Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8780742" data-attributes="member: 7023840">So I was going to address this before being interrupted by the Snickers-deprived.You raise a great point- I am not using path dependency here in the sense that we often think about it; in other words, that the cost of switching is so high that superior alternatives are not utilized. Instead, I am thinking of it in the more banal sense ... that history matters, and that the decisions of the past had necessary and crucial effects upon the present.When it comes to the very nature of class identities in D&amp;D, I think that there is a fair amount of path dependency. Some classes, such as Druids, are a prime example of this. They aren't really represented in fantasy literature. They aren't really a part of the general time period of even the generously-expanded general D&amp;D medieval/Renaissance range. They aren't based on an accurate representation of the past- and but are instead a very specific misconception that had a great amount of currency in the 60s and 70s. In many ways, Druids are essentially D&amp;Disms. The very markers we associate with Druids (shape changing, no metal armor, scimitars, even the specific spells) were all set out when the class started, and absent those signifiers, the &quot;class&quot; doesn't exist.Now, this was going to be the first part of a three part series (the next one to contrast the Ranger, and the third to g deeper into the difference with non-crunch rules like the &quot;no armor&quot;) but it's apparent I'm not going to start threads for a while. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 8780742, member: 7023840"] So I was going to address this before being interrupted by the Snickers-deprived. You raise a great point- I am not using path dependency here in the sense that we often think about it; in other words, that the [I]cost of switching[/I] is so high that superior alternatives are not utilized. Instead, I am thinking of it in the more banal sense ... that history matters, and that the decisions of the past had necessary and crucial effects upon the present. When it comes to the very nature of [I]class identities [/I]in D&D, I think that there is a fair amount of path dependency. Some classes, such as Druids, are a prime example of this. They aren't really represented in fantasy literature. They aren't really a part of the general time period of even the generously-expanded general D&D medieval/Renaissance range. They aren't based on an accurate representation of the past- and but are instead a very specific misconception that had a great amount of currency in the 60s and 70s. In many ways, Druids are essentially D&Disms. The very markers we associate with Druids (shape changing, no metal armor, scimitars, even the specific spells) were all set out when the class started, and absent those signifiers, the "class" doesn't exist. Now, this was going to be the first part of a three part series (the next one to contrast the Ranger, and the third to g deeper into the difference with non-crunch rules like the "no armor") but it's apparent I'm not going to start threads for a while. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification