Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Aberzanzorax" data-source="post: 4776469" data-attributes="member: 64209">Hmmmm.&nbsp;&nbsp;I have to say I disagree with the choices of the OP and many in this thread. &nbsp;I fear I may have entirely misunderstood the point, but as I read it, I'm not sure it is that. The alternative would be a very different view on what D&amp;D is from what many have posted.&nbsp;&nbsp;There is far, far too much steampunk mentioned. China Meiville? No.&nbsp;Don't get me wrong. I LOVE steampunk. But that's not what D&amp;D has been, and changing it to steampunk would, in my opinion, make it no longer D&amp;D (see the thread I started on &quot;why aren't these other games/settings D&amp;D?&quot;&nbsp;Can steampunk be done with 3e rules? YES. I've seen it done well. Can it be done with 4e rules? I have no doubt the answer is yes, but I haven't seen that.&nbsp;&nbsp;But D&amp;D is about swords and sorcery. It's about classic fantasty. That can be &quot;modernized&quot; in the sense that there are great modern classic fantasy books coming out. I'd use those, frankly.&nbsp;I'm thinking Lord of the Rings Movies, Narnia, maybe Bridge to Terabithia are all good representations of older, and very classic books, that have been done with a modern eye...but that's not what I'm shooting for.&nbsp;Eragon, The Thief Lord, Bartimaeus (less so here), The golden compass...these are more &quot;fantasy&quot; than what I've seen mentioned in this thread so far, IMO.&nbsp;&nbsp;If I have misread, please tell me. And if so, I certainly apologize. In any case, I feel as though it is missing the mark to draw upon the non-fantastic to define D&amp;D. Say I like Star-Trek. Why not draw upon that?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Aberzanzorax, post: 4776469, member: 64209"] Hmmmm. I have to say I disagree with the choices of the OP and many in this thread. I fear I may have entirely misunderstood the point, but as I read it, I'm not sure it is that. The alternative would be a very different view on what D&D is from what many have posted. There is far, far too much steampunk mentioned. China Meiville? No. Don't get me wrong. I LOVE steampunk. But that's not what D&D has been, and changing it to steampunk would, in my opinion, make it no longer D&D (see the thread I started on "why aren't these other games/settings D&D?" Can steampunk be done with 3e rules? YES. I've seen it done well. Can it be done with 4e rules? I have no doubt the answer is yes, but I haven't seen that. But D&D is about swords and sorcery. It's about classic fantasty. That can be "modernized" in the sense that there are great modern classic fantasy books coming out. I'd use those, frankly. I'm thinking Lord of the Rings Movies, Narnia, maybe Bridge to Terabithia are all good representations of older, and very classic books, that have been done with a modern eye...but that's not what I'm shooting for. Eragon, The Thief Lord, Bartimaeus (less so here), The golden compass...these are more "fantasy" than what I've seen mentioned in this thread so far, IMO. If I have misread, please tell me. And if so, I certainly apologize. In any case, I feel as though it is missing the mark to draw upon the non-fantastic to define D&D. Say I like Star-Trek. Why not draw upon that? [/QUOTE]

Verification