Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 4771573" data-attributes="member: 80487">It's interesting that (perhaps especially with definitions that exclude the seminal Blackmoor and Greyhawk campaigns but include the latest game) there seems to be a trend in some quarters toward a very broad game-mechanical basis -- but a very narrow basis in elements of the imagined world.That's rather upside down compared with the situation I saw in the 1970s. There were (and continue to be!) many releases covering basically the same mix of fantasy elements as those detailed in "baseline" D&D, but with novel mechanisms at their cores.That novelty was what gave, for instance, Tunnels & Trolls a distinct identity and indeed a reason for existence. Ken St Andre liked the general idea of D&D, but his dissatisfaction was with more than just the cost of the boxed set. He saw ways to do things differently, and in his opinion better. It was a legal necessity on publication to use a title other than TSR's trademark -- but it was also common sense.The Arduin Grimoire, by contrast, was billed as a supplement to D&D until TSR objected. It assumed a basis in familiarity with the work of Arneson and Gygax.That frame of reference remained a common definition despite Gary's touting of AD&D as a whole new game, as different from D&D as either was from rival offerings. YMMV, but I don't recall meeting anyone who really believed that (and the man himself changed his rhetoric on quite a few points in his role as seller of TSR product).All the major TSR editions had that common grounding, to the extent that D&Ders commonly "mixed and matched" them. There's a vogue to exaggerate the differences and thereby to downplay changes in later products (the "It's the same, just better" line). The distinction between many different sets of house rules with a common basis on one hand, and a radical alteration of the "standard" rules on the other, gets intentionally obscured.At the same time, there's been a growing emphasis on (in today's jargon) "fluff" as essential canon. What started as a game of wide-open imagination has been increasingly defined by constraints on its scope -- at least to the extent that one thing or another "must" be included (and often to the extent of excluding other things). It has been driven ever deeper into a rut that was remarked upon at least as early as 1976.Then there are those whose practical definition is "the latest thing." The contents can change quite a lot, but as long as there's a Dungeons & Dragons logo on the cover the new package is a must-buy. (A: "They messed up eladrin!" B: "I love the new eladrin!" C: "What the heck is an eladrin?" ALL: "Never mind; that's what D&D is now.")Someone at Wizards might echo Tim Kask's words from more than 30 years ago: "While this was great for us as a company, it was tough on the DM."</blockquote>

Verification