Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 3905415" data-attributes="member: 7635">Pardon me if this is old news.It appears, for the first real time D&D's history, the designers are designing a uniquely D&D mythology for its game rather than the hodge-podge kitchen sink version that has been around for years.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. At the end of the day, it created a world without a cohesive theme, a kitchen sink of every sci-fi and fantasy trope in that was hot during the late-70's and early 80's. While specific campaign settings and individual DMs often attempted to strike a cohesive narrative between these widely varying elements, the game itself (especially in the OD&D, 1e, and 2e eras) read closer to a collection of fantasy cliche's included because DM X liked this thing and PC Y wanted to play that. Third edition, for all its glory in fixing and modernizing the ruleset, decided to keep the spirit of this mixed bag of fantasy elements. In some areas, they began to modernize, update, and set apart a "D&D brand" of some of these elements (Halfings going from Frodo-like reluctant heroes to a race of traveling almost-gypsy like nomads) but in others they held stubborn to the "old way" of doing things (the alignment-based/pseudo-religious Great Ring of Planes). As 3e progressed into 3.5, more and more of the mythic hodge-podge was jettisoned for a unique, D&D-only approach at things. The growing pains can be seen in these later products (Warblades, Dragon Shaman, Spellscales, Incarnum) which, often (on these very boards) lead to arguements about thier inclusion into the D&D pantheon (old ways vs. new ideas, or established mythical elements (knights) vs. new, D&D-specific creations (beguilers)). Now, with fourth edition, it appears the creators have two goals in mind.1.) Make playing D&D its own unique experience and2.) Don't let nostalgia hold you back.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) However, if I say "Eladrin" you know I'm talking D&D. Similarly, a dryad is no longer a "ripped straight from Greek Myth" monster, but D&D's own take on the creature. (Akin to what D&D has done with medusa's for years). I don't know what the MM write-up on this new dryad will be, but I'm sure it won't sound like the same write-up found in a Mythology textbook. This is also most likely the reason for the "Compound Word Monster" syndrome. Icefire Griffons aren't in WoW, FF, or Myth, its uniquely D&D. So if you are fighting Icefire Griffons, you're having a uniquely D&D experience. This leads to a world that is unique against other models of fantasy and creates a "common D&D experience" that all people who play the game have, just like those who play WoW of FF or EQ or WoD have.To do that, they need to scale back, rethink, or toss out elements that are purely "someone-elses creation with the serial numbers filed off". Goodbye Vancian magic. Adios Moorcock's alignment. We'll use elements of both (since they are ingrained in the common D&D experience we're shooting for) but no longer will D&D magic system be "Vancian" it will be "D&D". It will create a version of the game where its mythology, its underlining principal, is unique only to D&D and no longer be a whole equal to the sum of its parts. I think this element, more than any rule change or artistic reinterpretation, is what is fueling a lot of the negativity. Its the opposite of where much of the rest of the gaming community was heading: mainly generic fantasy rule-sets. One need only look how popular Trued20, Grim Tales, and other "generic" style rule-sets were to see the older crowd sought a D&D more open, more toolkit, more customizable. However, while that might be more appeasing to older, established DMs and players (who like the idea of one rule-set mimicking Howard's Hyboria, Greenwood's Realms, or any mix they want to homebrew) its a poor decision on the part of Wizards, who found the d20 Market was glut with rulebooks that turned its flagship into exactly all that and more (and competed with D&D's own generic rulebooks, Fur and Frost vs. Frostburn, for example). 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.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.</blockquote>

Verification