D&D Has Never Been Suitable for Generic Fantasy

[Lwaxy]

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).

Yes, D&D does this, in our games anyway, and if it can do it there it can do it for others. D&D rules are a base set easily expanded upon. It may not have been designed for it, but it works just fine. GURPS, on the other hand, never managed this for us.

And I know the English language, thank you.

 

[El Mahdi]

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The City of Brass, mindflayers, Asmodeus etc, but it can encompass a non-magical campaign setting (the 2nd Ed historical Reference Documents).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).

I agree, but would just like to add that with the 2E historical reference books, they showed how the system really wasn't made for this type of game.

Don't get me wrong, I loved them. But they weren't as "historical" as their titles made them seem. They were still very much D&D versions of those real world historical settings. If one picked them up thinking they could play a realistic and historically accurate game in the described settings, rather than a D&D Genre version of them, they were sorely disappointed.

That's why to me, getting the base system right is so important. If too much D&D only genre hardcoding is in the base rules, it makes it that much harder to use for other things.

 

[El Mahdi]

Yes, D&D does this, in our games anyway, and if it can do it there it can do it for others. D&D rules are a base set easily expanded upon. It may not have been designed for it, but it works just fine. GURPS, on the other hand, never managed this for us.

And I know the English language, thank you.

I agree that D&D has had a versatility to it that other games don't. Which is likely why so many (including myself) use it as our base systems (along with simple familiarity that is...). But no edition has been perfect at this (or as close to perfect as possible with a game). I'm hoping that with 5E, especially with the designers stated goals, that this may be more closely realized than before.


Also...Sorry if my earlier post came across as if I was correcting your English. Your English is just fine. In fact I didn't even notice you're in Germany until you commented above. I wasn't specifically trying to correct your usage of the term generic. I was predominantly trying to add to the threads conversation with regards to defining "Generic" as pertains to D&D and RPG's.

Sorry if it came across as overly anal or corrective.

 

[howandwhy99]

That last sentence is the key: "it's own particular version".

It can't be it's own particular version and be generic. The two are not the same thing.

I buy generic drugs. They are their own particular version, but they don't carry a big brand name. They cost less, but if they screw up it's not like they are sinking a 100 year old reputation or anything.

I know generic generally refers to an overall group, but once you start talking about any game with rules we get particulars. What would a "generic" monster look like? I understand bland and boring, overall less detailed, but the detail is still specific detail.

Core classes are sort of like this. "Fighter", "Magic-User", "Thief" They're not exactly screaming detail, but the detail is up to the player. Customization is the name of the game. The rules give broad sketches and lots of optional details. Or create your own.

I'm still confused on how definition can be non-particular. Are we talking highly normative and average = generic? Like a generic apple looks like most other apples you've seen?

 

[Steely_Dan]

I loved themBut they weren't as "historical" as their titles made them seem. They were still very much D&D versions of those real world historical settings.

I recall The Glory of Rome being pretty groundbreaking.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I essentially agree with the OP. RPG rules determine the settings in which you can play them. Everything from race to classes (and the existense of races and classes) to skills to abilities to magic and on and on says a lot about the setting. GURPS doesn't work as a counterexample because it swaps in and out large bodes of rules to work with different settings.

When I play D&D I want to play in the setting implied by the rules of Holmes Basic / AD&D because that's what I started with. If I want another experience I'll play something that's not D&D. The most important thing 5E can do for me is to support the setting I want to play in. 3E did and I bought it. 4E failed miserably in this and so I stopped after the 3 core books.

I don't mind if 5E supports other settings as well, but this can only be done to a certain extent. It's not possible to support every setting at once with a single set of rules.

 

[El Mahdi]

...I'm still confused on how definition can be non-particular. Are we talking highly normative and average = generic? Like a generic apple looks like most other apples you've seen?

As I posted above:

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).

 

[SkidAce]

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.

Thank you for saying this.

 

[SkidAce]

And while I "comprehend" the point made by the OP, I guess I'm just old and stubborn.

We have used the DnD framework for generic fantasy and house specific visions of such since 81, and will continue to do so.

I guess I'm on the other side of the fence, every so often people come and tell me to stop trying to shoehorn DnD into something it was not designed to be with well reasoned arguments and logic. And that I should play a system more suited to "particular styles".

DnD is my toolkit and my system for developing generic fantasy and specific flavors of play.

BL: I can tweak DnD, and I know any system we changed to we would start tweaking...so why change what works?

 

[El Mahdi]

I Agree 100% SkidAce!

I'm amazed that people don't see the irony in telling people to just try another game, or say that D&D shouldn't have to cater to our ideas.

The irony is in that while they say it shouldn't cater to us, they most definitely want it to not change so it can continue catering to them...

The truly foolish part of that logic is that it can do both. But they're so afraid of losing what they like they'd rather say to hell with anyone elses desires. It's as if they absolutely do not care that the D&D fan base has fractured so much as to put the continued publication of D&D in jeopardy. "Catering" to other ideas is the only road for success going forward.

People may as well start "dealing" with this now. Maintain these illogical positions and fears all one wants, but in the end, the game is going to change. It's inevitable. All railing against these changes is going to do is stress and upset oneself unduly. Instead, embracing this inevitability, and being part of the process so one's voice is heard and your vision realized/maintained, is the only logical course.

In other words, be more vocal about what one does want, rather than about what one doesn't want.

It's really that simple.