Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="firesnakearies" data-source="post: 4551240" data-attributes="member: 71334">I'm not sure why the mythological symbols of a handful of cultures from one rather small and specific part of the world count as "generic".Also, I understand why the original D&D implied setting was based heavily on Tolkien and European mythology, and the few other fantasy writers who existed at that time and who were all drawing from the same creative well, so to speak.It's because that's all there was, in the entire genre.The fantasy genre was, essentially, just being born.  So the early creators of fantasy roleplaying games had very little source material to draw from.  And it wasn't very diverse, at all.  It spoke to the political, social, and cultural realities and sensibilities of the world at that time, but that didn't make it some kind of immutable, eternal, perfect fantasy template to be adhered to for all time, world without end.Since then, "fantasy" as a whole has grown, a lot.  It has diversified, a lot.  It has evolved, building upon itself, and keeping pace with the shifting mindset of a changing world.  It has gone far, far beyond the limited little window into one possible view of fantasy that Tolkien made so famously accessible to us.  Creativity has bred more creativity, and now, fantasy is a rich and diverse genre which can, in truth, offer those thousands of possible worlds of wonder for us to explore.In my opinion, the spirit of D&D is to represent fantasy as the current generation relates to it, not merely to stick to the small original seed from which an entire forest has subsequently grown.  There is no more "generic" fantasy, nor should there be.  The very idea of fantasy, in the modern literary, mythic, and cinematic conception, defies homogeneity and universality.In short, there is no longer "one ring to rule them all".It's good that D&D is stretching its boundaries with each successive iteration.  It's good that D&D is challenging the old, encysted ideas of what a fantasy world "should" be.  This, in my view, is what D&D is all about, and what it has always wanted to do.  This is, I dare say, the duty of Dungeons and Dragons, if it wants to continue to hold the place in fantasy-lovers' hearts that it has for the last three decades.If D&D isn't going to carry forward the torch of true fantasy roleplaying into the midst of the next generation, rather than merely through it, why bother with new editions at all?  A new mechanical rules system is not, in itself, sufficient reason to update a cultural icon and means of collective storytelling like D&D -- maintaining relevance with changing intellectual and creative values is even more important.In books, in music, in films and television, and in every other form of interactive narrative-based gaming, the paradigms have shifted.  The memes have changed.  The voice of our storytellers, and the drumbeat to which they dance, is decidedly different than it was thirty years ago.  We continually re-invent our myths, and the tone in which we communicate and play with them.  Why would D&D not participate in this process?Adding new things to what has been does not destroy the old.  Expansion does not equal invalidation.  And refusing to inject anything original into a tightly-defined set of pre-existing specifics does NOT make it more "generic".Given that there is, or should be, a dynamic, living connection between the conceptual framework of an edition of D&D and the actual culture and genre in which that incarnation is born, I say that clinging to the dusty shelves of a more limited creative library is, in fact, getting it "wrong".  D&D's implied setting and theme is "right" when it arises from the contemporary pool of fantasy lore and feeling which exists NOW, not some romanticized and enshrined memory of a less-developed age.So, I think they've gotten it a whole lot more "right" than "wrong" with 4th Edition.  We should not be asking our current "keepers of the flame" to merely tend and re-hash the visions of their forebears.  That is a disservice to the great creative talents who stand at the helm of D&D today.  Instead, we should embrace and support them in their turn at the wheel, allowing them to weave us new tales and paint us new symbols, just as we did for Mr. Gygax and the other "founding fathers" of the hobby.The implied setting is surely changed, but it is far, far from "wrong".$</blockquote>

Verification