Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wizard Biscuits" data-source="post: 4782638" data-attributes="member: 77502">Well, I'm 23 and I've read all of them, but that's only because I'm a voracious bibliophile with too much time on my hands. Mind you, that's not to say I liked all of them (I'm looking at you Rowling and Brooks).  It's a good list, could be broader, but you've nailed some of the writer's who've got a thought out, methodical system to their world and ones which stand out from a lot of the mainstream, generic fantasy drivel out there.  Which leads to a bit of a conundrum, because in a way that's what D&D represents best. But given the nature of D&D, that's no bad thing, because conciously or not, the DM and players will nip and tuck at it till it suits their style of play. It could be argued that to play a style of game reminiscient of any of the above authors would require a couple of tweaks to the ruleset of any edition. But even then, that's not always necessary, because a lot of the changes would simply rely on the way the DM presents it to the players.  In a way, I think the core of D&D has become it's own, identifiably generic, genre of (high) fantasy. It's what's then done to it, be it rules-tweaking, imagery presentation and whatnot, within each campaign setting released that expands it's scope. That's why I don't think the core identity of it 'needs' to be influenced or take cue's from any author, contemporary or not, nowadays because that's then up to the DM, the players, and writers who add to it in supplements, magazines, websites, etc, to make it their game (or a game set in a familiar world). Um... I hope some of that made sense at any rate. Oh, and all of the above is pure, 100% my own opinion.</blockquote>

Verification