|
9 months ago ::
Sep 20, 2012 - 8:51AM
#181
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
Howdy folks,
Its important for all of us to remember that the style of fantasy that informs our preferences for D&D is a matter of preference. Like an opinion, a preference is neither right or wrong and attacking someone's preferences because you don't share them isn't constructive.
Whether your D&D fantasy is informed by Homer, Shakespeare, Howard, Burroughs, Lovecraft, Moorcock, Tolkien, Lewis, Alexander, Weis & Hickman, Greenwood, Baker, Zelazny, Jordan, Rowling, or any of a plethora of other fantasy authors (or movies, or television, or video games, or other RPGs) all are valid and bring something unique and interesting to the table and to the discussion.
True, true. I should keep the sardonic/ironic humor in OTT.
No matter, that's the cool thing about fantasy, there's so many flavors and takes on the genre. It's such a vague umbrella term with so many ways to look at it. And that's a cool thing about D&D, you can play up different emotions and moods of fantasy.
Disgruntled ghost of the Knights of W.T.F.
(Keep D&D alive, end the edition wars!)
"And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Disclaimer: Most of my posts are based on opinions (and are sometimes humorous, other times inspirational)
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 20, 2012 - 9:03PM
#182
|
|
|
I'm just glad he said ‘Tolkienesque’ instead of ‘generic’. I get grumpy with people who act like they're the same thing.
If you don't like Tolkienesque fantasy, that's cool, though I really don't agree that this is. But aside from a few words and vague assumptions about races, Tolkienesque fantasy is sort of rare today, I find, so call it ‘generic’ and get a pen in your eye.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 20, 2012 - 10:07PM
#183
|
Date Joined:
Aug 10, 2012
|
The only real problem I see is that they have had so many player races in the game that there is no way they could include them all in one phb. I could care less what they include in the phb beyond the basic dwarf, elf, halfling, gnome, human but I do think they need to make sure that they bring out all the races they have had as player races at some point.
While I can understand the OP's thought, it was stated in such a way that it is hard to not think it was intended to start a argument.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 21, 2012 - 9:33AM
#184
|
|
|
I'm just glad he said ‘Tolkienesque’ instead of ‘generic’. I get grumpy with people who act like they're the same thing.
If you don't like Tolkienesque fantasy, that's cool, though I really don't agree that this is. But aside from a few words and vague assumptions about races, Tolkienesque fantasy is sort of rare today, I find, so call it ‘generic’ and get a pen in your eye.
The thing is, the original Dungeon and Dragons setting was in my opinion very Tolkienesque. The major difference being that Magic was much more pronounced and that Technology aimed towards the late middle ages/renaissance rather then the high middle ages.
But in terms of races, its pretty much the same. The elves are wise, intelligent and mystical. Even the elven cultures are quite similar with the high elves, wood elves etc...Dwarves are hardy and master craftsmen, halflings are good hearted short folk. I mean really, it stems from the same roots. People may refer to Tolkienesque as generic because well, its the root of what we call today Fantasy.
If were talking about D&D going back to its roots, obviously then its going to look more Tolkienesque, and you know what - that's the only reason I am remotely interested in D&D Next... because to be honest, the style of today's super high fantasy is just not for me.
D&D has always done a good job at staying in between the extremes, but when 4E came out, it crossed that line in to the realm of Super High Fantasy, border line science-fiction with comic-book like powers and even art - this wasn't D&D's original vision, but rather what WOTC felt was the way to go given today's popular video games industry. And to be frank, they were wrong - the devision of their once loyal fans is proof in the pudding.
Its not just the mechanics that turned off allot of their players who now stick to 3E/Pathfinder - its the entire feel of the game that changed drastically, too drastically.
That's my thoughts.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 21, 2012 - 9:43AM
#185
|
|
|
The only real problem I see is that they have had so many player races in the game that there is no way they could include them all in one phb. I could care less what they include in the phb beyond the basic dwarf, elf, halfling, gnome, human but I do think they need to make sure that they bring out all the races they have had as player races at some point.
While I can understand the OP's thought, it was stated in such a way that it is hard to not think it was intended to start a argument.
They could always seperate the core races and exotic races into two sections of the Players Handbook. Or perhaps they can have an exotic races supplement. I believe Mike Mearls said something about given each race a 'rairity' level at some point.
Personally though I think exotic races belong in the individual Campaign Settings, but they absolutely need a place for them somewhere for those who wnat to include them.
|
|
|
