Gaming Pornography: Will 4th Edition lead to a more Realistic and Useful Game?

[Doug McCrae]

Jack7, you have used very many words and very lengthy paragraphs to say, more or less, "I like low fantasy. Will 4E be low fantasy?"

The answer is no.

 

[WayneLigon]

I really liked it when D&D focused on using actual mythology, as at that time folks playing the game actually learned somthing about mythology at the same time - an actual useful purpose for the game other than as a fun way to spend time!

Since even the mythological monsters in D&D (medusa, pegasus, minotaur, etc) bear virtually no resemblance to their counterparts, when exactly was this occurring?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Jack7, you have used very many words and very lengthy paragraphs to say, more or less, "I like low fantasy. Will 4E be low fantasy?"

The answer is no.

Not even "Low Fantasy," but some sort of "Low Fantasy that Teaches Me Important Moral Lessons About the World and My Place in It."

Man, am I the only one here who doesn't play D&D as some sort of psuedo-psycological teaching tool?

 

[Artoomis]

Since even the mythological monsters in D&D (medusa, pegasus, minotaur, etc) bear virtually no resemblance to their counterparts, when exactly was this occurring?

Actually they often bore remarkable similarity to mythological critters - though, of course, even in mythology they are often described in more than one way.

In any case, simply knowing what a Medusa is (a women with snake hair than can turn you to stone) is an educational step in the right direction.

Why? Because understanding our past and how we came to be how we are today is valuable. The same reason it's taught in school.

I consider it better to be that way - some think anything is fine, and that's okay, too, just not what I like the most.

 

[Artoomis]

...Fantasy that Teaches Me Important Moral Lessons About the World and My Place in It."...

Is that not a good thing?

 

[shilsen]

Is that not a good thing?

Maybe it's a good thing. But it's certainly not the only or even the primary thing that D&D does. And even though I've never played D&D before 1999, from everything I've seen and heard on ENWorld and in other places, D&D as a system was never designed to do that. An individual DM and set of players could reach for such a goal, but it was hardly inherent in the system. D&D is, and always has been, about pretending to be a fantasy creature (yes, even D&D humans are fantasy creatures) and killing things and taking their stuff.

The OP could very simply have said that he thinks the newer editions of D&D make it more difficult to play D&D and learn about the human condition, but then it wouldn't have sounded as cool and complex as he's been endeavouring to make his position sound. Either way, he'd still have been dead wrong.

 

[danbala]

I can see his point. I firmly believe 3E spawned from MtG, and built on the 'build' philosiphy more than the 'personality' of characters.
Thanks Jack7

I'm pretty sure that the designers are intentionally focusing more on what makes D&D "unique" from other ideas or worlds. (i.e. to focus on the distinct D&D "IP" concepts like beholders and drow) -- things that were created by the game rather than the ideas that were appropriated from other sources like Tolkein. Where straight appropriations were made (such as hobbits and orcs) care has been taken to try to make them distinct D&D versions of such things.

I believe that is what the OP is reacting to. Early in the games inception they wore their sources openly on their sleeves (sometimes breaking Copyright to do so -- Deities and Demigods). As time moved one they made more effort to develop D&D as its own IP and to strip away or disguise the sources.

To answer the OP's question: everything I see would suggest that 4e will continue this trend. They definately want D&D to have its own "look and feel" which is not really historically-based at all. Its not a coincidence, for example, that they have placed so much effort into Ebberon. I would expect to see that setting leech over into all the primary materials.

 

[Doug McCrae]

In any case, simply knowing what a Medusa is (a women with snake hair than can turn you to stone) is an educational step in the right direction.

What's the difference between the 1e and 3e medusa in terms of closeness to mythology?

 

[pemerton]

Maybe even Warforged shouldn't be written of as gaming porn straight off. They can be used to explore themes similar in Frankenstein, Asimovs robots, etc.. which are more about human than their creations anyway.

I agree with your well-articulated post about Warforged. Thus, as I noted in my post, I don't dismiss all d20/3E material as inconsistent with "humanist gaming". I nevertheless believe that there is a trajectory in the flavour of the game away from that sort of gaming into "gaming for gaming's sake".

Of the official gameworlds I really would put forward the Forgotten Realms as exhibit A: heros, villains, gods all seemingly disconnected from the realities of human life and human motivation. From what I know of Eberron, by contrast, its core materials at least seem to want to grapple with the themes of a post-war society - although I suspect it can be played in a non-humanist fashion. And the reviews I have read of the Eberron modules suggest that they don't do a very good job of exploring or devloping the themes that are implicit in the setting.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I think it's pretty clear what the OP means by "realism" - as Reynard and Fuindordm have pointed out, he means dealing with real human issues, as revealed to us in real human literature and mythology.

When I played a butt-kicking Arcane Striking battle sorcerer/witch hunter out to bring down the bloodmage cult that plagued Britannia, I was also playing a character whose emotional dependency upon the idealised image he had created of his wife (who was also his mentor in the witch hunters' order) was a crucial point of weakness - and, when she sacrificed her purity and became corrupted by the bloodmages in order to save an innocent, he "broke" and came to believe that he had to be inflexibly dogmatic and pure, so that he could prove he wasn't going to make the "wrong choice" like she had. All this because he knew he had never really been as strong, compassionate, and good as his wife, and he couldn't face the fact that the person he'd depended upon and looked up to was now corrupted . . . and all in vain, because the bloodmages killed the innocent anyway.

So, you know, I've never believed that high-octane fantasy heroics and real, human issues are incompatible in any way.