LOL this is so funny! After the poll on classes, I figured someone would start a thread about the "generic" four bases classes or something similar.
Ahm neither, it is just a one word preview characterization. And it totally depends on what I might be looking for. E.g. I want to do a generic campaign not FR and not Greyhawk then I might be delighted.The word "generic" has been getting thrown around a lot in these forums, but the context seems to be a mix of positive and negative...and sometimes, confusingly, both at the same time.
So how about you? When someone describes a feature of D&D as "generic"--a new product, an adventure, a class or campaign setting--is your reaction most often a positive one? Like maybe you read that word and think "oh nice, this thing is going to be versatile and easy to add into my current game." Or is your reaction most often a negative one? Like perhaps you read it and think "ugh, another uninspiring and bland idea that will probably water down my zesty, flavorful game."
No exceptions, no fence-sitting, no "sorta kinda maybe in some cases possibly ..." We all know that preference is relative and there are always exceptions to any given system, no need to campaign for a variety of poll options. Feel free to add nuance in the comments below. But as for the poll...
"Generic." Is it good or bad for you?
It may be a personal quirk but I describe things as being “totally bananas” or a bit “strawberry shortcake”*, I also use the phrase “love it like chocolate”, so yeah maybe you could add those to your vanilla repertoireInterestingly enough, I don' t use other flavors to describe anything in a positive manner. "That new WOTC book is wicked Chocolate!" Just sounds weird.