Defining its own Mythology

[Raven Crowking]

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me at least it's not adding influences that are the problem. Additional options are fine. The problem is that they're changing the game in ways that will make it significantly more difficult, if not impossible, to play a game in the style that all previous editions have supported.

You know, I said something like that earlier.

"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."

However, it is always easier for some to answer a strawman than the actual point being made, even when they claim to agree with the point they are substituting the strawman for: "RC and others are saying that D&D's strength is in its hodgepodge nature. I agree with this point."


RC

 

[Simon Marks]

Ok RC, let's try to get to the nub of the issue.

What is the thing that is being removed by 4e that was supported by all the other editions?

Or is it something that is being removed by 4e that was supported by 3.5 only that is the problem.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

You know, I said something like that earlier.

"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."

I admit to not having followed this thread particularly closely, so I hope you don't mind me asking what things that we know are being removed concern you the most?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Boo hiss for this idea. I believe that the hodgepodge is strong enough to contain pokemon trainers and giant sword-wielders and, yes, even emo drow children. To include some other modern fantasy, let's say armored bears, daemons, and Dust (I'm stoked for the Golden Compass movie, I CAN'T HELP IT!).

Don't worry. So far as I know, Hussar decided that this is what was meant or implied, regardless of what was said. As I said earlier (and, oddly enough, in several conversations with Hussar, so he should, theoretically, know my stand on this), one of 3.X's greatest strengths is that it widens the range of what can be done in D&D.

1e suggested rules for side-trips to Gamma World or Boot Hill, and Ed Greenwood did a wonderful Dragon article on adventurers in a modern setting, but 1e didn't do this particularly well. Nor could it handle the common trope of "modern humans transported to fantasy world" with any grace. 3.X does all of these things, and more. In 3.X, I could easily see a Western D&D, where elves and Native Americans resist settlers, the dwarves come from the Appalachians to help with the railroad, and the Grand Canyon is riddled with caves ala The Keep on the Borderland writ large. In 3.X I could easily see a Victorian D&D, with bicycles, and things like the Wheelers from Return to Oz. I could easily see, as you say, armoured bears, daemons, and Dust.

IMHO, increased options = good.

That is not what I am seeing from the blogs, columns, etc, for 4e. I truly hope that I am wrong about this, and that the OP is wrong. Because, as you say, what the OP suggests WotC is doing would brew a weak sauce indeed.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Ok RC, let's try to get to the nub of the issue.

What is the thing that is being removed by 4e that was supported by all the other editions?

Or is it something that is being removed by 4e that was supported by 3.5 only that is the problem.

Before I answer that question (and that of Lurks-n-More), can I ask when you started playing D&D? I ask only because I want to use 2nd Ed as an analogy.

RC

 

[Lurks-no-More]

Before I answer that question (and that of Lurks-n-More), can I ask when you started playing D&D? I ask only because I want to use 2nd Ed as an analogy.

With the red/blue/green/black boxed D&D sets (the ones w. Elmore dragon art), shifting later to AD&D 2e (and from there, to 3e and 3.5).

 

[Hussar]

Don't worry. So far as I know, Hussar decided that this is what was meant or implied, regardless of what was said. As I said earlier (and, oddly enough, in several conversations with Hussar, so he should, theoretically, know my stand on this), one of 3.X's greatest strengths is that it widens the range of what can be done in D&D.

Actually, you usually argue the exact opposite of this, so, I'm left wondering when you changed your tune. You've frequently argued that 3e's implied setting and core assumptions make moving in any direction very, very difficult. Whether it's the inclusion of "magic marts" or "high magic settings", you've repeatedly taken the stand that 3e actually is much more limiting than earlier editions since you cannot do what you want without several hundred pages of rewriting the system.

In fact, for a system you are so ardently defending here as being broad enough to encapsulate many different concepts, why would you then feel the need to almost entirely rewrite the system to fit your own concept?

But, I, like others here, would be interested in knowing what you see as being removed that would make things so much more difficult to do in 4e.

 

[Simon Marks]

Before I answer that question (and that of Lurks-n-More), can I ask when you started playing D&D? I ask only because I want to use 2nd Ed as an analogy.

RC

1981 with Red Box D&D (the one before BECMI D&D). Palace of the Silver Princess was my first adventure. I ran it too.

I'm familiar with 2e AD&D.

 

[AWizardInDallas]

Dumbing Down D&D

I believe that Wizards of the Coast will continue to hack and hack and hack at D&D until it is no longer recognizable as D&D. No matter the prose, I have absolutely no desire to use any system mutated by the genetic drift of popularity contests and polls, marketing strategies, and general hype.

I have always used my own settings and mythology and don't want one built into the game rules anyway. What many people seem to have lost sight of is that D&D is what you make of it. I don't need anyone legislating setting, mythology or even the difference between moral right and wrong in the rules themselves.

There were a multitude of great ideas that went into building D&D, over twenty-five years worth of ideas as a matter of fact, the very ideas that the gaming community is now turning on and complaining about as tired, old and boring. It's real easy to look back and spit on what came before. Please don't allow the short attention span to win out over imagination.

There are great ideas now being cut from the game in the name of "streamlining" by a small number of "designers." D&D is headed for a huge, severe dumbing down, not streamlining. D&D will never be fast enough, not until it stops being a vehicle for interactive story-telling and becomes the card game, the video game or the miniatures combat game, all of which it is becoming.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

I have absolutely no desire to use any system mutated by the genetic drift of popularity contests

When have they done this?

polls

Or this?

marketing strategies

So you're not a 3E fan?