D&D General D&D is now Steampunk (poll)

[Laurefindel]

I’ve never had a problem with folks seeing it as having some of the trappings of the Middle Ages with European style castles and armor and the like, even if it was from what we’ve seen in movies rather than what it may have been in reality. But even from the beginnings, it was always so much more. The D&D art that I grew up with was never consistent to any particular style. The first cover I remember was a Conan looking character in a horned helmet leaping at a red dragon. The modules I played had crazy stuff like giant apes and crashed spaceships with laser guns, Mad Hatter monks and Jabberwock dragons too. The medieval imagery was always just more bits in the greater soup.

Indeed!

But my point is that Conan-looking barbarians and giant apes and dragons and faux-Vikings and chainmail-bikini Amazon princesses are Medieval Fantasy.

Crashed spaceships and laser guns are not, admittedly. But these were background elements; D&D wasn’t mixing genres like Torg (?) and other games that did it on purpose. You were not a character from the spaceship’s civilisation; you were a medieval-esque character stumbling on something that, we, as players recognized as a space ship, but for the characters it was another weird dungeon.

D&D has always allowed creativity to go in all directions. It has encouraged it more than most games even. D&D was never prescriptive, but it mostly presented an image of pre-modern fantasy, and for many (most) people, this meant « medieval ».

 

[TiQuinn]

Indeed!

But my point is that Conan-looking barbarians and giant apes and dragons and faux-Vikings and chainmail-bikini Amazon princesses are Medieval Fantasy.

Crashed spaceships and laser guns are not, admittedly. But these were background elements; D&D wasn’t mixing genres like Torg (?) and other games that did it on purpose. You were not a character from the spaceship’s civilisation; you were a medieval-esque character stumbling on something that, we, as players recognized as a space ship, but for the characters it was another weird dungeon.

D&D has always allowed creativity to go in all directions. It has encouraged it more than most games even. D&D was never prescriptive, but it mostly presented an image of pre-modern fantasy, and for many (most) people, this meant « medieval ».

Okay, I don’t particularly think those things are medieval.

Robin Hood, sure. Knights in armor, sure. Conan? Not really. Perseus riding Pegasus? Nope.

I think that’s applying the term medieval far too broadly. I prefer my soup analogy. (I’m keeping that one)

 

[Scribe]

Also, what in the world is Mercer-punk?

I have never heard of this.

 

[SkidAce]

Most people don’t know it, because they know F all about history.

But most of us (although "I" know my history) aren't trying to recreate actual specific periods.

I think it was in this thread that I mention it, we take a period of history, find some other stuff we like, put it in the campaign bowl and mix it all up.

Its just a game.

 

[SkidAce]

I am not sure I would go back to running it, but I will say this: 3.5 was much more of an intentional toolkit than 5E, and it knew how to support the GM with publications.

3.5 and such "were" good toolkits. Until they grew so bloated and had so many modifiers it took 20 minutes to calculate your attack roll (I kid, I kid).

Its my opinion that 5e brought all the way back around the circle to the toolkit format. Now before you say anything....

WotC is not supporting the toolkit theory as much as they could, they want to have "DnD" be its own thing.

But 5E itself is a great toolkit.

 

[SkidAce]

Im surprised to hear that people never considered D&D to be medieval fantasy. Fantasy genre and subgenres are much better defined now. But where I come from, D&D was the very incarnation of what Medieval Fantasy was.

No one had any expectations of medieval fantasy respecting history; it was fantasy after all. « Fantasy » was basically referring to any fiction that wasn’t realistic or implied to be happening on earth. It was a pretty broad genre with two pretty broad sub-genres of their own; science-fiction and medieval fantasy. There wasn’t much else that was well defined, and almost everything else was described in relation to those two (« a kind of sci-fy but… » or « medieval fantasy except that… »). D&D was exactly what people thought of medieval fantasy; a fantasy that isn’t sci-fi and had wizards, castles, and swords. It really didn’t take much more to be « medieval ».

Quoted for truth and saying netter than i did...

Aye, I blame the devil rum...

 

[Reynard]

3.5 and such "were" good toolkits. Until they grew so bloated and had so many modifiers it took 20 minutes to calculate your attack roll (I kid, I kid).

Its my opinion that 5e brought all the way back around the circle to the toolkit format. Now before you say anything....

WotC is not supporting the toolkit theory as much as they could, they want to have "DnD" be its own thing.

But 5E itself is a great toolkit.

I agree, at least insofar as the the game foundations can support a lot of tools -- that mostly #PPs are making because WotC won't.

My issue with 5E is mostly that I am tired of it. It isn't, itself, a bad version of D&D. It is just time for a new version.

 

[Remathilis]

D&D is Soul Caliber. A vaguely Renaissance/Age of exploration set world where you can have. Medieval knight in plate and greatsword, a priestess of Hephaestus with a gladius and shield, a mechanical ninja, a golem made by a cult, a noble duelist with a rapier, a barbarian from the New World, a samurai, a shao-lin Monk and a Spanish pirate with a gun and sword combo all meeting one another.

And I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I agree, at least insofar as the the game foundations can support a lot of tools -- that mostly #PPs are making because WotC won't.

My issue with 5E is mostly that I am tired of it. It isn't, itself, a bad version of D&D. It is just time for a new version.

Why not just play a different game? Why must D&D keep changing when nearly every other RPG doesn’t (to any significant degree)?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

They have been offering something to both groups, true, but I feel it is undeniable the proportion of what they offer has in the last several years (Tasha's or before) been leaning much more obviously in favor of romanticism and high adventure, leaving fans of realpolitik and logistics in the cold vis a vie the official game.

Whereas I don't think it's undeniable, but I do think it is a slight but clear lean.

And, frankly, I think that's what the buying public wants. We've had something like 20 years of unrelenting cynicism in media. Game of Thrones and all that. People have grown a little weary of realpolitik being shoved down their throats at every turn, of the bitterest irony being plastered across every screen and smeared on every page.

Why not just play a different game? Why must D&D keep changing when nearly every other RPG doesn’t (to any significant degree)?

Because it's attempting to be something to everyone. Those games aren't.

When WotC tried to make a D&D that wasn't something to everyone, and instead tried to be really, really good at one specific thing, the haters won. They successfully trashed an edition. They won the edition wars.

As one of the people who lost that edition war, I hate this to no end; but I recognize that it is true.