Quote from: EngineTake the "archetypal character" sort of traditional discussed recently. Is there a great deal of value to be had out of playing standard fantasy archetypes, the disowned ranger, the bearded wizard, the halfling thief, ad nauseum? What sort of game do you get out of this, and why do you enjoy it so much?

The advantage is there's a shared language there. Yeah, the archetypes you list are standard, and that means not one single second has to be wasted trying to define what your character is. That's an advantage, I think, since I think traditional gaming is more about what the characters do and defining who they are that way, than caring about who they were before the game started.

Quote from: EngineTo me, a game full of dungeon crawls and monster-slaying is personally uninteresting

I hate that a lot of the old modules were set up the way they were, because they seem to have defined the entirety of what D&D was... on a selective basis.

I do believe they were designed to be dropped into ongoing campaigns, and were never supposed to be "OK this module's finished, I just got this new module and we'll play that one next week, OK?"

Sure, you've got things like the Slavers series, but those were originally tournament adventures. (in fact, aren't the tournament adventures the only examples of pure dungeon crawl from the "old school" TSR stuff? On the Advanced side at least?)

Take the Giants series. You can't just go in there, kick doors down, and kill what's behind them. You're dead meat, really quick, if you do that. And by the time you get to D1, that's a completely different beast altogether. And getting to D3... that's not a dungeon bash at all.

Take the archetypal beginning modules - Village of Hommlet and Keep on the Borderlands. There's a reason that the "home base" takes up so many of the pages of those modules. Lots of intrigue and role-playing to be had that greatly influences what happens in the dungeon. Sure, Keep requires a ton more customization (feature, not bug), but to me that's a better example of how a campaign should be set up.

(hhmmm, is it a good thing Gygax never got his grand Castle Greyhawk in print? naaah, but it wouldn't have helped what I'm talking about here.)

And take a look at the DMG and all the rules in there that almost nobody ever uses. All that hireling and sage and naval combat and NPC personality stuff and intelligent swords and relics and... there was much more to be done that what most people did.

Traditional fantasy is an enjoyable genre for many (including myself), in the same manner that hard science fiction is enjoyable for others. I don't know if I'd use the term desirable. It's desirable for me, but might not be for others.

To me the term "traditional" doesn't implicitly have a value connotation attached to it, more of a historical descriptor. Being traditional may or may not be good depending on your viewpoint.

I personally think there is a great value in being able to play traditional archetypes. They come with a degree of familiarity that helps people ease into the game. Oftentimes when I pick up a new game or system as a player, I stick with a common archetype. Later on, as I become more familiar with the system and setting, I'll expand my horizons and come up with a more original concept.

I don't have much use for the style of play that simply involved killing monsters, avoiding traps and acquiring treasure. I don't equate that type of play with the term traditional either. My favorite early campaigns always involved plot, intrigue and a good deal of interaction. These early and enjoyable campaigns form my view of traditional fantasy roleplaying. Character development, story and personality played a much bigger role than character optimization.

I guess my main points are:
- Traditional as a genre can come with a desirable degree of familiarity for some.
- Traditional doesn't necessarily imply a positive value for me.
- Traditional doesn't equate to 1st-edition dungeon crawls in my opinion.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadI don't think "vancian magic" (and I use the term loosely, as D&D magic resembles zelazny more than vance these day) is a meaningful distinction by which to conclude that D&D does not or cannot replicate traditional fantasy.

WTF? Have you lost your marbles? ((EDIT: Ok, maybe that's a bit over the top there :keke:  ))  It is an entirely meaningful distinction, if not the primary one. 'Magic' (AKA supernatural) is what defines Fantasy as a genre. Specifics and generalities of the magic of a setting is also a major distinction within the overall genre.

QuoteSome fantasy has very explicit rules about how magic operates, and invariably most of those won't match D&D.

Do any match D&D? So off you go to kit-bash (see below).

QuoteBut would it be out of place in a novel or story? No, I don't really think so.

Well I suppose they fit in Dragonlance (with some colour to patch things up). :rolleyes: But other that, nah. And really that's why you have RPGPundit yacking about . Because D&D went off and created a new stream of magic that wasn't really that much like others that had gone before it. Except Pundit is ignoring that the hard break was at the genisis of D&D and it never really included the tools .

Of course there-in is the key. Kit-bashing with AD&D was pretty much all trash-bin and bash, dick-all kit.

QuoteI think enough are suitably vague about how magic operates that even if D&D style magic was at work, you'd never know it.

If anything D20 has shown over and over that D&D's magic is a pretty damn poor core to capture flavour of different fantasy settings, and that's when it's actually been written with the intent of trying to be a generic system. The task in AD&D was, as Engine put it, horrific.

P.S. Subtle magic and D&D? Umm, yeah.

Quote from: David RI don't really dig trad fantasy all that much - don't get me started on elves & dwarves

I'm a card carry member of the Elf Hater's Local 666.  I'd never enjoyed having elves in a game. Shadowrun came close, if not tolerable if you toss out the handful (but quickly multiplying) canon Immortal Elves.

That is until recently. I had a player start playing a mechinically very Tolkienesque Elf. He initially wanted to do it effectively as a 'ninja elf' with his r33t sneaky magic powers. But I held the line and got him to dig deeper, and he surprised me with the first take on elves I'm cool with, and I've been playing off it with the other elves in the setting. He's a xenophobic, elitist, clanish bastard with a bit of a hot-head (to things that later, on reflection, cause him to grieve) . He makes decisions that, for me, really strike the right chord of what a nigh immortal would. For example he has this brother that's a slaver, of all races if the price is right, that sold the rest of his own family into slavery. The PC, with the help of the other PCs, captured the brother. There was also a couple of other elves that they freed that were slaves in transport at the time. The PC was faced with dishing out a capital punishment vengence that he so desperately wanted yet if he had killed his brother he would have become an outcast, a "Slayer" of his own kin. Destined to walk the forests alone, never returning home and certainly not passing into the West when his Grief overtook him.

The other PCs, being humans, would have simply been hunted for the rest of thier lives by all elves. No big deal for an elf to snuff a "savage" for killing an elf, no matter the orignal crime. In fact it's the right thing to do.

Quote from: DwightWTF? Have you lost your marbles?

Here comes Dwight to shit on my post. What a fucking surprise.

NOT.

Just because you have some hyper-sensitivity about the particulars of a magic system doesn't make it meaningful in any larger sense. Even in those cases where the magic system is well defined enough in a novel to obey a well known set of laws spelled out by the author (again, far from universal), does that fact that novel A's magic system not match novel B's mean that one or the other fails to be "traditional fantasy"?

NO.

So neither is it meaningful to pick some facet that varies wildly from novel to novel and decide that D&D's particular system somehow is "not traditional".

Quote from: Caesar SlaadHere comes Dwight to shit on my post. What a fucking surprise.

NOT.

Hey, I put in an edit. About the time you were posting this response.  

But sure, go ahead ignore the entirely valid points in my post if you like. :rolleyes:  Fantasy is magic is Fantasy.

Quote from: DwightBut sure, go ahead ignore the entirely valid points in my post if you like. :rolleyes:

I was too busy firing of my pissed off quick reply to your characteristically infantile post initially, but I went back and added a refutation for your fluffy-headed supposed "valid points".

QuoteFantasy is magic is Fantasy.

Right... so how does D&D fail to fit "magic" for this theorem?

QuoteRight... so how does D&D fail to fit "magic" for this theorem?

Well if you'd fininshed reading the post.  It's got 'magic', it just generally sucks trying to use it for anything other than D&D-world. D&D-world not being particularly "traditional" (please take this up with others). You can paint some lips on it in a few ways. Say you are doing Faustian magic with spirits for your spell slots. But it's still pretty brutal, and not overly flexible. I could very well live with tossing the spells and all (although they are what, a 1/3 of the PHB of the book or more?) and along with it I guess the magic casting classes but plugging something new in is akin to building and putting a new tube and circuit board into your TV. A hell of a lot of work compared to just going and getting a new TV, and mind that fly-back circuit.

In some cases more like putting a new V8 motor in your TV cabinet to give you a new car.

Quote from: DwightWell if you'd fininshed reading the post.  It's got 'magic', it just generally sucks trying to use it for anything other than D&D-world. D&D-world not being particularly "traditional" (please take this up with others). You can paint some lips on it in a few ways. Say you are doing Faustian magic with spirits for your spell slots. But it's still pretty brutal, and not overly flexible.

And? Are you saying that the (very broad) body of work that is fantasy fails to include any worlds that fit the default tone on D&D magic? Or are you just "jerrymandering" your definition of traditional fantasy to exclude those worlds?

And then you set out to prove your example with a SPECIFIC example. The argument here isn't "can D&D do Faustian fantasy out of the box". Were that the argument, I wouldn't be arguing.

With a bunch of work (and a lot of experience and skill of the few) you can do Faustian magic in an Egdar Suit. A grotesque paradoy of the 'real deal', and even then only a slice of that.

I agree with Caesar.

The important thing is that D&D has magic-users in it that cast fantastic spells - including the ability to use wands/staves/rods/scrolls.  The exact mechanics of how the magic system works is irrelevant.

D&D uses explicitly-learned spells.  That fits the way a lot of the literature works.  But some use more free-form magic.  Would one system be more "traditional" than the other?

As for how often magic can be used, or what the limits of the effects are, most books tend to treat magic the same way that comics treat super powers - they can do whatever it takes to propel the plot forward in the way the author wants.  Heck, Vance is one of the few who bothered to explain why wizards didn't cast spells constantly - no explanation at all is given for why Gandalf is a sorcerer supreme yet barely casts anything.

Obviously, any game needs to use a factor to limit magic to balance things out.  Does it really matter if the limit is based on spell points, spells per day, or some other method of fatigue/limit?

Once upon a time I came upon a question:  "Why not move away from Plain Vanilla fantasy?"

My answer was, "Because I'm not done doing everything I can with it."

Quote from: jgantsObviously, any game needs to use a factor to limit magic to balance things out.  Does it really matter if the limit is based on spell points, spells per day, or some other method of fatigue/limit?

It certainly does if you actually give a damn about the tone of what setting you are in. Or having "spells" at all in the sense that D&D defines them for that matter.  If you don't give a damn about the tone then of course you don't give a damn about whether or not it follows "traditional" fantasy. Which certainly would make you a poor judge in that matter of whether it follows traditional fantasy or not.


Why did I go "marbles" on Casear? Because he seems to have forgotten what the defining feature of Fantasy is, and usually the distinction between items in the category. Apparently you have as well?

Quote from: DwightIt certainly does if you actually give a damn about the tone of what setting you are in. Or having "spells" at all in the sense that D&D defines them for that matter.  If you don't give a damn about the tone then of course you don't give a damn about whether or not it follows "traditional" fantasy. Which certainly would make you a poor judge in that matter of whether it follows traditional fantasy or not.


Why did I go "marbles" on Casear? Because he seems to have forgotten what the defining feature of Fantasy is, and usually the distinction between items in the category. Apparently you have as well?

The defining feature, as I see it, is that fantasy has people able to cast magic.

How they cast magic and how often they cast magic isn't as important, IMO, as the various literature and other media of traditional fantasy vary widely on this point.  Obviously the tone of magic should be light and fantastical (as opposed to dark, grim voodoo-type magic for example), but I believe D&D easily fits that description.

You, apparently, have a different opinion.  What is it that defines "traditional fantasy" magic in your opinion?  I am interested in what you consider the defining characteristics of traditional magic to be, particularly in what you think is fairly universal across different authors (since I'm not seeing that).

Quote from: jgantsThe defining feature, as I see it, is that fantasy has people able to cast magic.

"Casting" is just a slice.  There are matters of being magic and such.

QuoteHow they cast magic and how often they cast magic isn't as important, IMO, as the various literature and other media of traditional fantasy vary widely on this point.[/u]

B-I-N-G-O!!!  And none of it really even intersects with D&D, which remains quite inflexible.

Quote]Obviously the tone of magic should be light and fantastical (as opposed to dark, grim voodoo-type magic for example)

WTF? Why?