Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8172044" data-attributes="member: 18">If I could define it, I could write the book that was sufficiently clever <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />But in broad terms we'd probably be looking at something actually-novel (as in new)-seeming, like Planescape was, and which was zeitgeist-y to the period it was in, like Planescape was. Planescape brought a large number of elements to D&amp;D that really hadn't been done in any significant way before, and that didn't match with typical expectations of what D&amp;D was about. Further, as noted, those elements matched a lot of what younger (i.e. sort of 16-29) people were looking for in fiction, especially fantasy fiction, in the 1990s. It fit right in with stuff like Neil Gaiman's comics, for example. And let's be real - Tony DiTerlizzi's art was a big part of this - not only was it cool, it was extremely different to typical fantasy art of the period, and again aligned with the zeitgeist, being whimsical and a bit difficult/weird, rather than purely straightforwardly representational.Obviously it's not yet possible to say what the zeitgeist of the 2020s and 2030s will be, of course.No-one has done that since, or if they have, it's pretty much sunk without a trace. Even stuff like Eberron, whilst clever and expanding notions of D&amp;D a bit, is essentially far more &quot;inside the box&quot; than Planescape (it also lacked any particularly different art - instead it's art was good but unsurprising).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 8172044, member: 18"] If I could define it, I could write the book that was sufficiently clever :) But in broad terms we'd probably be looking at something actually-novel (as in new)-seeming, like Planescape was, and which was zeitgeist-y to the period it was in, like Planescape was. Planescape brought a large number of elements to D&D that really hadn't been done in any significant way before, and that didn't match with typical expectations of what D&D was about. Further, as noted, those elements matched a lot of what younger (i.e. sort of 16-29) people were looking for in fiction, especially fantasy fiction, in the 1990s. It fit right in with stuff like Neil Gaiman's comics, for example. And let's be real - Tony DiTerlizzi's art was a big part of this - not only was it cool, it was extremely different to typical fantasy art of the period, and again aligned with the zeitgeist, being whimsical and a bit difficult/weird, rather than purely straightforwardly representational. Obviously it's not yet possible to say what the zeitgeist of the 2020s and 2030s will be, of course. No-one has done that since, or if they have, it's pretty much sunk without a trace. Even stuff like Eberron, whilst clever and expanding notions of D&D a bit, is essentially far more "inside the box" than Planescape (it also lacked any particularly different art - instead it's art was good but unsurprising). [/QUOTE]

Verification