.




Given that even in 2e, Biblo was better represented by a NPC, being able to model Bilbo is NOT soemthing I consider a good design choice for the PCs.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 12, 2008)

AllisterH said:


> Given that even in 2e, Biblo was better represented by a NPC, being able to model Bilbo is NOT soemthing I consider a good design choice for the PCs.




But isn't the point that the game can -- and should -- be designed to cater to more than just your preferences?


RC


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 12, 2008)

> First level clerics and wizards in 3e can blast away and whatnot. Heck, by 3rd level, a wand of magic missile isn't out of reach for the wizard. My current 2nd level party has a wand of cure light wounds, so, healing is virtually unlimited as it stands.




And NPC's had these same resources, even in smaller towns, so you weren't of a totally different class of creature. That's one of Eberron's big traits, after all: low-level magic is common, meaning that spellcasters with low-level magic can be "common folk," who have no powers that a typical NPC might not also have.

This facilitates that "everyman" archetype, even if the world is filled with wands of magic missile made by artificers. 



> I guess, 'm just not seeing a huge difference between the editions when it comes to the level of mundane vs fantastic. While the "average town guard" isn't defined by 4e mechanics, that doesn't mean it's not defined by 4e campaigns. Again, making your setting believable is the DM's job, not the job of the mechanics.




I think that's mostly because you're equating "fantastic" with "magical," but I think they are quite distinct. You can have "mundane" and "magical" co-exist.

And the job of the mechanics *should* be to help create a believable setting, since a believable setting is part and parcel of any D&D game. If the mechanics don't help me do that, the mechanics don't help me make a D&D game.


----------



## mmadsen (Oct 12, 2008)

AllisterH said:


> Given that even in 2e, Biblo was better represented by a NPC, being able to model Bilbo is NOT soemthing I consider a good design choice for the PCs.



The protagonist of _The Hobbit_ is better represented as an NPC?  Why?  (Is there something about 2E I don't know?)


----------



## RFisher (Oct 12, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> But isn't the point that the game can -- and should -- be designed to cater to more than just your preferences?




Generally, I think games should be designed to cater foremost to the designer’s preferences. You do a much better job when creating what you want to create than when trying to please other people.

Although part of me feels that D&D—with its unique position—ought to have other responsibilities. Though, still, being overly broad I don’t think serves those purposes either. Introduce people to the hobby, and then let them find whichever game best fits their preferences.

Instead of one mediocre game, the hobby needs a diversity of focused, passionately-designed games.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 13, 2008)

RFisher said:


> Generally, I think games should be designed to cater foremost to the designer’s preferences. You do a much better job when creating what you want to create than when trying to please other people.
> 
> Although part of me feels that D&D—with its unique position—ought to have other responsibilities. Though, still, being overly broad I don’t think serves those purposes either. Introduce people to the hobby, and then let them find whichever game best fits their preferences.
> 
> Instead of one mediocre game, the hobby needs a diversity of focused, passionately-designed games.




That may work for an artist, but how many businesses really want to follow that model? Not all that many. They usually want as broad a market as possible.


----------



## RFisher (Oct 14, 2008)

billd91 said:


> That may work for an artist, but how many businesses really want to follow that model? Not all that many. They usually want as broad a market as possible.




Those actually aren’t contradictory. In my experience. The product of one person’s vision often ends up with broad market appeal. Sure, it may be narrower than what the committee was aiming for, but it’s broader than what they hit.

Any success I’ve had in business has been from working for visionaries. The really good ones even make the product marketing guys think that everything is their idea. (^_^)


----------



## Hussar (Oct 14, 2008)

KM said:
			
		

> And the job of the mechanics *should* be to help create a believable setting, since a believable setting is part and parcel of any D&D game. If the mechanics don't help me do that, the mechanics don't help me make a D&D game.




I disagree.  Basic D&D had next to no rules for creating a believable setting.  It was solely focused on the dungeon.  Expert expanded things out into wilderness adventuring, but that was about it.  

"Believable setting" is entirely the job of the DM.  No amount of mechanics can help you there.  3e most certainly did not make a believable setting, unless believable means you can never lose a limb, economies are entirely bizarre, and a host of other oddities that everyone sweeps under the carpet.

Yet, I've played in perfectly "believable" 3e campaigns.  Why?  Because, like a good magician, the DM's I had were able to draw my attention away from the stuff I shouldn't be looking at and focus on the stuff I should.  And that's always been the primary goal of DMing.  To keep the players engaged enough that they don't start poking holes in the tissue thin veneer of believability that exists in D&D.

Heck, look at elves.  (Note, I hate elves as a PC race, and this is why)  Unless elves are massively developmentally challenged, the rules for elves makes no sense.  An PC elf, starting out at level 1 is over 100 years old.  Yet, other than a few racial benefits, he is IDENTICAL to that 1st level 15 year old human.  Completely the same.  Unless this elf is massively retarded, he should be light years ahead of the human by this point.

This is "believable"?  Not to me it's not.  Yet, I turn a blind eye to it and get on with the game, because, well, it's D&D and D&D has elves.  I don't play them, but, I can live with it.

Looking back through this thread KM, you're basically saying that because 3e did "mundane fantasy" for 2 levels, that's support.  I'm saying that the sweet spot in D&D started at 3rd for a reason.


----------



## mmadsen (Oct 14, 2008)

Hussar said:


> "Believable setting" is entirely the job of the DM.  No amount of mechanics can help you there.



No, a believable setting is not _entirely_ the job of the DM.  "Bad" mechanics can definitely lead to a less believable settle, so "good" mechanics can definitely help you produce a more believable setting.


Hussar said:


> 3e most certainly did not make a believable setting, unless believable means you can never lose a limb, economies are entirely bizarre, and a host of other oddities that everyone sweeps under the carpet.



It looks like you've enumerated some of 3E's "bad" mechanics.

(I'm obviously using "bad" to mean "leads to a less believable setting," and "good" to mean the opposite.)


----------



## Just Another User (Oct 14, 2008)

Barastrondo said:


> The problem with mundane animals as antagonists that I've encountered is less boredom and more sympathy. My players know animals pretty well, and it's just really not much of a noble fantasy for them to beat up wolves or bears. If I had wolves or hyenas attack the party, they'd say "Holy crap, something must be really wrong for these poor critters to be acting so out of character." A bear might be more plausible, but it's still sympathetic to the players. This is only reinforced by other games we're into like Werewolf.




I fail to see how that is a problem, it sound awesome to me.

Of course it means you can't use animals to attack the party all the time but there are still a lot of mundane or simil mundane opponents your PCs can fight, like goblin, orcs, things like that (yes, I consider goblinoid "mundane") and of course all those pesky humans, but there are still occasions when you can use animals against the PCs, all you need is a reason for them to behave strangely, for example, maybe one of the weird monsters (a wyern? a chimera? Adragon, maybe) entered in their territory and drove them away, and now they are  so hungry that attack anything on sight, or maybe an evil druid is using them to purge the lands of that human scourge, or they feeling that something really weird is going to happen soon and it making them going a little crazy.
If your PCs feel simpaty, even better, they can use some non-lethal tactics, cast a fireball high above ground to scare them away, use Calm Animal, stinking cloud or things like that, that would make the fight even more interesting.


----------



## Just Another User (Oct 14, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Real life certainly doesn't work like that.  If you fight against 3:1 odds, by and large, you lose.  Badly.  ((Yes, yes, Battle of Thermopyle and all that, but, for every Thermopyle, you have a LOT more Alamo's))




But, and I think I'm not the only one here, I don't want Real Life, I want something that if I look at it from an angle and squint a little could look like real life... under the right light. I want more "normal" animals. And I don't want electirfied scorpions or fire-breathing rabbits, except maybe in some special occasion. When I meet lightinging tailed scorpions I want my- or my PCs- reaction to be "Holy s**t! Giant scorpions that shoot lightining!! " and not "Oh, Giant scorpions that shoot lightining ... again.  "


----------



## Just Another User (Oct 14, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Like I said before, it's not how fantastic (or mundane) something is, it's how well the DM portrays it. The idea that by simply limiting the number of fantasy elements in a campaign, you'll automatically increase the level of 'wonder' is ridiculous.




But the idea that you could obtain the same effect simply by increasing the number of fantasy elements is equally ridicolous.

Actually it would be worse, if you find that your campaign don't have enough fantasy elements you could find ways to add more in a still believable way (maybe they were limited to some part of the world, or some other plane) but if you add to much fantasy elements I doubt that removing them would improve things, and I can't see how could you it in a way that it don't sound forced and contrived.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 16, 2008)

But, Justanotheruser - if you want to use mundane animals in 4e what is stopping you?  Creating monsters is pretty easy.  Advancing them to be a challenge for the level of your party is fairly easy too.  

Now, the default assumption is that the monsters will be more fantastic and not so much just a bear.  But, that's just the default assumptions.  If you want mundane animals, go for it.  It should be a matter of minutes to create and use them.

KM, I think we're talking in circles.  You equate Eberron with mundane, everyman fiction.  But, Eberron draws heavily from pulp which is the complete opposite of mundane or everyman.  Conan wasn't just some guy with a sword, he was the strongest, baddest, boldest muther around, and the last decendent of Atlantis to boot.  Indiana Jones wasn't just some archeologist stumbling around in dusty places, he was an expert marksman, very knowlegeable, and drives like Mario Andretti.  He's a superhero without the spandex.  Doc Samson, Quartermain, etc are all the same - bigger, badder, smarter, tougher than everyone else around.

And they are that way right from day one.  There's no point where we see Indie growing up as a weak assed teenager into the hero of the movies.  Conan goes from being a boy to being a man in about three pages (depending on which version you choose).  Pulp heroes are most certainly not everyman heroes.

And the problem is, Everyman believable realism doesn't work in pulp stories.  When you ride that runaway rail car, you die.  When you crash into the jungle from that airship, you are a red smear on the ground.  THAT'S mundane.  Battling dinosaur riding halfling barbarians from the moving top of an elemental powered railway car is very pulp and the complete antithesis of mundane.

Me, I prefer the wahoo of pulp for D&D.  There are games where mundane works.  Warhammer Fantasy being one.  Chivalry and Sorcery being another.  D&D?  Naw, I'll stick to Conan and Indiana Jones for inspiration.


----------



## mmadsen (Oct 16, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Conan wasn't just some guy with a sword, he was the strongest, baddest, boldest muther around, and the last decendent of Atlantis to boot.  Indiana Jones wasn't just some archeologist stumbling around in dusty places, he was an expert marksman, very knowlegeable, and drives like Mario Andretti.  He's a superhero without the spandex.  Doc Samson, Quartermain, etc are all the same - bigger, badder, smarter, tougher than everyone else around.



We can agree that pulp heroes aren't everyday Joes.  (Although hardboiled protagonists might be.)  But they're certainly mundane in fantasy-RPG terms.  They aren't superheroes minus spandex -- unless by "superhero" you mean pulp-style hero with no superpowers, like Batman.


Hussar said:


> And they are that way right from day one.  There's no point where we see Indie growing up as a weak assed teenager into the hero of the movies.  Conan goes from being a boy to being a man in about three pages (depending on which version you choose).  Pulp heroes are most certainly not everyman heroes.



Agreed.  Pulp stories are rarely about the hero growing in competence.  (This is in stark contrast to much high fantasy.)


Hussar said:


> And the problem is, Everyman believable realism doesn't work in pulp stories.  When you ride that runaway rail car, you die.  When you crash into the jungle from that airship, you are a red smear on the ground.  THAT'S mundane.



No, that's not mundane so much as grim.  Real-life hobos used to jump on and off of moving train cars all the time.  They weren't superheroes.  Most of the passengers and crew on the Hindenburg survived.  (In fact, one of the fellows on board was a circus acrobat who looked down and jumped to safety; he knew he could survive the fall.)

In real life, people don't all die in a bad situation, and they aren't all incompetent.

Cortez and Pizarro each conquered an empire with a handful of men.  That's an amazing accomplishment, even compared to what most D&D characters achieve, but it was totally mundane -- and obviously perfectly realistic.


Hussar said:


> Battling dinosaur riding halfling barbarians from the moving top of an elemental powered railway car is very pulp and the complete antithesis of mundane.



That in no way resembles a Conan story, you'll note.


----------



## Desdichado (Oct 16, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Which, I believe was always my point.  If you have to massively rewrite your game to serve the game that you want to play, why not pick a game that works?



  That's not massively rewriting the game.  How is finishing the game before the PC's hit 10th level a "massive rewrite?"  D&D is like a buffet of gaming; it caters to a variety of gaming styles, depending on the choices of the DM and players.  _Every_ D&D game, no matter how long and intensive, uses only a fraction of the rules.  In my case, it was done deliberately to keep the game in a subgenre that I like.

I don't understand why you think that's a bad thing.  Presumably you're saying you'd like a game that catered specifically to your taste from "start to finish" or something like that?  I dunno; lately I don't see the need for that when everything I need is right there in the books already.  I just need to use the material that serves my purposes and not use the material that doesn't.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 17, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> We can agree that pulp heroes aren't everyday Joes.  (Although hardboiled protagonists might be.)  But they're certainly mundane in fantasy-RPG terms.  They aren't superheroes minus spandex -- unless by "superhero" you mean pulp-style hero with no superpowers, like Batman.




They are superheroes in that they are bigger, stronger, smarter, faster, whatever'er than everyone else around them.  How is that not a super hero?  Sure, they usually can't fly, but, if you're better than everyone else, you're super human.



> Agreed.  Pulp stories are rarely about the hero growing in competence.  (This is in stark contrast to much high fantasy.)




Agreed



> No, that's not mundane so much as grim.  Real-life hobos used to jump on and off of moving train cars all the time.  They weren't superheroes.  Most of the passengers and crew on the Hindenburg survived.  (In fact, one of the fellows on board was a circus acrobat who looked down and jumped to safety; he knew he could survive the fall.)




Umm, reread what I wrote.  It wasn't "slowly moving rail car" it was runaway mining car a la Indian Jones.  Slight difference.  And, while many of the crew and passengers of the Hindenburg survived, most of the crew and passengers of the Titanic didn't.  What's your point?  



> In real life, people don't all die in a bad situation, and they aren't all incompetent.
> 
> Cortez and Pizarro each conquered an empire with a handful of men.  That's an amazing accomplishment, even compared to what most D&D characters achieve, but it was totally mundane -- and obviously perfectly realistic.




In real life, people don't face life or death situations more than a few times, by and large.  Earlier in the thread I mentioned this.  Sure, you can have Agincourt, but, for every example where people beat the odds, there are many more where they didn't.  That's why we remember the survivors.  Because they are very, very lucky.


> That in no way resembles a Conan story, you'll note.




Perhaps not.  But, it does resemble John Carter pretty nicely.  Conan is not the only pulp hero.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 17, 2008)

Hobo said:


> That's not massively rewriting the game.  How is finishing the game before the PC's hit 10th level a "massive rewrite?"  D&D is like a buffet of gaming; it caters to a variety of gaming styles, depending on the choices of the DM and players.  _Every_ D&D game, no matter how long and intensive, uses only a fraction of the rules.  In my case, it was done deliberately to keep the game in a subgenre that I like.
> 
> I don't understand why you think that's a bad thing.  Presumably you're saying you'd like a game that catered specifically to your taste from "start to finish" or something like that?  I dunno; lately I don't see the need for that when everything I need is right there in the books already.  I just need to use the material that serves my purposes and not use the material that doesn't.




Before, you said 7th level, so, things are a bit shifting.  But, in any case, yes, I do consider ejecting at least 50% of the rules of a game to be a massive rewrite.  I'm not sure how you could view it any other way.  Stripping at least half of the game out is a pretty large change any way you want to look at it.

Yes, while any given game does not use a large fraction of the rules, that's true, the potential exists in a given game to use any rule.  You've cut off that potential then try to say that you haven't made any major changes?  Play styles entirely change because of the changes you've made.  PrC's are now pretty much off the table for one.  Higher level magic is off the table.  PC wealth is pretty low, so, you're not going to see more than minor magic items.  A large chunk of the monsters are off the table.  On and on.

And this is not a major shift in the game?

You argue that you get what you want with these changes.  That's fair enough.  I totally buy that.  But, don't try to pretend that you haven't made huge changes to the game.  You have.  

My point is, if you're going to make such sweeping changes, why not find a game that fits what you want better?  Obviously a level based system like 3e isn't what you want, since the level power is too high.  You obviously don't want the higher powered magic that 3e assumes as well.  

There are d20 variants that much better suit this playstyle, if you want to stay within the d20 family.  The aforementioned E6 is a good example.  

I just don't understand, with the huge number of games out there, why stick with a game that really doesn't work as written with what you want?

I guess I don't understand why anyone would want to invest money in rules that don't work for what they want.  Yes, I expect the game I play to suit my playstyle.  I don't think that's unreasonable.  3e D&D is not particularly suited to "mundane" fantasy and, IMNSHO, D&D has never really been suited to "mundane" fantasy.  Going back to 1e, by the time you hit about 6th level, you could stand toe to toe with just about any non-unique monster and expect to survive.  By 9th, the only thing that killed you was save or die.  That's not mundane to me.  When my fighter can stand in front of 20 bad guys and expect to win, that's pretty wahoo.

Just as a question, do you consider Bruce Lee movies to be mundane or fantastic?  How about Jackie Chan?


----------



## Allister (Oct 17, 2008)

If we're using Conan as an example of "mundane", it should be noted that Conan has longer been considered "extremely unlikely - multiple 18s and no stat lower than a 16" starting 1st level character...


----------



## Mallus (Oct 17, 2008)

Just Another User said:


> But the idea that you could obtain the same effect simply by increasing the number of fantasy elements is equally ridicolous.



Then it's a good thing I never suggested that, isn't it?


----------

