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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9847317" data-attributes="member: 6790260">So you play a game which chose to include a literal crashed flying saucer?D&D has never been particularly enamored with tradition. It's only the players, deciding that some particular year was the year that Tradition Started, and then making everything be like that.For the OG grognards, that date was sometime between 1974 and 1985. The "new" grognards--my term--set their date at 2000, when 3e was first published; that's why you saw things like the 13th Age Barbarian and Fighter getting absolutely screwed over for background points for no reason, because in the designers' minds, Fighters and Barbarians should simply be less skillful than other classes...something that only started in 3rd edition (and lamentably continued in 4th; 5e making things nearly equal across the board is among the few things I will unequivocally praise about it.) We will--almost surely--get a new crop of grognards rooted in either 5.0 or (IMO more likely) 5.5e, because that's what they started with. (Notice that it tends to happen in 15-25 year cycles.)But the only "tradition" of D&D that I've ever seen is that we create what sounds exciting to play. OD&D/1e AD&D had that spirit, creating whole new classes (and thus races, because race-as-class!) left and right, adding bloody flying saucers and rayguns, turning totally random ridiculous plastic toys into new monsters to fight. OD&D knew what it meant to be open to the breadth of fiction and to do what makes sense, not what was set in stone by someone 50+ years ago.I wish modern D&D had more of that culture, and less of the "ban this, ban that, ban ban ban ban ban" mentality. That was the foreign invasion which polluted the culture of D&D.</blockquote>

Verification