Dungeon Fantasy 7: Attack of the Healbots

[Phil Masters]

Originally Posted by Athanbeli

Perhaps I value usefulness differently from most other gurps customers: to be told that a cleric of fire is resistant to fire/heat and can cast create fire saves me at most 10 minutes of prep work, not weeks or months. Not to mention the fact that unholy warriors of War might be berserks.

Based on the experience of actually writing the thing... Yes, deciding especially appropriate advantages and disadvantages for a priest of X is usually a ten-minute job or so. What took a significant amount of staring at text and brain strain - the suffering-for-my-art-so-you-don't-have-to bit - was coming up with reasonably plausible, balanced-looking spell tables for each category.

[demonsbane]

Originally Posted by b-dog

And yes the idea of dungeons is absurd and silly I agree but so is the idea of a Jedi knight or Batman or any superhero but in movies where they are cast as serious they are more entertaining to me.

The idea of dungeons isn't necessarily silly. Rather it depends of your point of view.

Originally Posted by Kromm

I guess it depends on the people you gamed with! I played D&D in the late 1970s and into the 1980s. We were very much into it, and spent a lot of time and energy on gaming. I don't think we were serious about it at any point. The PCs always had silly names, the plots always had in-jokes, and it was a point of pride among those of us who DMed to have a more gonzo, outré adventure than the last DM.

My experience was different people was playing (and plays) D&D in different ways. Many groups gamed with the style you're speaking of, but I always took a more serious approach. After all, I liked D&D and the main reason for leaving it behind then was because the awful rules making almost impossible to roleplay satisfactorily and making very difficult to handle flexible situations properly from the GM point of view.

OTOH my approach to D&D and roleplaying games was through literature and art. When I saw them (and henceforth) both of them were "serious", and I always tried to make my best to port some of the qualities existent in that art to my fantasy roleplaying games.

So I confess I feel like if the DF authors were putting here a sort of "seriousness cap", almost officially banning any non-banal approach to this material. (Isn't enough to say the stuff is something like plug & play with little preparation by default?). I'm not comfortable with that, specially when other roleplaying genres and settings could deserve equally well a "silly" label . . . if it's needed to ridicule any of them, after all! (not sure I'm writing this latter phrase properly because grammar limitations)

Originally Posted by roguebfl

Reallly? Gygax's own books were hardly serious, as this image shows:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/roguebf...69371/sizes/o/

Maybe b-dog "fault" here, in his "Gygax = serious D&D" argument, is attributing all to Gygax instead mentioning there were more persons working there, including some excellent artists, whom contributed to that seriousness with their artistic approach. I never saw D&D as the work of a single person.

Originally Posted by Athanbeli

I'm still a huge fan of the DF series, which I find the products of most immediate usefulness, despite the fact that my vision of fantasy cannot be defined as DF.

Neither mine. But my vision of fantasy isn't coincident with Roma Arcana and has nothing to do with Banestorm. So GURPS Dungeon Fantasy appeals me even if I'm going to stumble with weird-funny things as Sexton’s Special Shovel and elven Technicolor hair.

Originally Posted by b-dog

(...) I think the trouble with GURPS is the fact that the writers of DF think of it as a silly genre as opposed to Gygax who truly loved it. And I can see the difference when I read the Basic Roleplaying System version of Dungeon Fantasy called Classic Fantasy; the writer of this book really loved the genre and put in interesting descriptions of the non human races, spells and so forth.

OTOH and IMHO entire descriptions of every race (and such things) are more suited for campaigns settings, and you are always asking for that, officially. Maybe I prefer the loose version of Shadow (Drow) Elves in DF 3, because I always can add further detail to them (racial traits, advantages, disadvantages), even if that alters the game balance because the character point costs. However, I don't need the "funny" lines therein even if they're very amusing to read. To me, funny isn't equal to inspirational.

Anyhow, I can see lots of effort in all GURPS Dungeon Fantasy books, including DF 7: Clerics. Maybe behind such effort there's some unacknowledged serious love . . . ;^D

[Turhan's Bey Company]

Originally Posted by demonsbane

Maybe behind such effort there's some unacknowledged serious love . . . ;^D

We wouldn't be writing this stuff if we didn't enjoy it.

I'll point out yet again that DF is not supposed to be D&D. It's a take on a genre which includes D&D as a major component and original inspiration but also a batch of other RPGs like Runequest (notable for the inclusion of sentient ducks) and Tunnels and Trolls (notable for the silliest spell names ever; anybody else remember casting "Take That You Fiend"?) and computer games like World of Warcraft. Viewing just published works in the genre, there's a non-trivial amount of visible silliness, and it gets a lot more OTT when you look at the genre as actually played.

[demonsbane]

Originally Posted by Turhan's Bey Company

I'll point out yet again that DF is not supposed to be D&D.

Well, that's right but I spoke of D&D because I was following the line started by b-dog and followed by others.

I agree concerning the over the top silliness you're talking about, but still I always liked GURPS because it usually marks a notable difference regarding lots of mass products.

And I see silliness very related to mass products.

Still, since you're speaking of computer games like World of Warcraft (I loathe things like that), why not take a look to The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion or to the just released Dragon Age: Origins? I believe straightforward standard fantasy silliness isn't easy to find there. Youtube can be an excellent resource for researching about that in the case you're not investing your time in computer games.

Anyway I'm eagerly waiting for the next DF releases, including Treasure Tables. All them look very promising!

[Athanbeli]

Originally Posted by Phil Masters

Based on the experience of actually writing the thing... Yes, deciding especially appropriate advantages and disadvantages for a priest of X is usually a ten-minute job or so. What took a significant amount of staring at text and brain strain - the suffering-for-my-art-so-you-don't-have-to bit - was coming up with reasonably plausible, balanced-looking spell tables for each category.

Ok, didn't consider that. Indeed, the exercise of compiling alternate colleges is driving me mad since the beginning of the current campaign!

One thing I forgot to make clear while expounding on my bland criticism: I always prefer new game material related to the 'Campaigns' part of the game over those that relate to 'Characters'.
Now, the DF series already numbers 5 volumes about character building, so I'm a little fed up with this.

One final word about the unholy marriage between B-Dog and Gygax: you should rather check the Moldvay modules (Castle Amber, Silver Princess Palace etc.) for an unhealthy dosage of bizarre dungeon randomness!

[b-dog]

Thanks for the Tom Modvoy modules suggestion, I will have to check them out.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by demonsbane

Still, since you're speaking of computer games like World of Warcraft (I loathe things like that), why not take a look to The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion or to the just released Dragon Age: Origins?

Actually I strongly suspect that the Diablo series was a significant source of (at least Kromm's) inspiration.

[demonsbane]

Well, he mentioned it in other threads.

[Kromm]

An incomplete list of important inspirations for me, in chronological order:

1979 to 1985 — Played and ran Tunnels and Trolls Fifth Edition.
1979 to 1986 — Played and ran AD&D First Edition, primarily in a couple of campaign worlds of my own design.
1986 to 1990 — Ran my first GURPS fantasy campaign, set on Yrth.
1987 to present — Played Rogue, NetHack, and other roguelikes.
1988 to 1992 — Played SSI's "Gold Box" AD&D games.
1990 to 1995 — Ran my second GURPS fantasy campaign, which was world-hopping.
1992 to 1993 — Played Bethesda's The Elder Scrolls: Arena.
1995 to 1996 — Played Interplay's Stonekeep.
1998 to 2002 — Played Bioware's Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate 2 (AD&D-based).
2001 to present — Played Diablo II and its expansion, Lord of Destruction.
2002 to 2007 — Played Bioware's NWN and NWN 2 (D&D-based).
2002 to 2009 — Ran my third GURPS fantasy campaign, which was set entirely in a TL2/3 world of my creation.

As you can see, D&D titles, computer games, and my own campaign worlds were my main inspirations.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Þorkell

So, how about instead of being annoyingly mysterious and weird you explain what you mean by crunchy bits?

Why doesn't Kromm explain it instead? As a term that originated in an SJ Games RPG publication, he ought to be familiar with it.