Merlion said:
Yes, thats all true. But its also true that D&D, especially from 3.0 onwards, does try/is trying to be "generic fantasy", it is trying to allow people to pretty much create whatever kind of characters and worlds they want."options not restrictions" was/is a byword of 3.x BUT, it is simulatanouesly trying to "stay D&D" which is to say, stay the D&D that Gygax created over two decades ago by leaving in various "sacred cows" and "legacy" thises and thats.
And that in itself is annoying. The intrinsic contradiction they have going on. Its particularly irriating to me because in the changeover to 3rd edition they already changed a great many things that many people considered "sacred cows" or a part of what makes D&D D&D.
I'd like them to start basing things purely off what works well, whats balanced, and what people want...and if that means keeping a "sacred cow", then fine...but dont keep them just for their own sake, especially not ones that are simply illogical restrictions or contradictions left over from the preferences of the original designers
If we are talking about, say ASF, how exactly is it "illogical"? There is nothing illogical in the mechanic itself. There is nothing illogical in stating that different types of spellcasters require different types of gestures when casting spells with somatic components. Nor is there anything illogical in stating that a spellcaster does not need two hands to cast spells (i.e., he needs only one hand free) some types of restriction automatically limit spellcasting, causing a set chance of failure. Admittedly, this should open up invention of armors that do not restrict spellcasters....but, then, there is nothing in the rules that says this cannot be done. What the rules describe are specific types of armors, and the effects of wearing those specific types of armors.
Wizards not wearing armor is not particularly Gygaxian, either. As pointed out earlier in this thread,
The D&D "Legacy flavour" is based upon the game's origins as a tabletop miniatures wargame, coupled with ideas culled from Lovecraft, classic fantasy novels, fairy tales, and mythology. Older versions of D&D actively attempted to provide a form of "retroactive continuity," coming up with reasons why things occurred in these stories the way that they did. Hence, LG paladins were based off of specific models, as were the original ranger, monk, dwarf, elf, and so on. Many things which, at first glance, seem to be surely created just for the game, on further examination come from another source. The 1st Edition DMG actually included a small reading list of game influences.
With some few exceptions, wizard-type characters in mythology, classic fantasy novels, folklore, and fairy tales do not wear armour. Of course, some current fantasy novels have different ideas, as they are influenced by different things (such as modern culture, video games, etc.).
I suggest that, perhaps, "what people want" is not so uniform as you may think. Even I would hesitate to claim that what I want and what people want are the same thing, and I am fairly unabashed in my hubris. If nothing else, this thread (and many, many more on EnWorld and off) should serve to demonstrate that there is no monolithic "what people want."
You say that what you'd like from D&D is a "basic" flavour. I say that such a basic flavour is exactly the opposite of what D&D should offer. Basic flavours are bland and boring, imho...and, if sales figures are anything to go by, in the opinions of the majority of rpgers. GURPS (for example) is great, but it has a "basic" flavour. Compare sales of GURPS to D&D (in any incarnation) and I think you'll find that basic flavour is simply
not what people want.
RC
P.S.: BTW, calling something a "sacred cow" is not a rational argument even if the thing is only present for flavour reasons, and if those flavour reasons began with an earlier system. All you are saying is that you fail to see the value in the thing (which is subjective) and/or that you don't enjoy the flavour (which is also subjective). You can argue like that. You can probably even convince a number of people (given P.T. Barnum's infamous statement that there's one born every minute). But the argument still will not be a rational one, simply because it is not based on an objective evaluation.
RC