[DF] Beyond the Dungeon

[robertsconley]

And lest people forget the dungeon is just a maze with rooms stacked in multiple levels. What goes in those rooms is completely up to the referee. In the hands of one person it could be a utterly serious epic quest, in the hands of another a gonzo romp through Wonderland. The dungeon has the virtue of being simple to explain and very flexible at the same time.

[demonsbane]

Originally Posted by robertsconley

The dungeon has the virtue of being simple to explain and very flexible at the same time.

It is also a hugely broad concept.

[Nymdok]

Originally Posted by demonsbane

I agree that it can be interesting to answer to points like the ones you're mentioning.

Although for one I think most of these things are better fleshed-out in particular campaigns, and the aforementioned label shouldn't discourage from doing it.

Its easier to employ the 'These [X's] are different' trope if you have a standard by which to differentiate.

Originally Posted by robertsconley

And also to be clear it perfectly fine if you find the whole think silly and are unable to take it seriously. But realize some are able to take it seriously and for good reason. At this level it is a matter of personal taste and while we can talk generalizations, it is useless to try to extrapolate from that down to individual gamers. The only thing that consistently works is to talk to your players and learn what they are interested in. Then plan accordingly.

Originally Posted by robertsconley

And lest people forget the dungeon is just a maze with rooms stacked in multiple levels. What goes in those rooms is completely up to the referee. In the hands of one person it could be a utterly serious epic quest, in the hands of another a gonzo romp through Wonderland. The dungeon has the virtue of being simple to explain and very flexible at the same time.

As to the 'tone' of DF, I think thats fairly broad among the authors. I know theres been alot said in this thread about it, but try not to take such things personally.

For cross genre comparison, people are going to point at Star Trek, Star Wars, BSG, Firefly and might call them 'silly' or 'immature' or 'implausible' or 'sexist' or 'racist' or a host of other things*. Dont let this slow you down or change your game in the slightest.

The fact that Star Trek might be percieved as 'silly' by some for FTL travel, subspace, all absorbing Federation, Kirks Romancing Aliens, etc etc etc doesnt mean that show didnt do GREAT things and have wonderful social impact AND commentary in a serious and tangible way. Similar things can be said about Star Wars, BSG yadda yadda yadda yadda.

Have your fun. Tell Epic stories. Tell high minded allegories of the Gulf of Tonkin if you like, all the while having pointy eared people drink Tang in square glasses. When people tell you how 'silly' or 'unbelievable' it is, disregard. You know your table, you know your players, you know your story and you and your players get the message and intent. Thats all that really matters. Can you do that in DF? Of COURSE you can.

You know it might be worthwhile to have a thread devoted to this topic.

Play on and have fun.
Nymdok

*Indeed, pick virtually any slice of culture, take it to Tumblr and wait 10 seconds. Someone will be triggered and launch into a long diatribe about how its a slice of human evil.

[demonsbane]

Originally Posted by Nymdok

Its easier to employ the 'These [X's] are different' trope if you have a standard by which to differentiate.

Yeah, I acknowledge that would be one of the advantages of it.

As to the 'tone' of DF (. . .) Dont let this slow you down or change your game in the slightest.

Thanks for your words of encouragement. I understand what you mean, however when it's the opinion and the public statements of the main author, whether we like or not it has more weight than in other cases, and even ignoring it, filters meaningfully the perception of the roleplaying game in question to the point of making difficult to talk about it or its subjects without triggering the discouraging reaction that Gnome has mentioned.

Have your fun. Tell Epic stories. Tell high minded allegories of the Gulf of Tonkin if you like, all the while having pointy eared people drink Tang in square glasses.

Allow me please an annotation here, nothing more than a brief try of clarification, cutting to the chase and discarding distracting nuances: when earlier I mentioned here symbols and anagogy, that is very different of allegory and metaphor —the latter, being comparisons between things of the same ontological order (usually this world, or this universe), doesn't need symbols actually; they don't aim to higher meanings beyond the "ordinary". For instance, and again related to escapism, also for those thinking it's a meaningless difference, Tolkien had interest in symbols (the Middle Earth is a great compendium of them), but disliked allegory.

Since contemporary thought (I also mentioned it), which is monistic, doesn't acknowledge but a single order of reality, it routinely folds and squashes anagogy, analogy and symbol into metaphor and allegory, like if they were synonymous even if they aren't. Incidentally, fantasy notions, which commonly are also symbols, have an unsurpassable potential for anagogy.

Edit: here is a small example of it with Holy Warriors and Fallen Angels from the Dungeon Fantasy Roleplaying Game Discussion Thread.

[Nymdok]

Originally Posted by demonsbane

Thanks for your words of encouragement. I understand what you mean, however when it's the opinion and the public statements of the main author, whether we like or not it has more weight than in other cases, and even ignoring it, filters meaningfully the perception of the roleplaying game in question to the point of making difficult to talk about it or its subjects without triggering the discouraging reaction that Gnome has mentioned.

Even the mighty Kromm, long may He Edit, is powerless in the face of rule Zero. Play the game you (and your players) want and know that as long as you and your players are having fun, you very likely do so with Kromm's full blessing.

The 'discouraging reaction' is also irrelevant to you. Gnome (and others) have agreed with you. There are as many ways to play this game as there are people that play it and there are those for whom DF means something different. Dont for a minute think that the opinions of the vocal members of these fora are reflected in the larger population of GURPS players, its writers, or the RPG industry as a whole. They are people with opinions (different from yours) who are sharing with you how they see and play the game. Do with that information as you see fit.

Speak (type) your piece and be heard here, others of like mind will find you.

Originally Posted by demonsbane

Allow me please an annotation here...

The differences between such things and how they apply to DF, GURPS, RPGs or stories in general would be a great topic.....for another thread I think :)
I only brought it up because it was a socialy relevant, serious, epsiode of Star Trek (The Enterprise Incident). Just an example of something arguably 'silly' doing a great job doing something 'serious'.

Nymdok

[Anders]

I think we may have a breakdown of communications here. "Silly", in GURPS parlance, does not necessarily mean "ridiculous". It has more to do with it not being realistic. And whatever else High Fantasy may be, it's not realistic (at least not the physics of it - it can be psychologically realistic).

[demonsbane]

Originally Posted by Anders

I think we may have a breakdown of communications here (. . .)

Well, not really. I know that take, which was originated in another discussion (by forumnites thinking of sci-fi as "realistic"), and already answered to it above. If that were actually the case, "silly" would be applicable to most roleplaying genres, and not specially to DF, like certain people wants to do.

(. . .) it can be psychologically realistic

If by chance in any degree that nuance is related to something I've said about symbols or anagogy, I hadn't in mind psychologism, and indeed I have to reject it when it's about such matters.

Edit: otherwise "silly" in "GURPS parlance" has nothing in particular, and it's rejected as a debasing adjective even when it's about humour:

Originally Posted by Phil Masters

I'm not sure that I want to call the Discworld "silly". Funny, definitely, but [. . .] there's an underlying logic to it.

[Nemoricus]

Originally Posted by Anders

I think we may have a breakdown of communications here. "Silly", in GURPS parlance, does not necessarily mean "ridiculous". It has more to do with it not being realistic. And whatever else High Fantasy may be, it's not realistic (at least not the physics of it - it can be psychologically realistic).

I'd argue that "realism" or the lack thereof isn't the point. It's rigor, or as many people put it, verisimilitude. GURPS supplements are generally carefully thought out, with the implications of the setting explored in detail. Dungeon Fantasy focuses instead on the genre conventions, with the setting implications ignored except to the point where they impact play.

[demonsbane]

Originally Posted by Nemoricus

I'd argue that "realism" or the lack thereof isn't the point. It's rigor, or as many people put it, verisimilitude.

I believe that it's interesting to add to it that Dungeon Fantasy, it being in most part a set of pseudo-medieval symbols in play, can have a strong degree of fabulisimilitude —a word also originated in these forums, I think.

While ignoring certain implications may match with game design concerns like simplifying things, there are zones in ancient myth, fairy tales and related fantasy in which the usual and rationalistic verisimilitude falls into a second plane, and some abstractions that DF does provide space for it.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by demonsbane

Well, not really. I know that take, which was originated in another discussion (by forumnites thinking of sci-fi as "realistic"), and already answered to it above. If that were actually the case, "silly" would be applicable to most roleplaying genres, and not specially to DF, like certain people wants to do.

It does apply to most adventure fiction including most roleplaying games and not specifically to dungeon delving games; as I pointed out upthread the introduction to GURPS Action 1: Heroes has nearly the same wording as the introduction to Adventurers.