Defining its own Mythology

Pardon me if this is old news.

It appears, for the first real time D&D's history, the designers are designing a uniquely D&D mythology for its game rather than the hodge-podge kitchen sink version that has been around for years.

Its been said that D&D doesn't simulate any other sword-n-sorcery work BUT D&D. However, the best of D&D's "mythology" (and by that term, I mean the trappings of the world, society, races, magic, gods and monsters) has always been shameless ripped off from other fantasy sources. Tolkien's races. Vance's Magic. Moorcock's Alignment. Merlinesque wizards next to Leiberian thieves, next to Howardesque barbarians facing monsters from Greek myth, Norse epics, and Lovecraftian nightmares.

At the end of the day, it created a world without a cohesive theme, a kitchen sink of every sci-fi and fantasy trope in that was hot during the late-70's and early 80's. While specific campaign settings and individual DMs often attempted to strike a cohesive narrative between these widely varying elements, the game itself (especially in the OD&D, 1e, and 2e eras) read closer to a collection of fantasy cliche's included because DM X liked this thing and PC Y wanted to play that.

Third edition, for all its glory in fixing and modernizing the ruleset, decided to keep the spirit of this mixed bag of fantasy elements. In some areas, they began to modernize, update, and set apart a "D&D brand" of some of these elements (Halfings going from Frodo-like reluctant heroes to a race of traveling almost-gypsy like nomads) but in others they held stubborn to the "old way" of doing things (the alignment-based/pseudo-religious Great Ring of Planes). As 3e progressed into 3.5, more and more of the mythic hodge-podge was jettisoned for a unique, D&D-only approach at things. The growing pains can be seen in these later products (Warblades, Dragon Shaman, Spellscales, Incarnum) which, often (on these very boards) lead to arguements about thier inclusion into the D&D pantheon (old ways vs. new ideas, or established mythical elements (knights) vs. new, D&D-specific creations (beguilers)).

Now, with fourth edition, it appears the creators have two goals in mind.
1.) Make playing D&D its own unique experience and
2.) Don't let nostalgia hold you back.

The first is D&D's way of competing with a world dominated by all manner of new fantasy creations. If I say "Tauren" you know I'm talking WoW. If I say "Galka" you know I'm talking Final Fantasy. If I say "Gnome" you don't think D&D. (You probably think Lawn, or at least Travelocity) However, if I say "Eladrin" you know I'm talking D&D. Similarly, a dryad is no longer a "ripped straight from Greek Myth" monster, but D&D's own take on the creature. (Akin to what D&D has done with medusa's for years). I don't know what the MM write-up on this new dryad will be, but I'm sure it won't sound like the same write-up found in a Mythology textbook.

This is also most likely the reason for the "Compound Word Monster" syndrome. Icefire Griffons aren't in WoW, FF, or Myth, its uniquely D&D. So if you are fighting Icefire Griffons, you're having a uniquely D&D experience. This leads to a world that is unique against other models of fantasy and creates a "common D&D experience" that all people who play the game have, just like those who play WoW of FF or EQ or WoD have.

To do that, they need to scale back, rethink, or toss out elements that are purely "someone-elses creation with the serial numbers filed off". Goodbye Vancian magic. Adios Moorcock's alignment. We'll use elements of both (since they are ingrained in the common D&D experience we're shooting for) but no longer will D&D magic system be "Vancian" it will be "D&D". It will create a version of the game where its mythology, its underlining principal, is unique only to D&D and no longer be a whole equal to the sum of its parts.

I think this element, more than any rule change or artistic reinterpretation, is what is fueling a lot of the negativity. Its the opposite of where much of the rest of the gaming community was heading: mainly generic fantasy rule-sets. One need only look how popular Trued20, Grim Tales, and other "generic" style rule-sets were to see the older crowd sought a D&D more open, more toolkit, more customizable. However, while that might be more appeasing to older, established DMs and players (who like the idea of one rule-set mimicking Howard's Hyboria, Greenwood's Realms, or any mix they want to homebrew) its a poor decision on the part of Wizards, who found the d20 Market was glut with rulebooks that turned its flagship into exactly all that and more (and competed with D&D's own generic rulebooks, Fur and Frost vs. Frostburn, for example).

So Wizards went the other way: Here is D&D. Here is the common D&D experience. You are more than welcome to change it as needed, but we want a common ground that all players can see and know they are playing D&D(TM) and not some homebrew, some OGL, or some other competing fantasy media.

So as 4e comes closer and we see more re-imaginging of classic monsters, more unique creations, and more sacred cows (Bytopia) sacrificed to make room for new things (feywild), remember that D&D has to do this to stay viable vs. other newer forms of fantasy and to keep it unique vs. the generic d20 RPG systems now and to come. By making D&D its own unique experience (rather than a holding pen for all manner of fantasy trope) its insuring its own survival and growth and strengthening its own product identity for generations to come.

~ I.F.

I mostly agree with your post.

I'm not sure that your explanation is why vancian magic is dying. I think that has more to do with vancian magic creating more problems than its worth, plus the vancian system of magic no longer being something fantasy readers know and relate to. When was the last time a book was written using vancian magic? The Color of Magic, by Terry Pratchett?

Same with alignment.

I also don't know if that's the reason for the compound word monsters.

I do agree with the general idea that D&D is attempting to create a brand image. I think all the dragon products have been a big part of that. D&D style dragons are relatively unique, and they're built right into the game's name.

*duplicate post during forum weirdness, please delete*

The ability of D&D to have D&Disms more flavourfull and distinctive then any Gurpism, while still allowing great freedom in terms of world and player flavour, is one of its great triumphs.

There is nothing wrong with reimaganing some things, but they loose that unique balance, and they will break the game.

Very well put, I can see how you earned your endorsement.

I think you're right. Despite the faux-French guy's exclamations, the game isn't remaining the same. I think it's definitely breaking with many past traditions and concepts, becoming a different game with the same name. I'm sure it will redefine what "D&D" means to gamers, given time (and success), and perhaps establish a unique "D&D" identity largely separate from outside sources (or from what has come before -- the Gygaxian hodgepodge that defined D&D's unique identity until recently). However, I think "it's still D&D to me" will simply not be true for some of us. That was already true for some gamers with 3.X; I imagine 4E will add a few more to that number.

That's no big deal, IMO (and nothing new -- it's not a great tragedy). I already know what D&D is, to me, and that's what I play.

Cadfan said:

I mostly agree with your post.

I'm not sure that your explanation is why vancian magic is dying. I think that has more to do with vancian magic creating more problems than its worth, plus the vancian system of magic no longer being something fantasy readers know and relate to. When was the last time a book was written using vancian magic? The Color of Magic, by Terry Pratchett?

Same with alignment.

I also don't know if that's the reason for the compound word monsters.

I do agree with the general idea that D&D is attempting to create a brand image. I think all the dragon products have been a big part of that. D&D style dragons are relatively unique, and they're built right into the game's name.

Click to expand...

There are two dynamics to consider: mechanical improvement and thematic improvement. Vancian magic is a double-edge sword: its difficult to explain thematically, and its mechanically wonky. Rather than fix it for either reason, its easier to chuck for whatever new system that is coming (which is still going to retain Vancian elements, but you will not be able to point to Dying Earth as the prime example of D&D spells in action...)

Alignment is going from something tangible (Detect Evil, Smite Evil, DR X/Good) to something purely descriptive. This is a real turn from Moorcock's "strict cosmic alignment" system that D&D has had (and caused headaches) for years.

So while it has mechanical rationale to fix and repair, it also serves to further make D&D a unique entity.

Although I agree with the main idea of your post, I don't think that D&D has been moving away from being a mishmash of ripoffs only recently.

The D&D magic system, for instance, hasn't resembled Dying Earth magic in a long time (if it ever did). For example, Vance's magic is extremely limited per day; a master magician might be able to memorize about six spells in total. This is a far cry from the dozens and dozens of spells D&D wizards fit into their heads every day. You could refute this by saying that the amount of combat in a typical D&D session necessitates the huge number of spells, but it is nevertheless a major step away from the flavor and careful resource management of Dying Earth magicians. Furthermore, Vancian magic is more unreliable than D&D magic, especially if one tries to cast a spell that is too strong for the magician's skill level, and D&D has never modeled this in any way. D&D magic has always been inspired by Dying Earth rather than directly cribbed from the books. A more faithful (and interesting!) conversion can be found, curiously enough, in the Dying Earth RPG.

I also think that D&D's alignments took a major step away from Moorcock's (and Poul Anderson's) writings when 1E expanded the alignment field from three to nine. Moreover, Moorcock's alignments are allegiances rather than the descriptors of a person's psychology that the D&D alignments have become. I really don't see how the infamous D&D alignment debates have anything to do with Moorcock's writings. D&D's problem has always been that it tries to fit together the amoral concepts of order and chaos and the moral judgements of good and evil. Nowhere in Moorcock do you find such a pairing.

Nevertheless, like I said, I mostly agree with your post. I have few problems with Feywild and Dragonborn and whatnot, and I think I understand what the 4E design team is aiming for with the new flavor. That being said, I will doubtlessly homebrew some of that flavor out simply because I like the merry hodge-podge style of D&D the most.

Well put.

I don't mind the new route D&D is going. I think it's going to be different, and it may lose some flavor, however. One of the main reasons I like D&D so much (And D20 Modern for that matter) is because of it's vanilla-esk flavor.

Now, so long as they don't turn Arcana Evolved on us and implement everything into everything I think we'll be alright. People that want to can change it and people that like it don't have to worry.

An interesting and well-thought-through article, thanks.

I tend to agree - I don't fear change, I'm prepared to see if the game is still what I want when I have the books in my hand and I can read them through. Right now, I'm still very enthusiastic.