Forked Thread: D&D: Generic and Specific Both?

[Mallus]

D&D also has instances of six-shooters, tanks, The Land Beyond The Magic Mirror, the Amazing Drider Man, King Kong, Monkey Magic, trips to modern day earth, a Cat Lord who looks like he might start singing Billy Jean any moment now, and Boccob knows what else.

Exactly!

All of this is a furphy.

Why? Because you don't like the fact that my impression of D&D is influenced by the above-mentioned game elements you just mentioned?

D&D is no more defined by six-shooters than it is by lasers.

These nutty outlier things are a part of what defines D&D fantasy -- the kitchen-sinkiness of it, the free-for-all nature of it-- and separates it from a hypothetical RPG that's more focused on strict genre-emulation.

What it IS defined by is the default core implied setting, which has none of this, and is thoroughly pseudo-medieval.

Except for the things like martial artists straight out of 1970's kung-fu movies (quivering palm of death and all) and gelatinous cubes (ie, the acidic Jello).

So he's right, and you're just playing games.

I'm giving you my impression of D&D, illustrated by some details that you don't dispute...

... look, if you ignore everything in D&D that isn't medieval, then D&D is a medieval game.

 

[Mallus]

The monk is a core D&Dism and an oriental anachronism amongst the occidental pseudomedieval stuff, though...you have a point there. Arguably it doesn't belong in the core.

It sounds like you argument is that anything that doesn't support your argument about "what is core D&D" doesn't belong in core D&D, regardless of how long it's been a part of D&D. There's a certain... roundness to this rhetoric.

And monsters don't count in the same way core races and classes do - they lack the screentime to matter.

So the iconic D&D monsters (gelatinous cube, rust monster, mind-flayers) are, in fact, not iconic? They don't help define "D&D fantasy"?

 

[Ydars]

When people say that D&D is medieval, I can never work out what they mean. D&D is a pastiche of elements of pulp fantasy and someones ill informed or very eclectic vision of the middle ages and is a LONG way from anything even remotely historical.

With this mish-mash as its roots, it is not surprising it gets used to tell all kinds of crazy stories.

 

[rounser]

It sounds like you argument is that anything that doesn't support your argument about "what is core D&D" doesn't belong in core D&D, regardless of how long it's been a part of D&D. There's a certain... roundness to this rhetoric.

Well, I think it's a pretty obvious way to improve D&D - remove the monk from the core implied setting. Cleric should also get an overhaul. It's specifics are arguably another D&Dism, and alienates the game from the default genre it seeks to convey. Warlord shouldn't exist at all, or at least get a thorough working over with sandpaper and a wire brush to give it a new name and ensure it's based on some kind of archetype apart from military leader, which doesn't fit a D&D party at all (unless it's a mercenary company).

No, D&D isn't as consistent or generic as it should be, IMO. Where we differ is that I don't think the existence of core D&Disms is proof that the core D&D implied setting should have more, or that there isn't a strong theme extant despite them. (Monsters and magic items are too numerous and get too little screentime to be considered important to the tone of the game to be considered individually, so no gel cube arguments need apply.)

I mean, what other core classes have an oriental theme? The mystic. And that's just OD&D for "monk". Hardly a cavalcade of inconsistency versus the occidental tide of other classes, really.

 

[rounser]

When people say that D&D is medieval, I can never work out what they mean. D&D is a pastiche of elements of pulp fantasy and someones ill informed or very eclectic vision of the middle ages and is a LONG way from anything even remotely historical.

Yes, it's easy to nitpick, but the concept of knights and wizards wandering around in armour and robes and fighting things with swords and spells is medieval in flavour to modern people unless you're intentionally being obtuse and pedantic. By default, you also expect elves and dwarves in that sort of medieval or dark ages environment (if they're about at all), rather than on a space ship (nothing against 40K) or in the modern day (nothing against Shadowrun, Buffy or Harry Potter).

It's really not up for argument, IMO. It's that self evident.

 

[Set]

I don't think that D&D was created as a toolkit, so much as a set of rules to work for a very specific group of people in their home game, that every single purchaser ended up playing differently than those creators did.

Regardless of it's intended function, it *became* a toolkit the second someone outside of Gary Gygax's kitchen got their hands on it.

Books like Unearthed Arcana (3E) or the Player's Option books (2E) pretty much ran with that 'toolkit' idea, introducing variant magic systems, etc. and many of the settings (or even planes) introduced all sorts of different assumptions, such as Al-Qadim, Ravenloft or Spelljammer, lending themselves to storylines that looked *nothing* like the average 1st edition adventure (enter dark place, kill monsters, take loot).

Once a purchaser lays their money down, the books become their property, and they can start house-ruling and tweaking to suit whatever campaign they want to run. If your points of light setting includes a mountain fortress full of dwarves who hold the line against the humanoid hordes through the use of smokepowder weapons, nobody can come and tell you that you can't do that.

D&D's totally a toolkit, and has been since it left the printers and fell into the hands of someone other than it's writer.

 

[rounser]

So the iconic D&D monsters (gelatinous cube, rust monster, mind-flayers) are, in fact, not iconic? They don't help define "D&D fantasy"?

I'm not arguing that they're not iconic. They definitely help define D&D's image.

They're not part of the core implied setting, though, and therefore don't get nearly as much screentime as "dragonborn" are getting now, purely from being a character race.

It's very easy to play a campaign with no mind flayers. You just don't include them as a DM - you use other monsters. If just one player takes a dragonborn character, though, their ugly mugs are going to be all over your campaign....and by virtue of being a core player race, they also muscle their way into your world, forcing you to find a place for them somewhere in case someone takes one....unless you specifically ban them.

Even if you do ban them, their ugly mugs are all through the PHB artwork and flavour, too. There's a big difference there. That's what the content of the core implied setting does, and why what goes into it matters.

 

[Mallus]

Well, I think it's a pretty obvious way to improve D&D - remove the monk from the core implied setting.

To be clear, I'm not talking about improving D&D, I'm describing D&D as I've experienced it over the years. As far as the monk goes, I'm fine with it.

It's specifics are arguably another D&Dism, and alienates the game from the default genre it seeks to convey.

It seems more accurate to say that D&D fails to convey the default genre you want it to. From were I'm standing, D&D over the years has done a rather good job at conveying the default genre it actually attempts to convey --which is mish-mash, kitchen-sink D&D-style (forgive the circular reference) fantasy.

Where we differ is that I don't think the existence of core D&Disms is proof that the core D&D implied setting should have more, or that there isn't a strong theme extant despite them.

The existence of certain core D&D-isms prove that they are part of the game, and therefor must be included in any definition of the "core implied setting".

Otherwise you're just cherry-picking the parts you like and labeling them core. Which is fine if all you're doing is stating your preferences...

(Monsters and magic items are too numerous and get too little screentime to be considered important to the tone of the game to be considered individually, so no gel cube arguments need apply.)

So the core of the game is only the races and classes section of the PHB?

 

[Mallus]

I'm not arguing that they're not iconic. They definitely help define D&D's image.

And yet they shouldn't be considered as core, or as part of the "default implied setting"?

They're not part of the core implied setting....

Apparently not. What are your criteria for inclusion in the "core implied setting"?

It's very easy to play a campaign with no mind flayers. You just don't include them as a DM - you use other monsters.

Sure. Note that the same goes for PC races like gnomes and elves. I've never seem a DM have problems removing a core PHB race, or replacing the lot of them with their own creations.

If just one player takes a dragonborn character, though, their ugly mugs are going to be all over your campaign....and by virtue of being a core player race, they also muscle their way into your world, forcing you to find a place for them somewhere in case someone takes one....unless you specifically ban them.

So ban them. Why is this difficult? I've never run a campaign w/gnomes, and my current going-on-five-year campaign has all homebrew races save for humans and (later) Warforged.

Even if you do ban them, their ugly mugs are all through the PHB artwork and flavour, too.

So turn the page. Again, why is this difficult?

That's what the content of the core implied setting does, and why what goes into it matters.

You're not doing a good job explaining why you simply can't ignore the stuff you don't like. I don't like gnomes. So I ignore them. This had presently no significant difficulties in all my years of gaming.

 

[Mallus]

D&D's totally a toolkit, and has been since it left the printers and fell into the hands of someone other than it's writer.

BTW... this.