Composer99
Hero
Apropos of swords-and-sorcery-and-sandwiches I mean, dystopia:
I daresay that dystopia as a genre has room for both doomed and redeemable dystopias. What makes a story a work of dystopian fiction, to my mind, is the centrality of the dystopia to the story. The dystopia not only sets up the central conflict of the story (if there is one), but in a sense the dystopian society is a character, in and of itself, in the story.
I would not say that swords-and-sorcery is not or cannot be dystopian or include elements of dystopia. Say rather that unlike the dystopian genre, if such elements appear in a swords-and-sorcery work, they are part of the setting backdrop. The fact that a great city or civilisation is "decayed" or "decadent" - which has a ring of dystopia to it to my mind - might help set up the conflict between the protagonist and antagonist (especially if the antagonist is a fell sorcerer-king or some such), but it doesn't strike me as being a central element in swords-and-sorcery. (Genre mashup notwithstanding, of course.)
Apropos of the thread topic:
If anything, the majority of content published during the early 5e life cycle was aimed at the sort of person who enjoyed either ToA/Rime-style content or late-80s/90s-style AD&D. It's only fair to give other market segments their due.
What's more, it's abundantly clear that WotC is publishing material that "supports, and is for, various playstyles and settings" - Strixhaven, Ravenloft, Ravinca, Theros, Eberron, Spelljammer (soon) and Dragonlance (soon) each support and reflect a particular "flavour of fantasy" (as described in the DMG). This claim of yours seems bizarre, even kind of ridiculous, in light of the materials hat have actually been and are soon to be published. I also rather doubt that Ravinca or Strixhaven, say, are designed only with "be[ing] for the largest possible market" in mind.
(*) Up to a point. I don't feel WotC has any particular obligation to cater to the gameplay preferences of, say, the Justin LaNasas of the gaming world.
I daresay that dystopia as a genre has room for both doomed and redeemable dystopias. What makes a story a work of dystopian fiction, to my mind, is the centrality of the dystopia to the story. The dystopia not only sets up the central conflict of the story (if there is one), but in a sense the dystopian society is a character, in and of itself, in the story.
I would not say that swords-and-sorcery is not or cannot be dystopian or include elements of dystopia. Say rather that unlike the dystopian genre, if such elements appear in a swords-and-sorcery work, they are part of the setting backdrop. The fact that a great city or civilisation is "decayed" or "decadent" - which has a ring of dystopia to it to my mind - might help set up the conflict between the protagonist and antagonist (especially if the antagonist is a fell sorcerer-king or some such), but it doesn't strike me as being a central element in swords-and-sorcery. (Genre mashup notwithstanding, of course.)
Apropos of the thread topic:
Where I think people reasonably disagree with that take is that, given the slow pace of 5e publishing (relative to past editions of D&D), it does not follow of necessity that a lack of recent publications in a given style means that style has been "abandoned" by WotC or that the game is "moving on without" people who enjoyed content such as ToA etc. (*)I think this hits the nail on the head.
The shift/evolution of D&D, as WotC is headed, has come really into its stride within the last couple of years. The fans that liked material like in ToA and Rime (whatever we are calling it) are feeling like the game they enjoy is moving on without them when the company that created the game stops publishing material they like.
One of the great things about the 2e/3e publishing days (problematic content aside) was there was something for everyone. Not every book, adventure, setting, etc. had to be for the largest possible market. I would love to see WotC publish material that supports, and is for, various playstyles and settings.
And yes there is a ton of old and 3rd party products to support a variety of playstyles and settings, but we are talking about the direction that WotC is taking in this thread.
Edit: grammar
If anything, the majority of content published during the early 5e life cycle was aimed at the sort of person who enjoyed either ToA/Rime-style content or late-80s/90s-style AD&D. It's only fair to give other market segments their due.
What's more, it's abundantly clear that WotC is publishing material that "supports, and is for, various playstyles and settings" - Strixhaven, Ravenloft, Ravinca, Theros, Eberron, Spelljammer (soon) and Dragonlance (soon) each support and reflect a particular "flavour of fantasy" (as described in the DMG). This claim of yours seems bizarre, even kind of ridiculous, in light of the materials hat have actually been and are soon to be published. I also rather doubt that Ravinca or Strixhaven, say, are designed only with "be[ing] for the largest possible market" in mind.
(*) Up to a point. I don't feel WotC has any particular obligation to cater to the gameplay preferences of, say, the Justin LaNasas of the gaming world.
Last edited: