Defining its own Mythology

[WayneLigon]

There is nothing wrong with reimaganing some things, but they loose that unique balance, and they will break the game.

If simply re-imagining looks and names breaks the game, then it deserves to be broken.

 

[glass]

I pretty much agree with you (I think; it was a long post ), but I just wanted to comment on this:

The first is D&D's way of competing with a world dominated by all manner of new fantasy creations. If I say "Tauren" you know I'm talking WoW. If I say "Galka" you know I'm talking Final Fantasy. If I say "Gnome" you don't think D&D. (You probably think Lawn, or at least Travelocity)

I only know a Tauren come from WoW because of one of the earlier 4e threads that mentioned it. I wouldn't know a Galka if one got up and slapped me. And I have no clue what Lawn or Travelocity are.

Of course, I could just be a special snowflake...

glass.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I pretty much agree with you (I think; it was a long post ), but I just wanted to comment on this:
I only know a Tauren come from WoW because of one of the earlier 4e threads that mentioned it. I wouldn't know a Galka if one got up and slapped me. And I have no clue what Lawn or Travelocity are.

Of course, I could just be a special snowflake...

glass.

You're not. Or we are at least two snow flakes, drifting lonely through the air ...

Damn, I really hope we get some decent snow here this winter...

 

[Raven Crowking]

If simply re-imagining looks and names breaks the game, then it deserves to be broken.

So, if you don't think adding "dung" as a prefix to every name is a good idea, or recasting everything to look like it should be sculpted from dung, the game deserves to be broken? Sorry, but this is a non-argument to me. The only way it is true is if "all things are equal", and that premise is clearly false (at least, I imagine, to most of us, or else we'd all be happy with one race, one monster, one class, and one treasure).

Remathilis:

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 understand the desire to brand things, and I agree with you that this is probably what WotC is doing with 4e. But branding things isn't always in the best interest of the thing itself, nor does throwing out the "best" of what has come before make something stronger.

From its roots, D&D was a game where you could read any novel, watch any movie, see any television show, and translate parts of it into your game. Everything was grist for the mill. It was easy to stat up new monsters, easy to stat up new spells and magic. That was an incredible strength. It meant that the DM could be inspired by just about anything. The game was invigorating to play, to run, even to prep.

I sort-of agree that D&D needs a new edition, and I sort-of agree with some of the changes that WotC is making. The idea of faster prep time & faster combat, for instance, is a good one. But, when in my quest for the perfect game, as I homebrewed 3.x, I discovered that there was a lot of good in the earlier editions that has been lost in the game's current incarnation. And hodge-podging the strength of 3.X rules with the ideas of those earlier editions -- and especially 1e -- creates a great game. Frankly, from what I've seen from the Design & Development columns (and I admit that is scanty evidence indeed), I believe it makes a much, much better game than ditching the past.

It should also be remembered that some of the alternative fantasy games out there have "instantly recognizable content" because, in the days of T$R, people who produced content too similar to that of D&D were liable to get a notice from T$R's lawyers.

You are probably right that this is all about devising unique elements that can be "branded" and trademarked.

But, while branding may be good for WotC, and branding may be good for cattle, I am not at all convinced that branding makes a stronger game.

RC

 

[DreamChaser]

But, while branding may be good for WotC, and branding may be good for cattle, I am not at all convinced that branding makes a stronger game.

No does WotC believe that...if they did, they would not release the SRD and they would not allow 3rd party publications.

Heck, even within the company, the core mythology, cosmology, and even race structure is not going to be universal. Eberron will remain Eberron even as it shifts to 4e (I've lost the link that someone sent me...any help?) which means that gnomes will stay in as a core Eberron race and Dragonborn will not be developing dragonmarks. The orbiting plains will remain instead of the feywild, shadowfell, etc.

BUT

The core of the OPs message seems to be that for the first time, D&D will actually have its OWN core mythology. Not random stuff thrown together, not watered down Greyhawk (so that those who love it can finally have it for real...and the rest of us can enjoy the game without it).

If you pick up only the 3 core books and do not create your own setting, you will be playing in this new cosmology.

Otherwise, you will be changing stuff anyway, be it to match Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Eberron, Planescape, or Dragonlance or to match your homebrew. In either case, THE CORE COSMOLOGY IS IRRELEVANT.

Honestly, I am glad to see (many of) the sacred cows go and I'm also glad to see that WotC is doing things for the game that don't necessarily cowtow to the most conservative among us. Heck, there are still people playing 1e and 2e. They never switched because the didn't like anything WotC (or late TSR) did. 4e will be the same way I suppose. Game designers can't design around that set.

They can, IMO, keep doing what they're doing.

DC

 

[Aaron2]

So Wizards went the other way: Here is D&D. Here is the common D&D experience. You are more than welcome to change it as needed, but we want a common ground that all players can see and know they are playing D&D(TM) and not some homebrew, some OGL, or some other competing fantasy media.

The problem I see is that there already is a "common D&D experience", and it's exactly the hodgepodge you describe. Up until now, my kids can play a D&D that is remarkably similar to the one I played when I was 12. With 4e they will learn an entire new set of assumptions with a new convoluted vocabulary to go with it. What WotC has accomplished is to replace the common D&D experience with a "new D&D" experience.

Whether this is good for the game I can't say but I suspect that a pure "old school D&D" version of 4e will be released a few years from now. If not then there are plenty of 3rd party companies ready to step up and create one.

 

[llashismll]

I gotta agree with pretty much everything you said in your post OP. I love the idea that WotC is finally going out on a limb and hacking away at the old and tired elements of the D&D experience. I always hated that nostalgia had such a BIG role in every edition of D&D, even 3.5 is disapointing in that sense. There are elements and a feeling that comes with D&D that really work, and then there are elements that are only there because thats how its always been. yuck.

I'm so happy that the weakest element of D&D in any form, the magic system is getting a revamp, its about time. It's really about time to move away from Vancian and Gygazian principles and forge ahead into a new future for the game. I'm glad that D&D is looking around at more modern gaming experiences (like WoW and White Wolf) and seeing what went right with those games and applying a certain element of that into D&D while keeping D&D very unique and most definately giving it its own identity.

 

[Doug McCrae]

D&D has always taken ideas from whatever was current in gaming, fantasy and pop culture. Monks come from the TV show Kung Fu which ran from 72-75. Shambling Mounds are from 70s monster comics. The Soulknife in the XPH is derived from Psylocke of the X-Men. Tome of Battle was inspired by OTT wuxia and anime (and most probably the Streetfighter video game). Dragon Shaman and Knights were inspired by the shaman and warrior classes in WoW.

It's never an exact copy though. D&D added its own elements such as multicoloured dragons and beholders. And the precise combination of stolen material combines to make something new.

Just as Star Wars ripped off Jacky Kirby's Fourth World, Dambusters, republic serials and golden age sci-fi to create something original. Light saber style weapons existed in sci-fi pre-Star Wars. The most likely source seems to be an Asimov series of books from the 50s. And yet Star Wars made the light saber its own. No one would associate the concept with Asimov now. D&D has almost managed to do the same thing with Vancian magic.

To some degree, 4e seems to be moving back to traditional mythological and folkloric concepts with its devils as fallen angels and the Feywild (though you could argue that Birthright's Shadow World is the initial source) but there will be a lot of late 3e elements too - fighters who can do more than just hit things, monsters that change halfway through the encounter.

All in all I'd say its business as usual for D&D as far as inspiration is concerned.

 

[TerraDave]

If simply re-imagining looks and names breaks the game, then it deserves to be broken.

First, names and looks are both important, and they seem to be having some problems here.

But they seem to be doing more then just that.

 

[Voadam]

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.