DF in Yrth

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by wellspring

I think gesturing vaguely towards an elaborate, well thought-out, and rich setting that you then proceed to completely ignore is VERY much in line with the style of play that DF caters to.

In that case there really isn't anything to say about it. If you are just using a setting for set dressing and completely ignoring any contradictions, then the answer to both of the OP's questions is "Doesn't matter."

[Kalzazz]

Can't various Saints potentially fill deific type roles?

And this made me very much think of the 1st Ed Joy of Cooking

http://d28hgpri8am2if.cloudfront.net...4833583_hr.jpg

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Kalzazz

Can't various Saints potentially fill deific type roles?

Devotional powers work a little differently in Yrth, but allowing saints and warrior saints is, IMO, not too far from that, as long as you preserve the mystery.

I don't see why "wizards can learn any spell" is really all that disruptive to Dungeon Fantasy though.

[Kalzazz]

Well, I was actually thinking 'Instead of a Cleric of the Deity of Cooking have a Cleric of the One God focused on the Saint of Cooking"

That way you still have all those fun DF 7 specialist clerics

[corwyn]

Originally Posted by wellspring

I think gesturing vaguely towards an elaborate, well thought-out, and rich setting that you then proceed to completely ignore is VERY much in line with the style of play that DF caters to.

And as for the clerics, etc., how many times has a setting for That Other Game been subjected to an awkward metaplot twist or total retcon to justify new character classes appearing in a setting where they hadn't been before.


IMO if you're doing a beer and pretzels dungeon crawl, those kinds of flagrant crimes against setting integrity are part of the appeal.

That's not really my experience. The 800 lb gorilla in gaming, let alone DF, is obviously D&D (and I've never understood why some people keep referring to it as "that other game". To my knowledge, the moderators have never come down on anyone for mentioning any game in legitimate discussion, only if engaging in company/system warring.).

Anyway, I've played in and run many games in the Forgotten Realms, both using D&D and other systems, this one included, and never run into a game that ignored the background details and many made great use of them. Yeah, the events used to justify new edition mechanics are a little silly but I find the setting pretty rich and mostly well thought out. It may not be as sophisticated as Yrth but it's rich and flavourful in its own way.

The rest of their settings are the same way with respect to using the background.There is a wealth of rich setting material for Dark Sun, Krynn, and others that doesn't get ignored in the games that I've played.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Kalzazz

Well, I was actually thinking 'Instead of a Cleric of the Deity of Cooking have a Cleric of the One God focused on the Saint of Cooking"

That way you still have all those fun DF 7 specialist clerics

For me, the issue is more with demonstratively active deities and divine spell-casting in the first place, not with having specialized domains.

Again though, what exactly does adding Clerical Investment to the wizard and scholar advantage lists, and not restricting the spell list actually break?

[simply Nathan]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I don't see why "wizards can learn any spell" is really all that disruptive to Dungeon Fantasy though.

Neither do I and I never have. In fact, being able to learn healing spells as wizardly spells was one of the big draws for me in being persuaded to try GURPS. And the DF mode of play is basically all I want to do on tabletop.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by corwyn

... I've played in and run many games in the Forgotten Realms, both using D&D and other systems, this one included, and never run into a game that ignored the background details and many made great use of them.

That's because DF is meant to emulate "Old School" D&D*. You weren't playing Old School, you were roleplaying**.




* Or as I call it "Orc and Pie".

* Shots fired! Shots fired!

[corwyn]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

That's because DF is meant to emulate "Old School" D&D*. You weren't playing Old School, you were roleplaying**.




* Or as I call it "Orc and Pie".

* Shots fired! Shots fired!

Shots Fired is right. I call BS. It's the same we played AD&D 1e. Is that seriously not "old school D&D? I guess I am really not in the right genre. Do you seriously think that the majority of DF games are simply "Kick down doors, kill monsters, take their stuff, rinse and repeat, towns are just a place to sell loot and buy gear"?

I'm not being facetious here; I'm genuinely curious. I started playing in '81 and we never played that way; well no game I stayed in for more than one session. There were always games that played the way I liked to play so, at least by the 80s, there was more than one way to play.

And as I've said many times, all of those games, the fantasy ones at least, can be remade with DF. The actual content is a lot more sophisticated than the market hype implies.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by corwyn

Do you seriously think that the majority of DF games are simply "Kick down doors, kill monsters, take their stuff, rinse and repeat, towns are just a place to sell loot and buy gear"?

I think you're conflating two things, one a broad description, one a narrow description:

Broad Definition: Fantasy RPGS
Narrow: DF as described by the GURPS series Dungeon Fantasy.


The former encapsulates the later, as well as the games you played, and I played, and probably everyone else played (whether you or I would recognize them as "the way we played back then").

The later is meant to be a "beer and pretzels", light game, dungeon delving, Murder Hobo-a-thon, "Orc and Pie", "Old School" fantasy game.

Does it have to be? No. Is that the default setting on the dial? Yes.



Note, in my many years I've encountered pretty much 2 definitions of "Old School":

1 - Playing using the rules we used back then.
2 - Playing using the spirit of the game we enjoyed back then.


Many in the OSR revolution blend the two to varying degrees, but most attempts are ones to capture the "easy to play, easy to get into, light setting, minimal setting depth" gameplay.

To me... the way I played then is the way I play now. Strong depth of setting. Deep character motivations and connections. No/minimal "dungeon delving as a career for the PCs". Etc. So I've never gotten into the OSR movement, it's just not for me.