Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DMZ2112" data-source="post: 6290880" data-attributes="member: 78752">I don't think it is appropriate to continue calling D&amp;D a fantasy mashup.&nbsp; It's 40 years old, and its target audience no longer remembers most of the things it was originally mashing.&nbsp; D&amp;D is its own genre, now.&nbsp; Treating it as a cohesive whole is a logical development.&nbsp;I'm confused.&nbsp; How is that not a direct sentence-to-sentence contradiction?That is just completely contrary to my own experience.&nbsp; I have spent years of my life explaining to various and sundry groups of players why they can't use things that are printed in D&amp;D books because of my homebrew rules and lore.&nbsp; I have frequently not realized before they are called to my attention in a character build or backstory that these things would not be compatible.&nbsp; D&amp;D carries a lot of baggage.&nbsp; Forty years of it, in fact.&nbsp;Again, how is that not a sentence-to-sentence contradiction?I'm pretty sure I understand you perfectly.&nbsp; I just think your position is less an unassailable fortress.That isn't clear.&nbsp; First of all, I do not understand your protest against mutual exclusivity, as you seem to be clearly in favor of mutual exclusivity in mountain dwarf lore and mechanics.&nbsp; Second, as we are both advocating using &quot;ALL&quot; of the &quot;bits of history,&quot; that isn't a valuable description of either of our positions.I understand you to believe that all the bits of history -- setting-specific and non -- should keep their own counsel, not interfering with settings to which they are not applicable.&nbsp; Exactly where you think the non-setting-specific bits should be published escapes me, as your approach seems to limit acceptable options.I believe all the non-setting-specific bits of history should be combined into a unified proto-setting that informs all of the game's full settings, and that all the setting-specific bits of history should remain setting specific, where they do not contradict the proto-setting.I think what I really want can be summed up like this: metaphorically speaking, the D&amp;D core rules ought to ask a set of questions, and those questions ought to be answered by every D&amp;D campaign setting.&nbsp; In the dwarf example, the question is, &quot;Why are mountain dwarves like this?&quot; and the Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, and Eberron will each have their own unique answer, as will any homebrew D&amp;D setting.That set of questions is the Dungeons &amp; Dragons proto-setting.This is admittedly a bit reductionist, but by that logic history is lost every time a new edition is released.&nbsp; I think that's reactionary.&nbsp; Mechanics and lore change all the time.&nbsp; They even change within editions.&nbsp; We learned more about AD&amp;D2 dwarves with the release of the Complete Book of Dwarves, and it was all &quot;erased&quot; by the D&amp;D3 PHB, only for it to be further altered in Races of Stone.&nbsp; There is no one set of historical mechanics and lore for any kind of dwarf.&nbsp; If D&amp;D5 aligns mountain dwarves across all settings it won't really be anything new; just more organized than usual.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DMZ2112, post: 6290880, member: 78752"] I don't think it is appropriate to continue calling D&D a fantasy mashup. It's 40 years old, and its target audience no longer remembers most of the things it was originally mashing. D&D is its own genre, now. Treating it as a cohesive whole is a logical development. I'm confused. How is that not a direct sentence-to-sentence contradiction? That is just completely contrary to my own experience. I have spent years of my life explaining to various and sundry groups of players why they can't use things that are printed in D&D books because of my homebrew rules and lore. I have frequently not realized before they are called to my attention in a character build or backstory that these things would not be compatible. D&D carries a lot of baggage. Forty years of it, in fact. Again, how is that not a sentence-to-sentence contradiction? I'm pretty sure I understand you perfectly. I just think your position is less an unassailable fortress. That isn't clear. First of all, I do not understand your protest against mutual exclusivity, as you seem to be clearly in favor of mutual exclusivity in mountain dwarf lore and mechanics. Second, as we are both advocating using "ALL" of the "bits of history," that isn't a valuable description of either of our positions. I understand you to believe that all the bits of history -- setting-specific and non -- should keep their own counsel, not interfering with settings to which they are not applicable. Exactly where you think the [I]non-[/I]setting-specific bits should be published escapes me, as your approach seems to limit acceptable options. I believe all the non-setting-specific bits of history should be combined into a unified proto-setting that informs all of the game's full settings, and that all the setting-specific bits of history should remain setting specific, where they do not contradict the proto-setting. I think what I really want can be summed up like this: metaphorically speaking, the D&D core rules ought to ask a set of questions, and those questions ought to be answered by every D&D campaign setting. In the dwarf example, the question is, "Why are mountain dwarves like this?" and the Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, and Eberron will each have their own unique answer, as will any homebrew D&D setting. That set of questions is the Dungeons & Dragons proto-setting. This is admittedly a bit reductionist, but by that logic history is lost every time a new edition is released. I think that's reactionary. Mechanics and lore change all the time. They even change within editions. We learned more about AD&D2 dwarves with the release of the Complete Book of Dwarves, and it was all "erased" by the D&D3 PHB, only for it to be further altered in Races of Stone. There is no one set of historical mechanics and lore for any kind of dwarf. If D&D5 aligns mountain dwarves across all settings it won't really be anything new; just more organized than usual. [/QUOTE]

Verification