Has D&D become too...D&Dish?

[Raven Crowking]

On another note, I gave a bit of thought to RC's point about the WLD. Now, the WLD is a fairly simplistic dungeon. However, the inconsistent elements are explained in the book. Either it's explicitely stated that it is being handwaved (such as food issues) or it establishes new RAW (such as no web spells and no summoning). There is an attempt by the designers to at least recognise the inconsistencies and either deal with them or put a fence around them. They are not ignored. They are specifically called out. Thus the issue of food becomes a non-issue because the RAW of that setting says its a non-issue.

So, not unlike the 1e DMG section on ecology, right?

 

[Hussar]

Have no idea.

This is most certainly NOT an edition fight and I'll thank you not to turn it into one.

Don't know what the ecology section in the 1e DMG says, nor do I particularly care.

 

[Raven Crowking]

To me, simply continuing to ignore them for the sake of some sort of genre convention is ridiculous. If the only way you can have a particular genre is to never examine it, then the genre needs to die.

I would say that this argument applies to the RAW at least as much as it does to the worlds that RAW is applied to, or expanded from.

The "edition war" as you say only comes up as a rebuttal to your idea that these things have changed. The 1e DMG had the same sort of description of ecology that you described creating for the WLD, and offered some of the same advice that the WLD does for dealing with the issue. In other words, if an answer in the RAW means this isn't an "elephant in the corner", and you are saying that this edition removes said elephant, you need to know what the previous RAW said.

JMHO, of course.

 

[Raven Crowking]

IMO, this is a very good thing. I never said that an examination of RAW must lead to magitech. That is, of course, only one interpretation among many.

It sure seemed to me, way back when, when I said that an examination of RAW does not necessarily lead to magitech that you took issue with my statement.

Of course, I could be wrong about that.....It's been known to happen.

 

[shilsen]

There is a tendency for geeks to want to analyse everything and apply logic and science to it....that's what makes us geeks. D&D isn't a science, and in treating it as such, you'll destroy a lot of the things that make it attractive in the first place.

I don't think anyone is saying that D&D is a science. What some of us are saying, however, is that considering the ramifications of some of the things that exist in the game world is a good thing and helps us achieve our suspension of disbelief more easily and makes us more satisfied with the campaign worlds we play in. That's all.

You may note other areas in your life where analysis and imposing logic are also counterproductive.

Personally, I couldn't name one in mine.

 

[Hussar]

and you are saying that this edition removes said elephant, you need to know what the previous RAW said.

No I am not. I never said that any specific edition removes said elephant. Actually, I recall specifically pointing to the Slave Lords modules as a step forward.

This isn't edition specific. This has to do with the genre which isn't really tied all that tightly to edition. But, it is tied to time. As time has passed, we have begun to question elements that were largely ignored in the past. And this has given rise to new forms within the genre.

Heck, it's not like this is new. As was mentioned more than once, the Known World examined these ideas quite a lot, twenty years ago. It's just that now, it has become a lot more prevalent with some recent releases - Eberron and Ptolus being two of the most obvious.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Hussar, I must have misunderstood your earlier posts on this topic.

I guess we're in agreement then.

Of course, I still don't know why you argued with my (and others') earlier responses if this was the case.

 

[JohnSnow]

Yay, we all get along.

So, we're in agreement that the RAW can lead to numerous different outcomes, but that the important thing is to consider them.

Nice to know I can now have my low-magic D&D campaign then without anyone jumping up and down like a rabid jackrabbit going "It's not D&D! It's not D&D!!" ad infinitum.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Or telling you to just pick a different system.

 

[Numion]

Or telling you to just pick a different system.

What about we consider building a game world from other systems rules? Say, GURPS?

In GURPSworld you know you're in over your head when you're cornered by a drunken hobo, an albino in a wheelchair and onehanded junkie .. those guys have loaded up points from disadvantages! They're badass!

Disclaimer: no insult meant to real-life hobos, albinos in wheelchairs or onehanded people