• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

D&D 5E Too many cooks (a DnDN retrospective)

Me, I'm still baffled as to how saying that DM's should determine the baselines for their campaigns, and not WOTC, is somehow whiney player entitlement. :uhoh:

When its coupled with your other point of view, that players should get make whatever they want and DM's should just eat it and re-write everything to accommodate. Or not have any plan at all until they have a democratic pow wow and THEN start writing a campaign.

Both are equally ridiculous. I have a hard time separating them when it comes to your consistent, whiny, player entitlement rants.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

They probably just weren't a part of "his D&D". And his D&D *is* D&D in timASW's opinion I imagine.

Thankfully though... D&DN won't be "timASW's D&D". ;)

Fortunately, so far it looks like it WILL be TimASW's D&D. The rest of you can keep playing 4e.

I mean, you have the books, so what if its not supported? you can still play your game.
 

When its coupled with your other point of view, that players should get make whatever they want and DM's should just eat it and re-write everything to accommodate. Or not have any plan at all until they have a democratic pow wow and THEN start writing a campaign.

Both are equally ridiculous. I have a hard time separating them when it comes to your consistent, whiny, player entitlement rants.
I think it takes a massive effort at misreading to take that away from the post.

I mean, you have the books, so what if its not supported? you can still play your game.
...Isn't that true for everybody at this point?

I'm still on pins and needles to hear why people playing AD&D using stuff in the published books - and players in the original Greyhawk campaign, for that matter - weren't playing D&D. :uhoh: You've effectively shut the gates so hard (retroactively!) that you've booted Gary Gygax from the D&D club as a guy who "gives in" to "whiny player entitlement."

-O
 

If you had played either of those games you would know there werent PC half demons, robots, or for that matter even drow.

And to be honest, 1e sucked balls. A big chunk of Gary's game sucked. It was a fine idea, but it needed other people to vastly improve it.

LOL and for the record Gary had a half dozen classes, dwarfs and elves as a race and a level limit.

If he wanted robots and demon spawn in D&D they would have been in the 1e PHB. You'll note if you look at it that they arent.


Mod Note: Please see my note below. ~Umbran
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Just popping this in to say I'm disappointed Eberron seems to be continually bagged as 'robot world' - it is so much /more/. Warforged play a relatively minor role in the setting, and for that matter they're not robots, they're golems. You'd have a hard time selling me on a version of D&D that didn't have those.

More on-topic; I'm of the mind that there shouldn't even be an assumed setting in core books. Include basic fluff, sure, but otherwise take a mishmash approach to what's published and include a clear notice that the DM can and should restrict the options available or modify their descriptions. Wizards can provide me with the tools; I want them out of my way when I'm using those tools to build something, though.
 

Except that campaign settings are not core rules. They are optional settings. So again you have no point.
First, I just want to say I completely get what you are saying here. And why your replies look the way they do. I think people are misunderstanding you possibly due to how you are saying this. I'll elaborate below.

No they're not. Orcs are filthy, chaotic freebooters. Klingons are an advanced, honorable warrior race.
Unrelated to previous (or later) quotes: Hate to disagree with you but this one I actually see. Same with Vulcans = Elves. Yes, it is a major refluff and you don't have "orcs" anymore. But yeah, Klingons = Orcs I perfectly see.

Anyone else see Goblins = Ferengi?

The problem is - everything you're saying doesn't belong in D&D has been in D&D for 30+ years, already.
I think it has to do with HOW they have been in DnD. Whether or not they're core to the game, if they should be included just because they existed or have been used at some point isn't much of a reason to include it by default in the game.

So in order ... (1) Expedition to the Barrier Peaks goes back to 1980. Crashed spaceship, laser guns, etc. (2) gelatinous cubes and the like go back to the very first campaigns, mid-70's. (3) Monks were put into D&D specifically because one of the players liked the Destroyer novels; they've been a part ever since. (4) Again, goes back to the mid-70's. (5) The robot sub is the Apparatus of Kwalish; check your 1e DMG. ;)
1 - Adventures, not the game as a whole. I would wager the mini-balrog is too. Single adventure or specific setting only. Not applied generally across ALL games, or even regularly outside the one adventure. Sometimes never seen again but you say it is part of the history of DnD? Also, how often are these spaceships and things in the core rules; PHB, DMG, MM kinds of books?
2 - Monster, which has shown up in several MM's to my knowledge. This one is pretty safe as DnD for me, and even by tim's logic (assuming I understand correctly). However, the justification you are using is "campaigns". By that logic Sun Elves belong in the core books because they go back many many years. Or Kender too. I'm not suggesting (at all) that these things should be cut from the game as a whole, I doubt their existence as "core" whatever that truly means.
3 - Monks, again, have been in DnD a long time and even in "core" books so I think you lost me.
4 - I don't know what (4) is referring to actually. But I'd be remiss if I excluded it, I'm sure.
5 - Also, DMG.. not the greatest source but again I'd accept it. That is a book, generally speaking part of the "core" and if it has been around since 1e then I think it should be for 5e. Since when do we use the existence of one object to automatically include anything related to it (genre or not). Dragons have been around forever, how about half-dragons (wait, I don't know if they have been too.. ermmm..) everything in the 3e Dragon Magic book? Is that all core now?

How in the world can you say stuff that was in D&D back in the first decade isn't a part of D&D?
I missed the beginning of this conversation so please excuse my ignorance (but I'm assuming the answer has evolved too, as the discussion has). In what way is tim saying things aren't "part of DnD" as you put it? I assumed he meant in the core books, that's what I wrote this predicated upon. Or that players should be able to demand to play these kinds of things, instead of them being campaign, setting or adventure dependent. If not, if it is just these things being included somewhere or anywhere in DnD... then yeah, DnD has had some pretty messed up stuff happening over the years. Magic of Incarnum would be my go to example. I found MoI to be odd. Too odd to put into my games, does that mean that it isn't part of DnD? No, but it does mean it is something I don't really care if it gets reprinted for 5e or ever seen again. It is a secondary book, something extra. Something similar to those examples you gave that showed up in early adventures but never seen again. Who cares if it exists, it isn't all that useful to the wider game. That's my only point here, I suppose.
 

And to be honest, 1e sucked balls.


Rule #1 of EN World is "keep it civil". While you're free to dislike a game, or a designer, and say so, we expect you to express it with a modicum of respect and a civil tongue. So, please tone it down a notch, will you?
 

And Borg, do please show me some 30 year old D@D borg. Pretty please.

From the D&D Companion series module CM6, Where Chaos Reigns, published in 1985:



oard.jpg

Their bodies are "only part flesh and blood, with the remainder being composed of machinery, electronic circuits, and so on. As a result most oards are nearly identical in appearance."

In the module, they are conquering the world of Aelos and the PCs are sent to different periods in the timeline to thwart the oards.

I believe that the oards were included in the 1986 Creature Catalog supplement as well.
 

First, I just want to say I completely get what you are saying here. And why your replies look the way they do. I think people are misunderstanding you possibly due to how you are saying this. I'll elaborate below.

Yeah you pretty much got it.

Unrelated to previous (or later) quotes: Hate to disagree with you but this one I actually see. Same with Vulcans = Elves. Yes, it is a major refluff and you don't have "orcs" anymore. But yeah, Klingons = Orcs I perfectly see.

Anyone else see Goblins = Ferengi?

I do have to quibble with this though. Star trek came around befoe D&D by 8 years. Its possible Gene Roddenbury was a big tolkien fan and used them as inspiration but I have never seen anything where he said so.

So it really seems unlikely to me that their related at all.
 

From the D&D Companion series module CM6, Where Chaos Reigns, published in 1985:



View attachment 55522

Their bodies are "only part flesh and blood, with the remainder being composed of machinery, electronic circuits, and so on. As a result most oards are nearly identical in appearance."

In the module, they are conquering the world of Aelos and the PCs are sent to different periods in the timeline to thwart the oards.

I believe that the oards were included in the 1986 Creature Catalog supplement as well.

A one time monster from an obscure adventure module does not make something part of D&D's core history.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top