Forked Thread: D&D: Generic and Specific Both?

[TerraDave]

D&D is wide-ranging. In terms of charecters, advesaries, supernatural elements, etc. Other rpgs (with exceptions like GURPS) tend to be much more specific. They aren't "medieval fantasy" they are a very particular kind of medieval fantasy. Its also fairly robust, designed to be used by a range of players, again in contrast to a lot of other games that depend on a more particular kind of play.

As far as this whole "systems" bussiness...D&D is more systemy then, again, many of those narrower RPGs, and it did introduce concepts like race, class, level, hp, monster...which are "systemic". Probably less systemy then say, Heroes/Champions or Gurps, fortunatly.

 

[Xath]

Justanobody, you've had enough civility warnings recently; it's time for a short vacation.

Mallus, consider this your warning.

I'll remind everyone to read up on the rules; mainly the civility rules. Make your point without insulting other posters.

 

[RFisher]

Well, I think it's a pretty obvious way to improve D&D - remove the monk from the core implied setting. Cleric should also get an overhaul. It's specifics are arguably another D&Dism, and alienates the game from the default genre it seeks to convey. Warlord shouldn't exist at all, or at least get a thorough working over with sandpaper and a wire brush to give it a new name and ensure it's based on some kind of archetype apart from military leader, which doesn't fit a D&D party at all (unless it's a mercenary company).

No, D&D isn't as consistent or generic as it should be, IMO. Where we differ is that I don't think the existence of core D&Disms is proof that the core D&D implied setting should have more, or that there isn't a strong theme extant despite them. (Monsters and magic items are too numerous and get too little screentime to be considered important to the tone of the game to be considered individually, so no gel cube arguments need apply.)

I mean, what other core classes have an oriental theme? The mystic. And that's just OD&D for "monk". Hardly a cavalcade of inconsistency versus the occidental tide of other classes, really.

I used to feel much the same way. That’s when I stopped playing D&D of any stripe.

At the time, I thought I stopped playing D&D because D&D had problems. Now I’d say rather that it wasn’t the game I wanted to play.

When I finally came back to it, I found myself adopting more of a “let D&D be D&D” attitude. It’s a lot more enjoyable that way. I have other systems for when I want to play something different. I have D&D for when I want to play D&D.

Now, that doesn’t mean I treat the books as canon. I just aim for something closer to D&D as it is.

 

[Remathilis]

Well, I think it's a pretty obvious way to improve D&D - remove the monk from the core implied setting. Cleric should also get an overhaul. It's specifics are arguably another D&Dism, and alienates the game from the default genre it seeks to convey. Warlord shouldn't exist at all, or at least get a thorough working over with sandpaper and a wire brush to give it a new name and ensure it's based on some kind of archetype apart from military leader, which doesn't fit a D&D party at all (unless it's a mercenary company).

No, D&D isn't as consistent or generic as it should be, IMO. Where we differ is that I don't think the existence of core D&Disms is proof that the core D&D implied setting should have more, or that there isn't a strong theme extant despite them. (Monsters and magic items are too numerous and get too little screentime to be considered important to the tone of the game to be considered individually, so no gel cube arguments need apply.)

I mean, what other core classes have an oriental theme? The mystic. And that's just OD&D for "monk". Hardly a cavalcade of inconsistency versus the occidental tide of other classes, really.

This is a place there can be no compromise.

Some people will want D&D to have its own unique feel (lots of people hated vancian casting, yet lamented its passing) while others want d20 Fantasy perfectly suited to whatever stripe of fantasy they want to run from SnS to GnG to high fantasy.

No thank you. I like the general D&D mixture of western medieval romance, oriental mysticism, myth & legend, pulp novels, high fantasy, and the occasional sci-fi element. It emulates nothing, but pays homage to much. It steals liberally (and has been stolen from in return) but still mixes it in a way that only D&D can. Sure, you can add food coloring to it (settings, house rules) but the moment you assume D&D would be better off without clerics, plate-mail, monks, dragonborn, elemental-themed giants, beholders, demon lords, warlocks, color-coded dragons, gnomes, thieves, tieflings, planar travel, or magic missile is the day I check out and get a WoW subscription.

 

[rounser]

This is a place there can be no compromise. <snip>

You can have all that. It's just all optional, rather than forced down your throat by being in the core implied setting, like your avatar.

It's the people on your side of the argument who are forcing "no compromise". Don't pretend to be in a self-righteous bargaining position as if you're being imposed upon when, in fact, your tastes are the imposition.

 

[Mallus]

It emulates nothing, but pays homage to much.

Well said!

And that said, people will still try to use D&D to emulate their favorite fantasy works, and seeing as the game's still around, it seems they meet with enough success.

 

[Scribble]

It emulates nothing, but pays homage to much. It steals liberally (and has been stolen from in return) but still mixes it in a way that only D&D can.

D&D is like a little kid who has a few GI Joes and some Transformers, and a couple Ninja Turtles, and they all get together and fight eachother, or fight with eachother under the ultimate guiding wisdom of He-Man...

Which makes it the ultimate in awesome.

 

[Remathilis]

You can have all that. It's just all optional, rather than forced down your throat by being in the core implied setting, like your avatar.

It's the people on your side of the argument who are forcing "no compromise". Don't pretend to be in a self-righteous bargaining position as if you're being imposed upon when, in fact, your tastes are the imposition.

Then what then should be considered "core"? What becomes D&D baseline? What should be in the Players Handbook?

Demi-humans? One person doesn't use halflings, another doesn't have elves, and a third doesn't use them at all. Yet I use all of them and more. Do demi-humans belong in the "core?" Which?

What about clerics? (mace-wielding, spell-casting, buddy-healing, armor-wearing clergy). What about thieves? Monks? Barbarians? Druids? Paladins? Swashbucklers? Warlocks? Maybe we should have three generic classes like UA/True d20 or six like d20 Modern and allow people to make their own "classes"?

Repeat this with monsters, spells, magic items. Why does Mordenkainen's Hound get in the PHB, but not Elminster's Evasion or Strahd's Frightful Joining?

The problem is that no one really can agree on what is essential (core) to the game, and what isn't.

As a final note, there is one edition of D&D that is relatively generic. It had six of the most common fantasy races (human, dwarf, elf, halfling, gnome, half-elf) and nine classes representing classic archetypes (fighter, ranger, paladin, cleric, specialty priest (example druid), mage, specialist wizard (example illusionist), thief, bard) a passable method of customizing priesthoods, only a handful of named spells, an optional skills system, an explandable Monster Manual system that only include the monsters from the sources you want, and absolutely NO implied setting; no sample deities, no Greyhawk artifacts, no implied world beyond the "rules", no dragonborn, warforged, or other weird races except in the various supplemental rule-sets.

It was called Second Edition. Its the most typically reviled and skipped-over edition of D&D for precisely the reason it was too generic and betrayed Gary's implied world. It was also dull as dishwater.

Careful what you wish for...

 

[Remathilis]

D&D is like a little kid who has a few GI Joes and some Transformers, and a couple Ninja Turtles, and they all get together and fight eachother, or fight with eachother under the ultimate guiding wisdom of He-Man...

Which makes it the ultimate in awesome.

If I had a a dollar for every time Yoda taught Snake Eyes the Force who then fought Megatron, I'd have enough money to buy Star Wars and avoid making the prequels.

 

[Betote]

It was called Second Edition. Its the most typically reviled and skipped-over edition of D&D for precisely the reason it was too generic and betrayed Gary's implied world. It was also dull as dishwater.

Careful what you wish for...

And yet, I'd play 2e over 1e anytime (although I'd play HackMaster over both of them)

Maybe because 2e had the best settings and streamlined some of the crazy Gygaxness of 1e, and because I could easily use 1e's modules (its best feature) with it.