Defining its own Mythology

[Umbran]

Again, there's nothing I can do.

Nothing? Honestly, nothing? I think you are very wrong here. If I may be blunt - you seem to be lacking in... tact. That rubs people the wrong way, and in the long run could be a problem.

If you are seriously interested in improving how you interact with your fellow posters, please e-mail the moderator of your choosing, and one of us can probably help you out.

 

[Piratecat]

Then good riddance.

Okay.

In addition to the Grandma rule we have here, please allow me to enumerate another rule which we don't usually have to spell out so clearly. It's called the "don't be a dick" rule. When you consistently act like a rude jerk despite numerous warnings, and consistently go out of your way not to be nice to other people, we don't feel any regret at all for asking you not to come back. It doesn't matter if you're smart, or clever, or are convinced that you're right.

We're all here because this site is fun, and angry snipes make it not-fun. Rechan, I'll see you when your suspension is up. I hope by then you'll have figured out how to be nice to people, even when you don't agree with them.

Problems? Questions? Comments? Send me an email. And be nice to one another, folks. Remember, we're here because we love gaming -- so don't paint one another as the enemy.

- Kevin

 

[resistor]

EDIT: Post removed. Mods beat me to it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

That was pre-Jack Chick and pre-2e mass hysteria, I imagine. But outside of say, Atlanta or some other metropolis, it's quite challenging.

Nope. That was post-Chick (Chick was chic, you might say), after Mazes & Monsters, and during the height of the "OMG demons in the PHB" that led to the fiends in 2e.

I never suggested that changing D&D makes it easier to find players. It's all ready the most widely played game.

Please go back & look at what I wrote. You claim that you "play D&D because it's the easiest game to get players for since everyone knows it" and "care jack about the flavor". So, if the flavour of D&D changes to something you do like, and it retains its popularity, that increases the number of players who are playing something you "care jack about".

However, if you are playing D&D "because there are just more people that play it" but you do not like it, then I suggest that you are not finding "likeminded players" -- you are adapting your behaviour to that of others. Now you wish/hope those others will adapt their likes to yours.

And it may happen. Certainly there will be cases where it does happen. But, overall, I think that it will weaken the game, and erode its popularity. YYMV, and obviously does.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

And yet despite its hodgepodge nature, the move to add modern fantasy elements to D&D has met with such resistance.

My concern is not with adding modern fantasy elements....I think 3.x was fantastic for this, being the first edition of the game that could really support a Victorian fantasy, for instance. It is what is being removed that concerns me.

RC

 

[Sonny]

I haven't seen one saying such. Most of my 4e info though comes from the ENWorld collected blurbs though.

If you find that quote I'd like to see a link to it.

Ah, found it. To me it sounds like they've dropped the real world stuff. Maybe I'm assuming too much, wouldn't be the first time. It's from Design and Development: Pantheon

There was a time when the team working on "the world" of D&D thought we could get away with creating general rules useful to clerics regardless of which pantheon existed in the campaign, and then presenting a variety of fictional and historical pantheons for DMs to adopt or adapt as they saw fit. I believe it was Stacy Longstreet, the senior D&D art director, who pointed out that this solution would leave us in a bit of a bind.

 

[Voadam]

Ah, found it. To me it sounds like they've dropped the real world stuff. Maybe I'm assuming too much, wouldn't be the first time. It's from Design and Development: Pantheon

Ah, I had read that entry this morning but did not think that was actually saying no historical gods. I took it as them deciding they had to come up with specific sample gods and make them part of the core pantheon regardless of where they originated. So Set could be one of them the way he is in both real world Egypt and in Conan stories. Bane is there even though FR is not the core default setting.

You may be right though that this is an oblique indication that they are not including real world ones. We'll have to wait and see though.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

just as there are still more people playing 1e today than 3.x.

Huh? You either mispoke, or you need to back that up with some citations and facts...

 

[Hussar]

The difference is between saying something negative about the topic (which, while potentially not popular, is a valid contribution to a discussion) and saying something negative about the speakers.

Telling those of us who are discouraged about 4e's flavor that we're a "good riddance" is a personal insult aimed at us, the posters, not a meaningful contribution to the discussion. In debate, they call it "ad hominem."

((Not picking on resistor here, just using it as an example.))

It's okay for some people to say that people who like 4e don't like D&D (and are obviously flawed and inferior) but it's not okay to tell you goodbye?

Come on, dogpiling on Rechan is one thing, but, let's be fair here. Oldahan flat out stated that anyone who likes 4e hates D&D. That's utterly ridiculous. Yet, I don't see any criticisms for him.

BTW, speaking of ridiculous,

just as there are still more people playing 1e today than 3.x.

I'd LOVE to see any sort of numbers that support this idea. Considering the number of 1e players was CUT IN HALF by 2e, and 15 years or so after that there's STILL more people playing 1e than 3e? Not bloody likely.

 

[Hussar]

Y'know, while Rechan may be tact challenged, his point is still valid. RC and others are saying that D&D's strength is in its hodgepodge nature. I agree with this point. But, it appears to me that their idea of hodgepodge is limited to a small list of dead authors. Anything that comes afterward should be ignored in order to preserve the purity of the game.

After all, if D&D is truly a hodgepodge of fantasy, then why not use recent fantasy in basic design? Why should we be limited to Tolkien races for example? After all, there's LOADS of fantasy out there that has moved away from the traditional Tolkien races. Why should we be stuck with the idea of the fighter as stodgy, traditional (and probably not historical since historical knights trained in martial arts just as much as Eastern ones did) knights who only swing swords.

Fantasy has its roots in Tolkien and others, but, those roots have grown pretty bloody far from the source. Why shouldn't D&D reflect that?