Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
D&D Has Never Been Suitable for Generic Fantasy
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="El Mahdi" data-source="post: 5926611" data-attributes="member: 59506"><p>Yes...and there is nothing wrong with that.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>For the most part, this is true. D&D has tried to do generic fantasy through supplements, but it was definitely a case of shoehorning a base system not optimal for such an application. However, it still doesn't mean that this must remain true.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Absolutely Wrong.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I disagree. Due to D&D's "quirks" from the beginning, it started as and has become moreso, a Fantasy Genre unto itself...so on that I Agree. And, it's influence has spread, however that doesn't make D&D "Generic". But again, none of this precludes D&D being able to support Generic Fantasy now.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Wrong again. If nobody cared, we wouldn't be talking about this issue. Those that want Generic Fantasy support most assuredly do care...and you most certainly do care that this should never be allowed. Atempting to downplay or marginalize this issue, while also ranting against it, seems rather a bit contradictory. You're at cross-purposes with yourself. The more people vociferously speak against this idea, the more likely it is to come to pass. keeping quiet has a much better chance of this seeming to be a "fringe" or minority issue, and thus be overlooked, rather than forcing it into prominence with continuing threads of this sort.</p><p></p><p>So, on behalf of those that do want Generic Fantasy support, I heartily thank you for raising this issue...<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Because even those so-called "Generic" games you're talking about, also have their issues...usually (though not all of them) "mechanical" issues that cause the game to be overly complicated, slow resolution, etc., or just not suitable for what people are looking for. Those that do find what they need in them, do switch. Those that don't...don't. No game is perfect. However, D&D is the game that most people started out with. It's the game that most people "know" (mechanically) the best. And it is a very malliable and flexible rules system.</p><p></p><p>And it is not only <em>"your"</em> game...<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I strongly disagree. This is an assumption based on no proof or data. There is no way for one to "know" that D&D wouldn't have been as popular as it is today if it had been more generic.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Wrong again. Developers of different editions have all attempted to do this, to varying degrees and with varying levels of success. I think the edition that came closest to doing this was 3E, but even 4E's concepts of roles was an attempt at this. You are completely off base on this one. Developers of all editions have recognized that parts of the fan base most definitely do want "Generic" support, and have attempted to provide this.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No. This is just one aspect or application of the game. It is this at some tables, and something very different at others...but there's no reason the game can't be "better" than it has been at both...</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Why not...? Why do you feel you get to decide what D&D should or shouldn't do or be...? That type of character is one I certainly would not enjoy playing myself, but as a DM I most certainly would allow a player of mine to do so, and would do my utmost to facilitate it in play. As a DM, I would most certainly encourage and applaud any attempts in game design that would make it easier for me to do this.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I Agree. The above statement is quite true. Just as true as the game does not owe it to any player or fan to never change either. The game is capable of being both your game, my game, and everybodies' game. With the ideas behind 5E, it should be able to be both a genre unto itself, and a generic toolbox for any type of game...even the absolutely horrific concept of being a "storytelling" tool!<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite9" alt=":eek:" title="Eek! :eek:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":eek:" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And yet D&D itself over the years, has offered "official" options so one doesn't have to play D&D this way.</p><p></p><p>Hmmmm....<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/ponder.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":hmm:" title="Hmmm :hmm:" data-shortname=":hmm:" /></p><p></p><p>I don't think D&D "is" what you think it "is"...</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And here we come down to the crux of the illogic behind the assumptions presented here:</p><p></p><p>Just because it hasn't been generic, does not mean it can't ever be designed, or offer "modules", that allow it to be played this way now. It can most certainly be both, and be effective at both...even possibly more effective at either than it ever has been. There are very few constants in life. But one I have learned from experience is: <em>"because that's the way it's always been"</em> is the absolute dumbest reason ever for not doing something new or improving something.</p><p></p><p>Now, I'm not saying one should make change for change sake. But when an area for improvement is identified, as this has been discussed for decades, it's the height of foolishness to not attempt it based simply on the idea that <em>"the game has never done that before".*</em></p><p></p><p>*(...especially when that's not true, as pointed out above).</p><p></p><p></p><p>D&D is capable of being "Generic" without impinging upon what D&D has always been...especially with the concept of modularity. 5E can be made with a base system that will support both, and every other game style or use. Those that are so sure it can't have a distinct lack of understanding of D&D's mechanics and flexibility, and a distinct lack of imagination...not to mention an overdeveloped fear of change. I just don't understand why some are so against D&D being able to do things that they personally don't like, seemingly because they simply don't like them... Just because it can, doesn't mean one will be foreced to play that way. And before those same people go talking about how it will <em>"muck up their game"</em>...1) it's not a given that this will happen, and 2)D&D is not YOUR game, it's WotC's game. WotC is going to do whatever they think will sell more product. If they can make the game able to support Generic Fantasy more effectively, and as a result sell more product, it's a no brainer...fear of getting peanut butter in one's chocolate not withstanding.</p><p></p><p><img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/glasses.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt="B-)" title="Glasses B-)" data-shortname="B-)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="El Mahdi, post: 5926611, member: 59506"] Yes...and there is nothing wrong with that. For the most part, this is true. D&D has tried to do generic fantasy through supplements, but it was definitely a case of shoehorning a base system not optimal for such an application. However, it still doesn't mean that this must remain true. Absolutely Wrong. I disagree. Due to D&D's "quirks" from the beginning, it started as and has become moreso, a Fantasy Genre unto itself...so on that I Agree. And, it's influence has spread, however that doesn't make D&D "Generic". But again, none of this precludes D&D being able to support Generic Fantasy now. Wrong again. If nobody cared, we wouldn't be talking about this issue. Those that want Generic Fantasy support most assuredly do care...and you most certainly do care that this should never be allowed. Atempting to downplay or marginalize this issue, while also ranting against it, seems rather a bit contradictory. You're at cross-purposes with yourself. The more people vociferously speak against this idea, the more likely it is to come to pass. keeping quiet has a much better chance of this seeming to be a "fringe" or minority issue, and thus be overlooked, rather than forcing it into prominence with continuing threads of this sort. So, on behalf of those that do want Generic Fantasy support, I heartily thank you for raising this issue...:) Because even those so-called "Generic" games you're talking about, also have their issues...usually (though not all of them) "mechanical" issues that cause the game to be overly complicated, slow resolution, etc., or just not suitable for what people are looking for. Those that do find what they need in them, do switch. Those that don't...don't. No game is perfect. However, D&D is the game that most people started out with. It's the game that most people "know" (mechanically) the best. And it is a very malliable and flexible rules system. And it is not only [I]"your"[/I] game...:erm: I strongly disagree. This is an assumption based on no proof or data. There is no way for one to "know" that D&D wouldn't have been as popular as it is today if it had been more generic. Wrong again. Developers of different editions have all attempted to do this, to varying degrees and with varying levels of success. I think the edition that came closest to doing this was 3E, but even 4E's concepts of roles was an attempt at this. You are completely off base on this one. Developers of all editions have recognized that parts of the fan base most definitely do want "Generic" support, and have attempted to provide this. No. This is just one aspect or application of the game. It is this at some tables, and something very different at others...but there's no reason the game can't be "better" than it has been at both... Why not...? Why do you feel you get to decide what D&D should or shouldn't do or be...? That type of character is one I certainly would not enjoy playing myself, but as a DM I most certainly would allow a player of mine to do so, and would do my utmost to facilitate it in play. As a DM, I would most certainly encourage and applaud any attempts in game design that would make it easier for me to do this. I Agree. The above statement is quite true. Just as true as the game does not owe it to any player or fan to never change either. The game is capable of being both your game, my game, and everybodies' game. With the ideas behind 5E, it should be able to be both a genre unto itself, and a generic toolbox for any type of game...even the absolutely horrific concept of being a "storytelling" tool!:eek: And yet D&D itself over the years, has offered "official" options so one doesn't have to play D&D this way. Hmmmm....:hmm: I don't think D&D "is" what you think it "is"... And here we come down to the crux of the illogic behind the assumptions presented here: Just because it hasn't been generic, does not mean it can't ever be designed, or offer "modules", that allow it to be played this way now. It can most certainly be both, and be effective at both...even possibly more effective at either than it ever has been. There are very few constants in life. But one I have learned from experience is: [I]"because that's the way it's always been"[/I] is the absolute dumbest reason ever for not doing something new or improving something. Now, I'm not saying one should make change for change sake. But when an area for improvement is identified, as this has been discussed for decades, it's the height of foolishness to not attempt it based simply on the idea that [I]"the game has never done that before".*[/I] *(...especially when that's not true, as pointed out above). D&D is capable of being "Generic" without impinging upon what D&D has always been...especially with the concept of modularity. 5E can be made with a base system that will support both, and every other game style or use. Those that are so sure it can't have a distinct lack of understanding of D&D's mechanics and flexibility, and a distinct lack of imagination...not to mention an overdeveloped fear of change. I just don't understand why some are so against D&D being able to do things that they personally don't like, seemingly because they simply don't like them... Just because it can, doesn't mean one will be foreced to play that way. And before those same people go talking about how it will [I]"muck up their game"[/I]...1) it's not a given that this will happen, and 2)D&D is not YOUR game, it's WotC's game. WotC is going to do whatever they think will sell more product. If they can make the game able to support Generic Fantasy more effectively, and as a result sell more product, it's a no brainer...fear of getting peanut butter in one's chocolate not withstanding. B-) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
D&D Has Never Been Suitable for Generic Fantasy
Top