Defining its own Mythology

[Drammattex]

The problem is, and this has been discussed at length as well, is that D&D doesn't do Howard, Vance, et al very well at all. It's never done genre emulation worth a damn.

It's far and away too high magic to do Conan. It's far and away too grim and gritty to do Tolkien. Think about it, trying to recreate either books in D&D core rules is pretty much impossible. There's a very good reason why we have a separate Conan d20 set of rules that's pretty far removed from D&D. That's because D&D doesn't do it very well out of the box.

And, IMO, it never, ever did. You had to do massive arm twisting to do low magic in D&D. The standard party alone contained at least two spell casters, meaning that just about every encounter featured magic (and that's true in any edition).

I've learned over the years that letting D&D just be itself works the best. If you want D&D to do anything specific, you need to pretty much rewrite a good chunk of the PHB and DMG. Tolkien doesn't work because of spell casting wizard PC's. ((We need to get this ring to Mount Doom. Teleport, plink! End of story))

If D&D is going to be its own thing, then why not actually start from that point of view? Instead of a half assed system that doesn't really emulate anything, why not go whole assed and create something new?

Yes, that means that Dryads get yoinked out of their mythological roots. Now they are capable of several roles instead of wasting page count in the Monster Manual. You can plunk one into multiple adventures, in a multiple of roles, because she's no longer just the sort of helpful, can't move too far, fairy wench. Yay! Screw mythology. Gimme something I can use in the game, or cut it out completely.

QFT.

I'm lucky. I got tired of the hodgepodge a long time ago, and have homebrewed the living hit points out of my D&D game to shape it into something that makes sense as a story outside of other popular genre fantasy stories. I'm fortunate because the direction I chose to go in was the direction that the 4e world is going. Week after week, I'm watching their D&D content follow the path I slashed through 2e, 2.5 (i.e. Skills & Powers), 3e, 3.5. It's not precise, but a lot of it is very close. This makes me happy because I don't have to spend as much time homebrewing to (as Hussar puts it) rewrite the PHB & DMG.

I realize the "new way" is not everybody's bliss, but I can't help loving it. I never dreamed I'd see the day when I thought basic D&D was cool "as written."

 

[Odhanan]

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.

Add me to your list, RC and KM. 100% agreement here.

Seems to me that 4E is marketed to people who actually don't like D&D. This is just wrong.

 

[Clavis]

Seems to me that 4E is marketed to people who actually don't like D&D. This is just wrong.

AMEN!

 

[Simon Marks]

Seems to me that 4E is marketed to people who actually don't like D&D. This is just wrong.

Define D&D.

Because OD&D isn't the same D&D as BECMI D&D, which was different to AD&D, which is different to 3.5 D&D and won't be the same as 4e D&D.

In other words, no I don't think so. You don't like it, that's fine. But don't assume that people who the marketing for 4e does appeal to (like me), don't like D&D (because I do like D&D).

 

[Elphilm]

Seems to me that 4E is marketed to people who actually don't like D&D. This is just wrong.

As much as I agree with Midget and Raven on this issue, I'm always wary when some party tries to claim a product as their own. I bet 4E is marketed to people who do like D&D, but their D&D might be vastly different from the D&D you (and I) like.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Seems to me that 4E is marketed to people who actually don't like D&D. This is just wrong.

I don't necessarily agree with either point - that that is what they're doing, or that it's wrong. The concern is that tabletop RPG's and D&D are a shrinking market. Marketing to your old customers may sell a certain amount of product, but it plays into the shrinking market; it will be tough to draw in new customers.

They need to market to people who are likely to like 4E D&D. I'm liking what I've heard, though I've heard a lot of the complaints and understand them - I hate "compound word monster" syndrome with a red-hot passion, and don't care for feats with names that don't tell me anything about what they do. I'm a D&D player from way back ('79) so its not because I'm a new kid, or disdain the classic fantasy, most of which I found and read due the bibliography in the 1E books.

They need to find a balance between something that can appeal to new folks, and that can draw in the old folks, too. Time will tell if they walk that fine line or fall screaming off of it into the abyss.

I don't mind getting rid of some of the old sacred cows. From my perspective, a lot of those things are the result of 30 years of mostly random decisions that people have started to try and build logic out of where none existed to begin with. They create a barrier to entry for new folks, whereas the 4E stuff I'm reading actually reminds me of the way I felt about gaming in those first few years 1979-1981 before the detritus of randomness and bad-business-decisions-disguised-as-plot came into being (or at least before I became aware of it).

All of that said, I expect that I will be making some personal house rules and flavor changes right out of the box. That's something I didn't really do with 3E.

 

[Cadfan]

While I generally agree that D&D should be as all encompassing as possible, I do not think that means that the default assumptions of D&D should be flavorless. There is a HUGE gap between "has default flavor" and "doesn't encompass certain myths, legends, and story-types." Take the aforementioned changes to dryads, for example. How does this mess up my ability to tell a story involving a beautiful dryad? I look at the monster manual, the game's dryad doesn't match what I want, so I almost reflexively fix the problem.

1) Hmm, over here is a nymph that does exactly what I want except it lives in the water. Ok, BAM! Now it lives in a tree.
2) Hmm, ok, now the dryad is just the same except pretty.
3) What I really want is a magical girl who lives in a tree and is hot. Why do I even need to stat that up? She's noncombat, but has a plot relevant special ability, so I'll do what I do with barkeeps and other npcs- wing it if she gets in a fight.

I'm usually the first person leading the charge to make D&D more encompassing of hero archetypes not historically found in D&D. And I'd be the first to lead the charge to make D&D more encompassing of monster archetypes not historically found in D&D, if it came up. But that doesn't mean that I resent the inclusion of [adjective][monster], because that really doesn't get in my way.

In short,

IF the default flavor got in my way,
THEN I would resent it.
BUT its never got in my way before,
AND I can't see any reason why it would in the future,
NOR has anyone given an actual reason why it might,
SO bring on the default flavor,
BECAUSE more inspiration is better than less.

 

[TerraDave]

D&D as bread

Just to reword what I said before: no. I mean, I agree with the general point, but D&D, unlike say GURPS, actually has a lot of flavour. Its loaded with it.

Instead I would say:

D&D is a smorgasboard

That you can make a lot of different meals from.

 

[Elphilm]

1) Hmm, over here is a nymph that does exactly what I want except it lives in the water. Ok, BAM! Now it lives in a tree.

I don't think dryads should even have a separate creature entry from nymphs. Nymphs in mythology don't live in water alone; they live all over the place, and a dryad is simply a nymph tied to a particular tree. Just as there are no separate entries for alseids, auloniads, hesperides, leimakids, napaeaes, oreads, heleads, naiads, nereids, and oceanids, there is no need to have a separate entry for dryads either.

Unless you want to make dryads mini-treants.

 

[Rechan]

In short, I feel that my games are pretty solidly within the realm of the "normal 3.5e D&D experience," but they won't be within the realm of a "normal 4e D&D experience." And, honestly, it's just not worth the effort to retrofit 4e to it, when I can just save the time (and the money) by continuing to use 3.5e.

See you for 5e then.