D&D Has Never Been Suitable for Generic Fantasy

[imurphy943]

Specifically in the playtest and our discussions about it here, it comes to my mind that a lot of people seem to want to use D&D as a game of generic fantasy (or, sometimes, not even a game, but a storytelling tool, which I don't even want to start in on, God help me). This seems to drive a lot of the suggestions I see for/about the playtest: making concessions for this or that contingency to make the whole more palatable for "any conceivable" campaign.

...

this is a game about a class of people whose lives consist of going into dangerous locations, answering violence with violence, and hauling out treasure. You shouldn't expect D&D to bend over backwards to make room for your pacifist noble with an allergy to coins and no discernible talent outside of playing the spoons. The game does not owe your character anything, especially if your character isn't made to do what D&D expects him to do- go out and earn experience points, however your preferred edition awards them, to become better at earning experience points, lather, rinse, repeat.

If someone wanted to play a pacifist monk dude in my game, I'd allow it, but I definitely wouldn't make up a bunch of house rules to make it possible for this guy to survive an adventure. Whoever makes D&D source books can release as many as they want, but whether they're official or not, my definition of 'D&D' doesn't stretch very far.

I don't think that D&D necessarily has much to do with genre (though it is traditionally fantasy)- sci-fi, fantasy, science fantasy, modern fantasy, and kitchen sink are all just different ways of phrasing fantastic events, and D&D can exist in any of them.

 

[Remathilis]

As to the question of what is generic fantasy, I don't think you can point to a single work of fantasy and say "That's generic fantasy" any more than you can point to a person and say "That's an average person." (The average person, after all, is 51% female and 49% male.) However, you can say that a system supports generic fantasy if it can be used to reproduce a wide range of fantasy settings and tropes. A system that could, with equal ease, mimic Lord of the Rings, the Black Company, Harry Potter, and Midsummer Night's Dream would have a good claim to support generic fantasy. In this respect, D&D fails hard. Other systems fail too, but not as hard. I'm not offhand aware of a system that I would say succeeds.

You're right, to an extent.

Generic fantasy isn't one particular author, setting, or world. Its the sum of multitudes of similar works that have boiled down to their bland, cliche'd bones.

For example, ELF is generic. A race of graceful, pointy-eared tree-huggers with affinity toward magic and/or woodlands. They specifics differ: a Tolkien elf is different than a D&D elf which is different than Norse myth, Magic: the Gathering or Final Fantasy. Generic fantasy has elves, but each author or work puts their own spin on them.

You can do the same thing with lots of sub-genres. One need only look at the evolution of "vampire" to see how Dracula, Count Orlock, Blade, Edward Cullen, Barnabas Collins, Sookie Stackhouse, Violet from Ultraviolet, Strahd Von Zarovich, Vampire Hunter D, Lestat, and Alucard all fall into the vampire name (more of less) yet have few underlying similarities. Vampire is generic horror; each author puts his own spin on the myth.

What is generic fantasy: a collection of tropes that represents everything and nothing: elves, dwarves, knights, wizards, dragons, goblins, thieves, castles, thewy barbarians, undead creatures, giants and fairies. Not all writers use all tropes and not all of them use them the same way.

The question is: Should D&D only be a framework for which to hang the DMs only personal spin on these tropes, or should it try to define them itself in the rules?

 

[Lwaxy]

D&D is the generic fantasy setting in my eyes, at least when it comes to RPG. Talk to anyone about RPGing in a fantasy setting and you start to talk about D&D in most cases.

It has always been a good storytelling game for me, too. Just because it is not for you doesn't mean others can't pull it off. And yes, I do want the new edition to be able to work for all play styles.

 

[El Mahdi]

No. Middle-Earth is not the least bit generic--and understand, I'm not saying this as a Tolkien fanboy offended that you would apply such a label to the master's work. I'm saying it as a fantasy fan who detests the assumption that Tolkien speaks for all fantasists.

Look at "A Song of Ice and Fire." Look at the Earthsea Trilogy, or the Dark Tower books, or the Black Company, or Harry Potter. Go back to Shakespeare and read "The Tempest" and "A Midsummer Night's Dream." Switch to graphic novels and read the Sandman books. All of these are fantasy classics, but none of them looks much like "The Lord of the Rings" beyond general details of having magic and being set in a medieval world--and in the case of Harry Potter and the Sandman, not even that. I love Tolkien, but his work has become a blight on the genre because people act like there isn't anything else.

As to the question of what is generic fantasy, I don't think you can point to a single work of fantasy and say "That's generic fantasy" any more than you can point to a person and say "That's an average person." (The average person, after all, is 51% female and 49% male.) However, you can say that a system supports generic fantasy if it can be used to reproduce a wide range of fantasy settings and tropes. A system that could, with equal ease, mimic Lord of the Rings, the Black Company, Harry Potter, and Midsummer Night's Dream would have a good claim to support generic fantasy. In this respect, D&D fails hard. Other systems fail too, but not as hard. I'm not offhand aware of a system that I would say succeeds.

I agree (but can't XP until I spread it around...). I'd say that any specific work of Fantasy Fiction, is by definition and self-identification, not Generic but Specific.

I think what we're talking about with "Generic" Fantasy as applies to a game system, is a base system that has all the common elements of all Fantasy...and nothing more. Then designers (original developers and third party designers), can emulate the unique aspects of specific worlds and genres with add-on modules. I strongly believe that the specific feel of D&D (the Genre Unto Itself), should also be modeled this way...through modules. It's the one and only way to truly make the game appeal to the broad spectrum of D&D Fans that have played D&D throughout the years.

In this context, Medieval Elements, Combat, Movement, Damage Modeling, Magic, etc. are the constants...but only in their most basic Generic forms. World and Sub-Genre specifics can be added through modules to grab the specific feel desired...even D&D as a Genre unto Itself.

An example of something not Generic would be falling damage. D&D Falling Damage creates an in-world conceit that Heroes can jump from incredible heights and more-than-likely survive. While that's a perfectly acceptable aspect of a Fantasy Setting, it's by no means a constant for all Fantasy.

What would be better is a base system that reacts to things like that, in the manner in which one would commonly expect things like that to happen from our one and only, common, baseline experience...that would be real life. After determining how to model realistically, then reduce and tweak and rework and test the mechanics until they are as simple and quickly resolvable as possible....And the result of this is your base system.

Then everything else is modules.

For the most part and in my opinion, the small portion we've seen of the base rules for D&D Next seems to fit that fairly well - with a few exceptions (which I'm providing to WotC as playtesting feedback, same as everyone else, rather than repeat posting it here at ENWorld).

 

[Doug McCrae]

I love Tolkien, but his work has become a blight on the genre because people act like there isn't anything else.

That, I think, is what makes him generic. At least, by one definition of generic.

 

[El Mahdi]

D&D is the generic fantasy setting in my eyes, at least when it comes to RPG. Talk to anyone about RPGing in a fantasy setting and you start to talk about D&D in most cases.

It has always been a good storytelling game for me, too. Just because it is not for you doesn't mean others can't pull it off. And yes, I do want the new edition to be able to work for all play styles.

What you're describing is that D&D is the "most commonly played game", not the most Generic game.

Generic - adj. - Very comprehensive; pertaining or appropriate to large classes or groups as opposed to specific.

Comprehensive means "broadly or completely covering; including a large proportion of something." D&D does not do this. It is better than some at this, and worse than others at this, but it hasn't been specifically designed for this and only this. It's also quite Specific (contrary to the definition) as D&D mostly supports only it's own version of Fantasy, and only occasionally nods to, or is adapted for, other versions (with varying degrees of success from edition to edition, and campaign world to campaign world).

 

[Blue Thunder]

*The very first book for D&D states that it is a MEDIEVAL game. There was no "fantasy genre" label back then. There was only gifted writers (like Tolkien or Howard in early 20th century, who tried to re-mold and re-create old world myths. Howard took Germanic, Nordic warrior culture elements and blended them with 1001 Nights style Sorcerers.

Tolkien was inspired by Beowulf and Nibelungenlied and various Northern sagas.


*There was no such thing as a "generic elf" then. Elf is another name for Fairy. European medieval legends were filled with fairy myths and none of them were as cliche as a Blonde Archer Elf stereotype.

All the additional and artificial D&D mythology came with conscutive books after books after books.


*As an example, I'll try make an analogy of this evolution...

Let's say we'll publish a brand new Sci-Fi RPG...it is called
"Lasers & Lightyears" or "Aliens & Andromeda"

After we publish the initial books, to appeal to everyone, we start to add ALL the sci-fi archetypes we can find...

So, we have something like this:

RACES:

_Human,
_Bug Eyed Martian,
_ Tentacled Alien
_Robot

CLASSES

_Jedi
_Klingon
_Alien
_Queen Alien (Prestige Class)
_Dalek
_Space Marine
_Terminator


In the initial rules, some races are not allowed some classes (the way there were no Gnome Paladins in D&D 1 and 2nd ed.s) And this is logical right? Because it would be strange to play a multi-class, level 1 Human Queen Alien Jedi-Dalek-Sith-Klingon...

But as people played the same thing over and over again, the original influences (Star Wars, Star Trek, Alien etc.) faded, and everyone just remembered the hybridized, crossbred "race-classes" of our game "Aliens and Andromedas"

I believe, this is what happened with D&D.

 

[Dausuul]

That, I think, is what makes him generic. At least, by one definition of generic.

I'll say this: Tolkien qualifies as generic within the "gaming fantasy" sub-genre (RPGs, MMOs, trading card games, et cetera), because gaming fantasy imitates D&D and D&D imitates Tolkien. And since gaming fantasy is where World of Warcraft lives, and World of Warcraft makes ALL THE MONEY, Tolkien sucks up a lot of oxygen.

Get outside the gaming scene, though, and Tolkien becomes just one star (admittedly a bright one) in a galaxy. And as someone who's spent a lot of time roaming that galaxy, I find the overwhelming Tolkien-dominance in gaming fantasy to be rather stifling.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Sorry, double-post.

 

[Steely_Dan]

As others, I have found it can cover both; yes, D&D at its core, is beholders, The City of Brass, mindflayers, Asmodeus etc, but it can encompass a non-magical campaign setting (the 2nd Ed historical Reference Documents).

I feel 4th Ed too ham-handedly removed basic premises of the implied D&D cosmology (not that variants are good, just not as core). I love the complex, rich cosmology that came out of 1st/2nd Ed, and elaborated on in 3rd Ed; though there were great additions in 4th Ed (my favourite part of the 4th Ed cosmology is the Fey action).