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.
Yes...and there is nothing wrong with that.
But D&D is not generic fantasy, and never has been...
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.
...and never really can be...
Absolutely Wrong.
...EXCEPT if we consider that what is now considered "generic fantasy" is hugely colored by years of D&D being the starting-point of so many lives devoted to "fantasy" as a genre (which explains to me why you see things like Paladins in Diablo and WarCraft). Pop culture makes references to "+1" items, a D&D concept to the core. This stuff is ingrained.
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.
Even from the original little books by Gygax and Arneson, right through to the 4th edition (which itself had a wildly different assumed setting but plenty of it, and in great lava gulps), this is a game that has been dripping with implied setting to various degrees. That implied setting might be a mish-mash of inspirations and rip-offs, but it is there nonetheless. Clerics? Paladins? Bards? Magic-users with spell slots and spells that start with "Bigby's"? These aren't generic fantasy, they are D&D through and through. They transcend their literary antecedents at this point. "Bards are based on rea..." yadda yadda no one cares, every bard in every video game is based on the lute-strumming D&D bard who is D&D to the core.
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...
I don't see why anyone would want to make D&D a "generic fantasy" toolkit, game, storytelling tool or anything else for that matter, except that people seem to be drawn to the name "Dungeons & Dragons" even above the game sold under that title. The truth is there are generic fantasy gaming systems out there (many inspired by D&D in turn, naturally) but D&D is basically incapable of being one. What is generic about a cosmology that includes the alignments? What is generic about a vorpal sword or a bag of holding? ("Let's remove alignments from the system, they don't fit the world I want to play in!" Well, or, you could play a different game entirely that never had alignments to begin with. There are plenty to choose from. Why should D&D have to become one?)
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
"your" game...
D&D grew to become iconic and survive to playtest a fifth edition (which isn't even the fifth edition but more like the sixth or seventh) specifically because it was never generic.
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.
It has presented a very specific framework for adventure gaming that has been highly malleable- but NOT N O T N-O-T generic. It was never about infinite character concepts, acting out any role you could imagine-
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
The game does not owe your character anything
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!
...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.
And yet D&D itself over the years, has offered "official" options so one doesn't have to play D&D this way.
Hmmmm....
I don't think D&D "is" what you think it "is"...
Going forward into the playtest and the edition it will spawn, I think it is important to remember this point. D&D is not and never has been a go-to toolkit for telling fantasy stories; it is a game of adventure in a fairly specific mode and in a fairly specific kind of world- right down to the concept of class & level, which itself says something about the setting (there are people who go out and adventure, and each one is highly proficient in a specific useful area towards the goal of acquisition of treasure and as they adventure, they become better at it, eventually beyond the ken of their erstwhile "unclassed" peers). Dungeons & Dragons is a game for exploring "D&D Worlds." D&D Worlds can look very, very different from each other on the surface and even for a few layers below that, but they are still D&D Worlds at their cores- until you stretch them so far they ~POP~ and you're left with something alien (but not intrinsically worthless). This is how some of the post-D&D fantasy rule sets were born, after all!
When we try to turn D&D into generic fantasy, something to tell our individual fantasy stories, it kind of breaks down. D&D is good at being D&D, and not much else. And that, I think, is why it is STILL the biggest fantasy adventure game on the block in terms of brand recognition. But could that recognition falter if D&D is made to be more generic, more adaptable, and extricated further from the concepts it made so iconic they are now regarded as staples of our modern notions about the fantasy genre?
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:
"because that's the way it's always been" 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
"the game has never done that before".*
*(...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
"muck up their game"...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.
