I know! What is up with Monopoly? We should make the real world like that - $400 dollar hotels. I think I'd like that set up.
Well, actually, my point in writing this article (it was a rant, so it wasn't clear) was to explain why you can't ever put realism and D&D together, or at least not traditional D&D. I've seen too many articles and other where people talk about roleplaying "realistically," especially when it comes to roleplaying a fantasy race realistically. It just isn't possible - there's nothing remotely realistic about elves and dwarves.
But there was a second purpose in writing it. See, it's my personal preference that there needs to be some realism, at least a little. If not, we lose the only frame of reference we have, and therefore can't really play the game nor understand it. High fantasy, to me, blows this out of the water. There is little or no realism in this. For instance, I'll pick a particular magic thing that really gets at me. Raising the dead. This is asking for chaos, no matter what society we're talking about. Also, from a storyline viewpoint, it's lame. I really hate it when people just trounce down to the local death regurtitator, and there's Pete the Paladin again, who died previously because he was incredibly stupid. I don't like high fantasy magic. I like magic that makes some semblance of sense, that keeps things interesting. I really hate the "magic as technology" stance, because it ruins what makes magic special. It's just like having guns in the stone age now. Magic should be costly (and I don't mean gold-wise), it should be limited, and it should be somewhat realistic. Yes, this means spellcasters are few and far between. Good! That makes them important. If there were a whole bunch of people wandering around crossing the ocean on dry ground, nobody would care about Moses. The best magic is magic that relies on the environment, and doesn't break all the rules of physics and everything else, but uses them. Ever read the Alvin Maker series by Orson Scott Card? I love those books and one of the best things about them is that magic is realistic. This doesn't mean it's not powerful - it just takes intelligence and forethought to use.
A compelling game requires at least some realism. If the players aren't afraid of dying because Timmy can come back, then either they aren't afraid of anything and act recklessly, or you have to throw soul-sucking monsters at them always, to keep them concerned about their characters. A game that really makes players sit and think and really consider what's going on - that's good stuff. A game where players will actually think about the campaign as well as their character, in particularly the evolution of the character as the campaign progresses, when they're not at the table - that's good stuff. That's what I'm working for. D&D does not usually facilitate that. In fact, in many ways, it's anti-that. The whole thing behind D&D is cathartic monster-bashing. Sure, you as GM, can and should make things different, but the setting should facilitate it. And it doesn't.
Now, don't get me wrong here. I'm not a D&D hater. I love the game, and play it often (like last night for instance), but there are some major things about it that gripe me. That's all I'm trying to say here. If you gave me an option between low fantasy and high fantasy, I will pick low every time. Low is better. It inherantly facilitates roleplay, it makes things more challeging, more personal, more interesting. Low are some of the best settings there are.
Case in point - Lord of the Rings is low fantasy. There's some magic, yes, but the biggest, baddest thing Gandalf does with his magic is create a big light ray to scare off Nazgul. He doesn't drop fireballs on the armies of orcs coming for them. His magic is low magic, but it's still powerful. Without Gandalf, they would've lost. Lord of the Rings is low fantasy, yet it is still considered the best fantasy out there.
I know all about the origins of D&D, about the "contract" I entered into, about all of that. But what I'm asking for is a more interesting game, not the same old high fantasy bullcrap that spawns so much bad literature you could drown mankind with it (not to mention the paper cuts). I want to see a fantasy world that really should be the way it is. I want to play in such a world. So many GMs complain about munchkins. Well, low fantasy basically nips that in the bud. I want magic that makes sense, magic that doesn't break the laws, but magic that uses them to achieve a greater purpose. That's cool stuff. It requires intelligent, alert, thoughtful players. No more magic swords +18. I'm sick of that. It's dumb, has no meaning, and encourages people to find loopholes in the rules and abuse them to no end. Low magic is the best fantasy setting, hands down.
As for chess, I think the way the knight moves makes sense - he's all faster than everybody else, and I think he moves that way to reflect the flanking that calvary were commonly used for. Of course, we could go Advanced Chess, but then that might lead to some wierd hybrid roleplaying chess. "My knight gains a level!" I think we should keep it as is.
I know! What is up with Monopoly? We should make the real world like that - $400 dollar hotels. I think I'd like that set up.
Well, actually, my point in writing this article (it was a rant, so it wasn't clear) was to explain why you can't ever put realism and D&D together, or at least not traditional D&D. I've seen too many articles and other where people talk about roleplaying "realistically," especially when it comes to roleplaying a fantasy race realistically. It just isn't possible - there's nothing remotely realistic about elves and dwarves.
But there was a second purpose in writing it. See, it's my personal preference that there needs to be some realism, at least a little. If not, we lose the only frame of reference we have, and therefore can't really play the game nor understand it. High fantasy, to me, blows this out of the water. There is little or no realism in this. For instance, I'll pick a particular magic thing that really gets at me. Raising the dead. This is asking for chaos, no matter what society we're talking about. Also, from a storyline viewpoint, it's lame. I really hate it when people just trounce down to the local death regurtitator, and there's Pete the Paladin again, who died previously because he was incredibly stupid. I don't like high fantasy magic. I like magic that makes some semblance of sense, that keeps things interesting. I really hate the "magic as technology" stance, because it ruins what makes magic special. It's just like having guns in the stone age now. Magic should be costly (and I don't mean gold-wise), it should be limited, and it should be somewhat realistic. Yes, this means spellcasters are few and far between. Good! That makes them important. If there were a whole bunch of people wandering around crossing the ocean on dry ground, nobody would care about Moses. The best magic is magic that relies on the environment, and doesn't break all the rules of physics and everything else, but uses them. Ever read the Alvin Maker series by Orson Scott Card? I love those books and one of the best things about them is that magic is realistic. This doesn't mean it's not powerful - it just takes intelligence and forethought to use.
A compelling game requires at least some realism. If the players aren't afraid of dying because Timmy can come back, then either they aren't afraid of anything and act recklessly, or you have to throw soul-sucking monsters at them always, to keep them concerned about their characters. A game that really makes players sit and think and really consider what's going on - that's good stuff. A game where players will actually think about the campaign as well as their character, in particularly the evolution of the character as the campaign progresses, when they're not at the table - that's good stuff. That's what I'm working for. D&D does not usually facilitate that. In fact, in many ways, it's anti-that. The whole thing behind D&D is cathartic monster-bashing. Sure, you as GM, can and should make things different, but the setting should facilitate it. And it doesn't.
Now, don't get me wrong here. I'm not a D&D hater. I love the game, and play it often (like last night for instance), but there are some major things about it that gripe me. That's all I'm trying to say here. If you gave me an option between low fantasy and high fantasy, I will pick low every time. Low is better. It inherantly facilitates roleplay, it makes things more challeging, more personal, more interesting. Low are some of the best settings there are.
Case in point - Lord of the Rings is low fantasy. There's some magic, yes, but the biggest, baddest thing Gandalf does with his magic is create a big light ray to scare off Nazgul. He doesn't drop fireballs on the armies of orcs coming for them. His magic is low magic, but it's still powerful. Without Gandalf, they would've lost. Lord of the Rings is low fantasy, yet it is still considered the best fantasy out there.
I know all about the origins of D&D, about the "contract" I entered into, about all of that. But what I'm asking for is a more interesting game, not the same old high fantasy bullcrap that spawns so much bad literature you could drown mankind with it (not to mention the paper cuts). I want to see a fantasy world that really should be the way it is. I want to play in such a world. So many GMs complain about munchkins. Well, low fantasy basically nips that in the bud. I want magic that makes sense, magic that doesn't break the laws, but magic that uses them to achieve a greater purpose. That's cool stuff. It requires intelligent, alert, thoughtful players. No more magic swords +18. I'm sick of that. It's dumb, has no meaning, and encourages people to find loopholes in the rules and abuse them to no end. Low magic is the best fantasy setting, hands down.
As for chess, I think the way the knight moves makes sense - he's all faster than everybody else, and I think he moves that way to reflect the flanking that calvary were commonly used for. Of course, we could go Advanced Chess, but then that might lead to some wierd hybrid roleplaying chess. "My knight gains a level!" I think we should keep it as is.
But we should definitely change Monopoly. ;)