Defining its own Mythology

[Hussar]

Well said Rem.

Another point, that I saw in another thread, is the idea that WOTC might be fiddling with the names in order to be able to better protect their IP. I can really see that. Depending on what goes into the SRD, you would still be much better able to protect "Feywild" than "Arborea" as IP.

Not a bad business decision IMO.

 

[Remathilis]

D&D cosmology is adding in Thor and other real world gods as core deities instead of just a selection of Greyhawk ones as in the 3e PH. Changing Baatezu to fallen angels.

I think there are counterindications to 4e D&D establishing its own mythology and not adopting/borrowing a mishmash of existing stuff.

That is an interesting point. They are also "borrowing" Bane from the Realms to put to the core...

However, like other mythic creatures and elements, I bet they will have a unique D&D spin that will make them very different their mythic counterparts...

 

[Connorsrpg]

Love what you wrote.

I have been plaing since mid 80's. Kind of skipped the whole early literature of the game, but loved it all the same. I find it odd for those that loved the game as a throw-together of all the old, b/c that is what a good hodge-podge fantasy game should be, but dislike if the games evolves to include a hodge-podge of modern fantasy...hmmm.

Oh, and I HATE computer games, dislike anime, and though Harry Potter was OK. I am not abig fan of all them, but understand why some of these should be integrated...just like Vance and all other known fantasy writers were in the game's earlist conception.

C

 

[Clavis]

Its been said that D&D doesn't simulate any other sword-n-sorcery work BUT D&D. However, the best of D&D's "mythology" (and by that term, I mean the trappings of the world, society, races, magic, gods and monsters) has always been shameless ripped off from other fantasy sources. Tolkien's races. Vance's Magic. Moorcock's Alignment. Merlinesque wizards next to Leiberian thieves, next to Howardesque barbarians facing monsters from Greek myth, Norse epics, and Lovecraftian nightmares.

Thing is, nobody on the WOTC design staff is a Tolkien, Vance, Moorcock, Malory, Leiber, Howard, Homer, Snorri Sturluson, or Lovecraft. The ideas D&D appropriated were stolen from masters. They were taken because they were good ideas. Unlike say, "Emerald Frost".

 

[broghammerj]

So as 4e comes closer and we see more re-imaginging of classic monsters, more unique creations, and more sacred cows (Bytopia) sacrificed to make room for new things (feywild), remember that D&D has to do this to stay viable vs. other newer forms of fantasy and to keep it unique vs. the generic d20 RPG systems now and to come. By making D&D its own unique experience (rather than a holding pen for all manner of fantasy trope) its insuring its own survival and growth and strengthening its own product identity for generations to come.

~ I.F.

Rem I agree with most of your post and thought it was quite eloquent. I'll throw in a couple of comments.

I happen to like the hodge podge of what created DnD. It's what attracted to the game and kept me with it for 20+ years. Can it evolve?....Sure it already has. There is one thing I have to say about changing tradition and altering what I already consider a strong brand:

http://graphics.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Third_Party_Photo/2007/08/03/1186152604_6394.jpg

Too much tampering can be a bad thing

 

[Hussar]

Thing is, nobody on the WOTC design staff is a Tolkien, Vance, Moorcock, Malory, Leiber, Howard, Homer, Snorri Sturluson, or Lovecraft. The ideas D&D appropriated were stolen from masters. They were taken because they were good ideas. Unlike say, "Emerald Frost".

But, using say, Zagig is a good thing? Or Iuz? Yeah, there's an evocative name. Or a bazillion unpronounceable names? How, exactly, does one say Iggwilv? Or, hey, how about II Nedraw? Yeah, there's a gem.

Come on. D&D has always had corny names. At least Emerald Frost isn't just an anagram.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Interesting and thought-provoking OP. However, I always thought that

the best of D&D's "mythology" (and by that term, I mean the trappings of the world, society, races, magic, gods and monsters) has always been shameless ripped off from other fantasy sources. Tolkien's races. Vance's Magic. Moorcock's Alignment. Merlinesque wizards next to Leiberian thieves, next to Howardesque barbarians facing monsters from Greek myth, Norse epics, and Lovecraftian nightmares.


was the game's greatest strength. Even you say it is the "best" of D&D's "mythology".

I'm with RC on this one. D&D is at it's greatest when it can ride the coattails of a million and one other motifs, throw them together, stir them up, and see what comes out. To take the dryad from Greek myth and make it useful in a game with medieval knights and cthonian monsters and pokemon trainers (for instance) would be a WONDERFUL use of the D&D game, and comes to reflect most astutely the reason I grew to love the game in the first place. With this game and my friends, I could tell ANY story.

Getting rid of those things means that D&D has to stand on it's own creative legs.

And if those creative legs are compound words and twig-monsters, they are weak, fragile little things that will quickly break under the stress of the burdens it tries to bear.

That could be okay -- WotC might be interested in giving us a different style of crutch every year. But I'd like a game that can stand on it's own, first.

Or, to phrase it in slightly more acute terms, defining it's own mythology gets in the way of me, as a DM, defining my mythology. If the rules' goal is to serve the DM, but they're in there telling me that they're only going to help me play their way, not mine, that's seriously not cool. That's 2e "dwarves cannot be paladins because IT IS BAD" kind of material.

D&D should stop trying to be overwhelmingly flavorful in the core. It's rice. It's bread. It should let me top it however I want. Not that it should be flavorless itself, but it should take other flavors very well, and serve as a very delicious base.

 

[Sonny]

D&D cosmology is adding in Thor and other real world gods as core deities instead of just a selection of Greyhawk ones as in the 3e PH. Changing Baatezu to fallen angels.

I think there are counterindications to 4e D&D establishing its own mythology and not adopting/borrowing a mishmash of existing stuff.

Are they still gonna use Thor? I thought there was an article where they said they dropped the idea of using real world gods as sample deities in the PHB.

 

[resistor]

For me, the key PRO of the old hodge-podge approach is its flexibility: I can run a very wide range of games in a very wide range of styles from the core rules. Sure, there are suggestions (like the core pantheon), but they are simply that: examples. We don't have "Pelor's Fist" as a core feat, or anything. The core rules, while they provide some examples, are fundamentally setting- and style-independent.

The main reason I am not planning to buy 4e is that it seems to moving towards a more "uniform" D&D experience, for lack of a better word. All of what I have read seems to suggest a much stronger assumed setting and playstyle, which seems even to have crept into the edges of the mechanics.

I understand why they would want to do that for marketing reasons. I also understand that I won't buy 4e because of it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The main reason I am not planning to buy 4e is that it seems to moving towards a more "uniform" D&D experience, for lack of a better word. All of what I have read seems to suggest a much stronger assumed setting and playstyle, which seems even to have crept into the edges of the mechanics.

I understand why they would want to do that for marketing reasons. I also understand that I won't buy 4e because of it.

Personally, if they are going for more uniformity, hegemony, etc., I think it's a MASSIVE, MASSIVE mistake that I wouldn't have thought they would be able to commit. Still don't believe they're actually going for that, though now I am entertaining the thought...

Basically, one of D&D's most amazing and special things is that every group owns the game in their own way, plays it differently, and loves playing it their way. It's very independent, flexible, and customizable, and that's a HUGE benefit for it. That makes it do what no other game or fantasy pastime can really do: adapt itself to however people want to play, indefinitely. D&D is the great chameleon, it's everything to everyone, it behaves as the groups tell it to, and it does so ASTONISHINGLY well for such an idiosyncratic system. The strength of this is almost entirely at the feat of Gygax: he made sure to give those first DM's authority over their games, and we haven't looked back.

It will always do that, if not because it tries to than because we, as DM's, MAKE IT. A smart core system will realize that and make it easy to do so. A lousy core system will try to re-shape your home game out of the box to it's own whims, rather than indulging yours.