D&D is it's own thing

One thing I've noticed is some people advocating D&D resemble various fantasy novels etc... more closely.  The reality is that D&D established it's own mileu with all it's own tropes.  It is at least as popular as any novel or any movie when it comes to the collective consciousness of the fantasy world.  At least the fantasy roleplaying world for sure.

I'm all for flexibility and additional play options so I'm not saying this to limit playstyles.  You know me I'm for as many as we can have.  But I think it is wrong to act like 30 years of games, novels, etc.. is not it's own thing.  It doesn't have to answer to any other fantasy tradition.   It is a fantasy tradition.

This is one reason why some of the 4e reaction was so strong.  Not that 4e introduced some new ideas which is fine.  It's just that it abandoned so many that D&D had established.  If I understand correctly 5e is going to bring back some of this lost magic.  It is not though going to limit itself to just the past.  I believe both 4e and totally new things are going to be included as well.

I guess my point is that it is silly to argue that D&D should follow some other fantasy concept.  It is a tremendously big concept as it is.  Bigger than any novel or movie. 

Here is a great blog by themormegil that explains why we had an edition war. narrativism vs simulationism

 HoBby Award Winner metagame dissonance (plot coupon)

dissociative mechanics (same as my own metagame dissonance. A great article.)

The Five Minute Workday Fallacy

My view on hit points

Interesting post, Emerikol.

One thing that makes the feel of D&D for me is the lore.  Fights like Vecna vs. Kas for instance or Corellon vs. Gruumsh.  The Dawn War (between the deities and primordials) of 4e.  Locales like the Tomb of Horrors or the Isle of Dread.  That's D&D doing its own thing.    

I tend to think of of 4e as D&D 're-imagined' and of 3e and earlier as 'classic'.  There's the possibility of a disconnect (as far as lore is concerned) I think.  That minor bit aside though, D&D is a world of fantasy unique from all others.
/\ Art
Yeah I hate the names of spells in Pathfinder.  I know they can't use the real names but give me Bigby, Mordenkainen, Melf, and Tensor any day to Mage's this or Mage's that.

I do think that 4e worldwise did some awesome things.  

I love the feywild and in fact had created that concept in D&D for my campaign prior to 4e.  I like the parallel universe thing.  The only thing I did was add another race of evil elves that come from the feywild.  So in addition to the Drow there is another evil race.  I enjoyed Monte's Beyond Countless Doorways as well.  In the future, I'm going to have a solar system of planes with gates between the various "planets"  Otherwise only dragons can fly between.  (No spelljammer ).

I like the new universe better than the great wheel.  I don't necessarily like that they changed alignment and got rid of Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil.  But I play alignment very lightly in my games from a character perspective.  I do like the new planar concepts.   I love the shadowfell but not the raven queen.



 
When we first started playing D&D, we grouped the fantasy genre together.  There really was no separation between D&D and novels/movies.  Our imagination was a sponge and we absorbed everything that we could.

It did not take long, however, to recognize what D&D really had to offer and that we could impact our own universe better than any novel could.  It didn't mean we didn't take in the other media, we were just able to separate it.  Novels became sources of inspiration at times, but our universe was certainly on its own.

4E really did empower empower the player, but especially the DM.  Between its elegance and how streamlined it was, it really allowed me to focus on the story and interesting encounters.  Once I untapped how skill challenges should be run, it really brought the game to another level.

All of the D&D-specific lore and supplements were just fuel for the fire.  It's always been fun to take various odds and ends from those supplements and modules, inject my flavor into them, and infuse them into my campaigns.  The Shadowfell provides some outstanding material, as does Dungeon Delve, Open Grave (I LOVE undead) and Neverwinter Campaign Setting, regardless of the edition you play.

Celebrate our differences.

One thing I've noticed is some people advocating D&D resemble various fantasy novels etc... more closely.  The reality is that D&D established it's own mileu with all it's own tropes.  It is at least as popular as any novel or any movie when it comes to the collective consciousness of the fantasy world.  At least the fantasy roleplaying world for sure.


With respect to certain established settings, I agree (Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk (which I've never played in), Dragonlance, etc).  However, the traditional tropes of D&D are often out of bounds even in some established D&D settings (e.g. Dark Sun, Eberron, Ravenloft, etc).  The ability to mimic any fantasy setting and to accomodate any playstyle will be the ultimate strength of the game.  The inability to mimic fantasy settings outside the traditional tropes will keep the game mired in tradition not because it's what's wanted but because that's all that's possible, and that's not good for the game.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

One thing I've noticed is some people advocating D&D resemble various fantasy novels etc... more closely.  The reality is that D&D established it's own mileu with all it's own tropes.  It is at least as popular as any novel or any movie when it comes to the collective consciousness of the fantasy world.  At least the fantasy roleplaying world for sure.

I'm all for flexibility and additional play options so I'm not saying this to limit playstyles.  You know me I'm for as many as we can have.  But I think it is wrong to act like 30 years of games, novels, etc.. is not it's own thing.  It doesn't have to answer to any other fantasy tradition.   It is a fantasy tradition.

This is one reason why some of the 4e reaction was so strong.  Not that 4e introduced some new ideas which is fine.  It's just that it abandoned so many that D&D had established.  If I understand correctly 5e is going to bring back some of this lost magic.  It is not though going to limit itself to just the past.  I believe both 4e and totally new things are going to be included as well.

I guess my point is that it is silly to argue that D&D should follow some other fantasy concept.  It is a tremendously big concept as it is.  Bigger than any novel or movie. 


This was well said.

If you have to resort to making offensive comments instead of making logical arguments, you deserve to be ignored.

I guess my point is that it is silly to argue that D&D should follow some other fantasy concept.  It is a tremendously big concept as it is.  Bigger than any novel or movie. 



Thats true - now a days I usually play DnD so that we can model DnD.  I have not seen any serious efforts to model other concepts since 2e.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours
This seems to me largely right, but not entirely so. It is certainly true that D&D has, from the start, opted for something of an "everything but the kitchen sink" (and maybe even the sink!) approach to fantasy. It is heavily inspired by many sources and not reducible to any one of them. So, on the one hand, the idea that D&D is its own thing is not quite right.

It has always been open to inspiration by, whether thematically, in content, or even mechanically, the underlying fantasy tropes. It seems to me that overly self-referential mechanics and settings do not help D&D (and the successful reworking of the cosmos in 4e shows just how a return to the fundamental mythic, legendary, and fantasy tropes can be a good thing; while at the same time too great a dependence on the "D&D universe" can produce odd scenarios, such as classic Ravenloft, which I like very much, but which presumes that summoning magic [rather a mainstay of fantasy Gothic horror] is highly limited in the world of the Mists!]).

On the other hand, where you are spot on is the truth that D&D is not designed to emulate any kind of fantasy world in particular. If you want a close emulation, you need either to (a) just roll with it and not worry too much at the prevalence of magic users in your Arthurian world or of demi-humans in your Conan-esque world, etc. or (b) do a whole lot of fiddling (with classes, spell lists, etc.). Some people do (a), others like (b), but to presume that the game will be written for anyone's (b) in particular is silly. As noted at the start of this thread, there is now nearly forty years of D&D gaming, and what certain things mean in D&D, while always open to being refreshed by a reinfusion of the inspirational sources, is nonetheless something rather peculiar to D&D.

I guess my point is that it is silly to argue that D&D should follow some other fantasy concept.  It is a tremendously big concept as it is.  Bigger than any novel or movie. 


I don't think D&D should hover too close to any one fantasy concept.  Part of its strength is the ability to accomodate many potential fantasy concepts.  I say I wanna run a "start of a new world" campaign, D&D is there.  A friend wants to run Arthurian Fantasy, D&D is there.  Another wants Greek, D&D is there.  That flexibility is D&D's most important strength.  

Over the course of it, D&D had picked up its own traditions and world view.  I'm not wholly against this, but I think it can be taken too far.  When I look at 3.5, for example, I see a system that really only works in the very specific(yet somehow, poorly defined) world of D&D traditions.  When I've tried to make it fit other worlds, it takes a lot of working, or a lot of leeway, mainly in the magic department.

This is one reason why some of the 4e reaction was so strong.  Not that 4e introduced some new ideas which is fine.  It's just that it abandoned so many that D&D had established.

 This is true.  And in my opinion, the 4e devs picked their battles poorly on a good few fronts, too.  For example, they didn't really need to introduce Susan's Grid after alignment was defanged.  At the same time, though, I think that overall, this helped 4e get back some of that versatility.  

I don't think D&D should try to be any specific setting over being just D&D, but if D&D can only be The D&D Setting(TM),  the game suffers for it.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool.
Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
Even though I personally am not a fan of the great wheel, I think they probably should have made that the default setting cosmos.  Whether that is Greyhawk (I prefer even though I don't use any of them for my campaigns) or Forgotten Realms, they should have the default be great wheel.   Then each new campaign setting should showcase a new cosmos.   The rules should be cosmos agnostic.  I realize this may mean changing a few things and that would be ok.  The nice this is that if I preferred Ebberon's cosmos to Forgotten realms I really could switch them for my campaign pretty easily.

 
Even though I personally am not a fan of the great wheel, I think they probably should have made that the default setting cosmos.  Whether that is Greyhawk (I prefer even though I don't use any of them for my campaigns) or Forgotten Realms, they should have the default be great wheel.   Then each new campaign setting should showcase a new cosmos.   The rules should be cosmos agnostic.  I realize this may mean changing a few things and that would be ok.  The nice this is that if I preferred Ebberon's cosmos to Forgotten realms I really could switch them for my campaign pretty easily.

 


That would be a slight pain with the MM and other books - "[Creature] makes its home on the Plane of Shadow (or the Shadowfell, or the Shadowdark, or the Darkbad) and is a servant of [four alternate deities]." We can't assume that every plane/location will have a consistent correspondence with something else in an alternate cosmology, since that would force a lot of awkward symmetry. The Great Wheel strikes me as kind of silly, but I'd rather have just the one cosmology so the folks writing the game can have one creative space to work in. I'd be extra happy if it were something like the current one, though I could live with just having the Wheel back and ignoring most of the planes again.

truth/humor
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves.

 

iserith: The game doesn't profess to be "just like our world." What it is just like is the world of Dungeons & Dragons. Any semblance to reality is purely coincidental.

 

Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?

 

TD: That's why they put me on the front of every book. This is the dungeon, and I am the dragon. A word of warning though: I'm totally not a level appropriate encounter.

Part of the appeal of DnD to me has been the "Movie in my Head" when I remember adventurtes.  One thing that always seemed to help with inspiration in the game was that the group (players and DM) usually had common ground on what books we had read or movies we had seen.


We were playing a Multi-Verse campaign in the late 70's that was inspired by Phillip Jose Farmer's World of Tiers as much as Michael Moor**** Elric, Corum and Runestaff novels. 


So i guess that I agree "DnD is its own thing", because you can incorperate material from many sources


EDIT: I hate profanity filters that don't work  

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/20.jpg)

Dungeons & Dragons should be a generic, mid to high magic, heroic fantasy roleplaying game.  It should not try to emulate anything nor should it have a default setting.  3.5 was lightly hindered by the fact that it assumed Greyhawk was the default setting and 4E went a step further by using its very specific comsomlogy.
@emwasick
Well for the foot troops I'd generalize their descriptions a bit more anyway.  These extraplanar creatures hail from dark shadow planes.   Now for the major big bad guys I'd probably put them in the setting books anyway.  You could still have more abstract concepts.  Asmodeous rules in hell.  What hell?  The nine hells in the great wheel but something else in Eberron.  It could be done if it was purposefully done.

They could also make the cosmology books settings of their owns.  So the normal monster manual doesn't address those things (at least not a ton obviously like I said above some things are easily put anywhere).

 
One thing I've noticed is some people advocating D&D resemble various fantasy novels etc... more closely.  The reality is that D&D established it's own mileu with all it's own tropes.

Maybe it has over the last 30 years or so.  When I played it, everyone was still pulling things into it from fiction.  Michael Moor**** order/chaos pantheon was in Gods, Demigods & Heroes.   Later there were articles describing fictional characters in D&D terns in The Dragon Magazine, and the pantheons of HP Lovecraft, and Fritz Lieber were included in the hardbound Gods & Demigods book.  

Whatever 'mileu' it's created in the mean time, isn't it still supposed to be medieval fantasy, or at least fantasy?  

I guess my point is that it is silly to argue that D&D should follow some other fantasy concept.  It is a tremendously big concept as it is.  Bigger than any novel or movie. 

Hasn't it been a movie, and didn't that movie bomb?  

- Warlords! Join the 'Officer Country' Group! Join Grognards for 4e, the D&D that changed D&D.


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

@ed_warlord
I was talking about certain distinctions that seem very D&Dish even though no doubt they likely originated in fantasy somewhere.

1.  Vancian Casting - now we know in one form or another it originated with vance but D&D made it really famous.
2.  Magic Item Glut - tons of magic items.  The Christmas Tree effect.  Even if a lot of us avoid it.
3.  Hit points.
4.  Armor Class.
5.  Lots of different types of dice.
6.  Dungeons and dungeon exploration.
7.  Level advancement.
8.  The great wheel

Basically D&D created this "implied" universe that was it's own thing.  

 
The inability to mimic fantasy settings outside the traditional tropes will keep the game mired in tradition not because it's what's wanted but because that's all that's possible, and that's not good for the game.


Nods, very much so.. it was the actual lack of flexibility that resulted in many moving on to other games years ago.
When I saw that they included deities in the players handbook I thought well that is wierd why would I want that. 
This whole thread seems like tradition worship. 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

One thing I've noticed is some people advocating D&D resemble various fantasy novels etc... more closely.  The reality is that D&D established it's own mileu with all it's own tropes.  It is at least as popular as any novel or any movie when it comes to the collective consciousness of the fantasy world.  At least the fantasy roleplaying world for sure.



I'm totally with you on this, and it is certainly part of why I don't like 4e as much as I like AD&D or BECMI: it's a good game, sure, but there are other good games (say, Dragon Age) out that feel as much D&D as 4e (i.e., similar but not the same thing).

Sure, at the beginning D&D drew a lot on other sources, but after so many years -- and so much material -- there are many items that are so closely associated with D&D that without them, it doesn't feel like D&D. Sure, one may like a change of pace at times -- that's why optional systems (e.g., Channeling magic in AD&D) and variant campaign settings like Dark Sun (with no orcs, goblins or drow, lots of psionics, etc.) are important -- but the game cannot simply discard those elements entirely.

A great example is Vancian magic. It's called Vancian, but in Vance, it is very different (few wizards can memorize more than a four spells, even though those can be very powerful). So, it can easily be argued that 4e better reflects the Dying Earth magic system -- but the core of the matter is, who cares about reproducing Dying Earth? There's a full game for that. It's not up to D&D to reproduce Jack Vance's work -- Vancian magic is but inspired by Vance's work, not meant to merely reproduce it. The goal of the core should be to preserve the D&D gaming experience, while optional subsystems can deal with reproducing specific elements from other sources (compatibly with copyright issues). And it has been stated quite clearly by the designers that their intent is not far from that, which is part of the reason why I'm moderately optimistic about D&D Next.

G.
We never played the default setting the experience I had in 1e was people by droves removing or wanting to remove the very things this navel gazing "this is D&D" people want ... over powered amnesiac casters who really sucked for a very short while then boom are super heros that turn everyone else in to side kicks.

Shrug its an uimpressive nostalgia kick, that will preserve niche status... rather than expand on it.

5e is supposed to be more ways to play? right? This amounts to one true D&D ism's and mean less ways to play.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 


5e is supposed to be more ways to play? right? This amounts to one true D&D ism's and mean less ways to play.



"More ways" is what options are about -- and 5e is all about options. You can't have "more ways" by removing things. Right?

G.

5e is supposed to be more ways to play? right? This amounts to one true D&D ism's and mean less ways to play.



"More ways" is what options are about -- and 5e is all about options. You can't have "more ways" by removing things. Right?

G.



Paladin's alignment restriction.

Yes. You can have more ways by removing things. 
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM!
Show
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
Ideas for 5E

This whole thread seems like tradition worship. 

Is there something wrong with that?  There are plenty of threads that amount to novelty-worship, so why not a few that dwell on the good feelings that nostalgia arouses in many of us?  The game's traditions deserve better than the contempt heaped upon them by the noisy malcontents.

If you have to resort to making offensive comments instead of making logical arguments, you deserve to be ignored.


5e is supposed to be more ways to play? right? This amounts to one true D&D ism's and mean less ways to play.



"More ways" is what options are about -- and 5e is all about options. You can't have "more ways" by removing things. Right?

G.



Paladin's alignment restriction.

Yes. You can have more ways by removing things. 



Wrong. This way, I can't have the alignment restriction. Nothing prevents from having both alignment restrictions and no alignment restrictions -- as in AD&D 2e, where the alignment restriction is core, but there are also options for Paladins of other alignments.

G.

5e is supposed to be more ways to play? right? This amounts to one true D&D ism's and mean less ways to play.



"More ways" is what options are about -- and 5e is all about options. You can't have "more ways" by removing things. Right?

G.



Paladin's alignment restriction.

Yes. You can have more ways by removing things. 



Wrong. This way, I can't have the alignment restriction. Nothing prevents from having both alignment restrictions and no alignment restrictions -- as in AD&D 2e, where the alignment restriction is core, but there are also options for Paladins of other alignments.

G.



You see, by having a rule that limits you, but the option to take it out, you are first and foremost limiting you and then putting a patch to cover it a bit. I prefer a situation where you have good rules and the option to turn up additional stuff that limits them, rather than the contrary. It's also easier to balance that way, since the options are bound to be less balanced of the default, and the only ones caring about balance are those who don't want that kind of stuff.
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM!
Show
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
Ideas for 5E

5e is supposed to be more ways to play? right? This amounts to one true D&D ism's and mean less ways to play.



"More ways" is what options are about -- and 5e is all about options. You can't have "more ways" by removing things. Right?

G.


Options can invalidate other options.... by being broken and over powered.
Vancian casting marries everyone to the casters time schedule, restricts the game into being around the casters needs, and restricts the game around the casters ability to fix it all with easy solutions. It basically invalidates games where that isnt the focus.  If you are making Ars Magica.. be honest about it and give everyone a mage.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 


This whole thread seems like tradition worship. 

Is there something wrong with that?


It precludes growth and adaption is naive in that it pretends the fantasy of today is the same as that of 1970 and could mire D&D in to a game like pac-man running around in a maze (run away run away) avoiding goofy monsters (oozes?) collecting pellets (treasures) till you level up so you can then eat the monsters back.

Ooops sorry thought you called for contempt.

The functional implications of traditions need to be analyzed where broken either excised or fixed and even expanded on where it opens options to game play by doing so.
 
So no its not traditon that is bad.. its blind following tradition that is bad, just as blind worship of neotony I consider bad.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

@ed_warlord
I was talking about certain distinctions that seem very D&Dish even though no doubt they likely originated in fantasy somewhere.

1.  Vancian Casting - now we know in one form or another it originated with vance but D&D made it really famous.(not really famous and not even D&Ds MMO kept it)
2.  Magic Item Glut - tons of magic items.  The Christmas Tree effect.  Even if a lot of us avoid it.
(you said it yourself but its really hard to do in most editions the game sticks land mines in your way.. often making popular subsets of characters surepticiously dependent on those and not others)
3.  Hit points. (people hate the ambiguity and want to lock it down the Warlords healing is a repercusson of embracing the implications of this.)
4.  Armor Class.(not sure why this is seen as characteristic of D&D)
5.  Lots of different types of dice. (I would be happy with just d20s)
6.  Dungeons and dungeon exploration.(lots of us avoid it since it makes little sense)
7.  Level advancement.(this was finally fixed in 4e)
8.  The great wheel (restrictive mechanics associated can be moved to an option while keeping this allignment gadget -or is this something added in 2e I never played 2e why is this characteristic if its was an add-on in 2e)

Basically D&D created this "implied" universe that was it's own thing.  

 


If the implied universe isnt nailed down heavily by mechanics.. fine.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

...and the only ones caring about balance are those who don't want that kind of stuff.



Be careful making those generalizations about D&D gamers theMormegil, the sheriff might get you.  I agree by the way and think it's probably true but all I have to go on is my gut in saying that.

I also agree that restrictions in general should be the module.  I think all modules should have a section that sells you on using it and another section that tries to scare you away.   I do want the important options in the first PHB but I agree with your reasoning on balancing things without the restriction.  I've never felt a roleplaying restriction was worth anything powerwise anyway.  It's a choice.
The inability to mimic fantasy settings outside the traditional tropes will keep the game mired in tradition not because it's what's wanted but because that's all that's possible, and that's not good for the game.


Nods, very much so.. it was the actual lack of flexibility that resulted in many moving on to other games years ago.
When I saw that they included deities in the players handbook I thought well that is wierd why would I want that. 
This whole thread seems like tradition worship. 

D&D is able to emulate specific fantasy settings (from novels or movies or TV) I think.  

During 1e, Deities & Demigods had the Elric, Cthuhlu, and Fafhrd and Gray Mouser mythos.  The first two were removed in later printings but the precedent for these kinda things in D&D had been set.

2e had a series of Lankhmar supplements (the city of Fafhrd and Gray Mouser), and some with Conan (as I best I recall).

During 3e, Dragon #352 devoted an entire issue to the world of China Mieville (Perdido Street Station).  Dragon #307 featured Westeros (the world of the book series A Song of Ice and Fire and HBOs Game of Thrones).

= = =

There hasn't been boat-load of stuff over the years but there ya go, stuff from novels and movies, usable in D&D.  I can use it directly or use it for inspriation in creating my own stuff.  

In reading Emerikol's original post, I was reminded of how much I enjoy the traditions of D&D (the lore, dungeon-delving, dragon-hacking ;)).  D&D is a product of your imagination though (as the classic TSR blurb goes ;)), it can emulate pretty much any setting you want I think.
/\ Art

This whole thread seems like tradition worship. 

Is there something wrong with that?  There are plenty of threads that amount to novelty-worship, so why not a few that dwell on the good feelings that nostalgia arouses in many of us?  The game's traditions deserve better than the contempt heaped upon them by the noisy malcontents.


It's not that I agree with Garth that this thread is tradition worship, but I will clarify a bit.  Tradition worship is definitely bad; looking back fondly on what worked well in that it made the game fun is not.  I'm fully in the options for everyone camp, and that includes not only allowing myself and others to have variant styles of magic, modern & future genres, and all the nonstandard races we can stuff our bellies with, but also allowing people to have what they thought was best about the past.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

The inability to mimic fantasy settings outside the traditional tropes will keep the game mired in tradition not because it's what's wanted but because that's all that's possible, and that's not good for the game.


Nods, very much so.. it was the actual lack of flexibility that resulted in many moving on to other games years ago.
When I saw that they included deities in the players handbook I thought well that is wierd why would I want that. 
This whole thread seems like tradition worship. 

D&D is able to emulate specific fantasy settings (from novels or movies or TV) I think.  
 



Generally has done so poorly and yes Vancian casting etc .. is why.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Hello,



I don't think it is tradition worship to acknowledge that a game has a history big enough to stand on its own. Yes it may have started out as Tolkien inspired, but 30 or 40 years of publishing has created its own cannon. For example Tomb of Horrors, Vecna, Paladins, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, Darksun, ect exist only because D and D exist. They are recognizable as D and D.



There is another thread discussing iconic races and referring to Dragonborn, Warforged, and Tiefling. It makes a good argument about how recognizable those races (and artwork) is as D and D. Perhaps even more recognizable as D and D than elves, dwarves, and hobbits. Going forward I expect these races will become a permanent part of D and D tradition. History and even tradition does not mean that something stops changing. Rather (I see it) it is as something to build on and add to.



As to trying to emulate other words of fiction using D and D, those other works of fiction often come with their own games though. If I want to play in a Dresden Files world, I can buy or find its game. Same is true for zombies, star wars, star trek, and even the children's Cat fantasy 'Warrior' series. Creating an RPG for a popular book or move is another source of revenue licensing.

There is another thread discussing iconic races and referring to Dragonborn, Warforged, and Tiefling. It makes a good argument about how recognizable those races (and artwork) is as D and D. Perhaps even more recognizable as D and D than elves, dwarves, and hobbits. Going forward I expect these races will become a permanent part of D and D tradition. History and even tradition does not mean that something stops changing. Rather (I see it) it is as something to build on and add to.


I was under the impression that that thread had been started as a counter-argument to the other iconic race thread.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

I get mildly frustrated when people confuse D&D with Fantasy Roleplaying in general, and assume that if D&D doesn't support they way they want to play a Fantasy Roleplaying game, that that means there's something wrong with D&D, and thus everyone who does enjoy D&D for what it is is also wrong.
I get mildly frustrated when people confuse D&D with Fantasy Roleplaying in general, and assume that if D&D doesn't support they way they want to play a Fantasy Roleplaying game, that that means there's something wrong with D&D, and thus everyone who does enjoy D&D for what it is is also wrong.



+1
Generally has done so poorly and yes Vancian casting etc .. is why.

Yeah, Vancian casting is something seen only rarely outside of D&D.  Still, magic aside, the systems of D&D have been used to emulate some well known settings over the years.  

d20 was used as the basis of the WotC Star Wars games.  It's also influenced other SF games like SG-1, Farscape, Babylon 5.  Other fantasty games include Conan, Lone Wolf (the 'choose your adventure' series of books from the 80s and 90s).  These games emulate their respective worlds quite well I believe; Vancian magic played no part, so it couldn't have detracted from these settings.

Going back even further, AD&D 2nd Edition was the system used for the Buck Rogers XXVc RPG.  It wasn't a popular game apparently but it seemed to work alright.  Again, no magic involved, just some D&D-inspired mechanics. 
/\ Art
I get mildly frustrated when people confuse D&D with Fantasy Roleplaying in general, and assume that if D&D doesn't support they way they want to play a Fantasy Roleplaying game, that that means there's something wrong with D&D, and thus everyone who does enjoy D&D for what it is is also wrong.


Isn't D&D trying to be the preeminent fantasy rpg on the market?  Isn't it trying to be the one that has the largest market share and makes the most money?  Making the system so that it can accommodate other playstyles is really the best way to do that.  I don't know of anyone who want's D&D to throw out its identity for the sake of accommodating a wider range of playstyles, but I have seen plenty of people saying that it's ok to deny other playstyles, even as optional rules, because even printing them in a D&D book hurts the identity of D&D.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

I get mildly frustrated when people confuse D&D with Fantasy Roleplaying in general, and assume that if D&D doesn't support they way they want to play a Fantasy Roleplaying game, that that means there's something wrong with D&D, and thus everyone who does enjoy D&D for what it is is also wrong.


Isn't D&D trying to be the preeminent fantasy rpg on the market?  Isn't it trying to be the one that has the largest market share and makes the most money?  Making the system so that it can accommodate other playstyles is really the best way to do that.  I don't know of anyone who want's D&D to throw out its identity for the sake of accommodating a wider range of playstyles, but I have seen plenty of people saying that it's ok to deny other playstyles, even as optional rules, because even printing them in a D&D book hurts the identity of D&D.

MechaPilot: I disagree, though it's a matter of perspective. For me, the identity of D&D as a game doesn't reside in the blocks of data the rules work on, it resides in the rules - and I've seen plenty of people who want to throw those out for the sake of accommodating a wider range of playstyles.

An explanation of why I think the identity of the D&D game resides in the rules:

Data are things like specific spells, classes, races, magic items, monsters, campaign settings. They may be brand identity, but they don't define the game as a game. They're not universal. They are associated with D&D, but the specific iterations of each of these are not essential to D&D.

I know lots of people who would never give up this data, but would be perfectly willing, eager even, to throw out the game itself. Pretty much everyone who lists this sort of stuff as the things they like most about D&D while failing to list any rule structure could be a candidate for this category. They like the set dressing, but are indifferent to, or actively dislike, the actual game.

I'm fine with any new hotness being added as a rules module, no skin off my nose whatsoever, I just oppose the removal of long-standing rules structures - because these structures are D&D, to me. Most people I know who are advocating for an 'iconic' D&D feel the same way.
While I agree that D&D needs to appeal to a wide audience, I still don't think that the game has some sort of responsibility to be all things to all people.  There needs to be a point at which the designers look at some fantasy tropes and say, "Nah, that's not D&D; we won't be including this."

If you have to resort to making offensive comments instead of making logical arguments, you deserve to be ignored.

While I agree that D&D needs to appeal to a wide audience, I still don't think that the game has some sort of responsibility to be all things to all people.  There needs to be a point at which the designers look at some fantasy tropes and say, "Nah, that's not D&D; we won't be including this."


Nothing can be all things to all people.  However, when you say the designers should say "Nah, that's not D&D; we won't be including this," I hope you're only talking about the base assumptions.  I know I want optional modules for running modern and future games.  I don't think those rules should be in the core because they don't fit with the identity of D&D, but I do think there's enough of a market for it to be made as a book of modern & future modules.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

  They like the set dressing, but are indifferent to, or actively dislike, the actual game.

I'm fine with any new hotness being added as a rules module, no skin off my nose whatsoever, I just oppose the removal of long-standing rules structures - because these structures are D&D, to me.



Thank you for articulating some of my views more clearly than I think I have been on these forums.(Or at least more succinctly. I have a tendency to ramble on until I forget my point.) You get a cookie.

My only addition, personally, would be to say that I'm fine modifying, fixing, or using new approaches on those rules structures. I just don't think they should be hacked out in favor of entirely new systems. (Granted I'm not positive if this is a discussion on a specific subject. I didn't read the entire thread. I just saw this and commented. I'm speaking in a general sense.)


@MechaPilot:
In the instance of printing additional rules to support for future and modern games, that'd be awesome. I really enjoyed D20 Modern, and the extension seems natural to me, not a hindrence on the expectations of D&D but an addition to them. (Even the commando kobolds! =P)