D&D General D&D: Literally Don't Understand This

Status
Not open for further replies.

log in or register to remove this ad

I feel it's valuable to preserve the past without being constrained by it. Keep publishing old school friendly rules and settings without avoiding new ones. The old muddy settings are good stuff, but the new ideas are good too.

Incidentally was obsessing over elemental control without spells in 2001, inspired by the 2E Tome of Magic's elementalists and comic book characters like The Human Torch (I mean look at my avatar!). When The Last Airbender came out I had the biggest laugh that the arts finally caught up to me. The first Human Torch, by the by, is from 1939.
Jim Hammond. I still think it's a shame he never got the triumphant return to the Age of Superheroes that Captain America and Namor did. More of a whimper. But I suppose it was because Johnny Storm took his name.
 



Depending on the basis of that opinion, this idea is actually false. Especially when said basis in founded in animus regarding particular groups of people. Now, generally speaking, in the absence of people outright speaking their point of view, figuring this out is primarily speculation. But in the presence of enough evidence, such speculation is quite a bit more than baseless. So when somebody pointing out multiple examples of art they similarly don't like, and that art seems to somehow, coincidentally, almost all include people of color? That's a hint. If someone finds the best way to express their ideas is to utilize pop cultural references founded in... extremely unsavory biases? That's evidence.

There's a particular conversation thread here about how someone may or may not be providing evidence of a point of view they may or may not actually possess. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, what is one to expect?
I generally don't like to assume people are intolerant.
 

Re: Inspiration: I think it's a mistake to say that 5e (and the original PHB especially) wore its pop cultural inspirations pretty heavily on their sleeve. I mean, you had two Cleric domains that were essentially "Be Thor" and "Be Loki" -the subclass. Way of Four Elements was an obvious Avatar reference; they didn't even bother renaming the Water Whip! The gave the Artificer an Iron Man subclass when Eberron finally came out! I'm honestly surprised they've so far avoided the temptation of a Fighter subclass that can throw their shield around all willy nilly.

I'm not saying this is a good or a bad thing (if anything I lean slightly to the former), but it's definitely a thing
 


I don't think D&D has coherent imagery, but that is pretty understandable given that it has no bespoke world; different worlds can and should have their own style. Of course this results the overall imagery that draws from these different worlds feeling disjointed when viewed together, but I'm not sure that's really an issue.

The Radiant Citadel minisettings seemed to have internally consistent style, like the one evoking 19th century American south. I can appreciate such deviation from the "traditional" when done with intention. Granted, it is somewhat questionable how well such a setting fits with the basic structures of the game, which still seem to assume plate armour wearing warriors etc.

But generally I feel that world building in D&D worlds has always been disjointed, often combining with different things without rhyme or reason. It might have gotten somewhat worse recently, but I am not even so sure about that. It has never been great. Granted, accidental or intentional for sake of humour anachronisms are something that bug me, and ones referencing the modern world particularly stand out. I just am not that interested in fantasy setting that whilst nominally medieval have fashions ranging from 10th to 20th century with no rhyme or reason, and cutesy joke references to fantasy versions of modern things etc.

And it is not that I need my fantasy setting to be medieval, I loved worldbuilding in Arcane, which had very cool magicpunk feel. But that was very holistic and intentional, instead of incoherent, accidental, or humorous.
 

I long for the day when I can express myself on this forum without being accused of being a horrible person.

I am complaining about modern elements in the game. I'm not trying to oppress people. Please refrain from accusing me of such things, please.
I do not recall ever accusing anyone of being a horrible person or trying to oppress anyone. And my post wasn’t directed at any specific person. The point of my post was not to attack anyone. It was to explain why the context of the art and therefore why it isn’t medieval. It isn’t based on medieval Europe and that’s okay.
 


Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top