Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5979914" data-attributes="member: 87792">I'm sorry, but that appears to be a complete mischaracterisation of Badapple's request. What he is requesting is that this doesn't turn into a D&D that resembles Springsteen's Glory Days. When you get down to it, D&D is a game based on "We made some <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> up we thought was cool" - Mike Mornard's description. And he himself took inspiration from outside sources - see Appendix N for details. Every single edition of D&D has brought things from outside. Therefore this insistance that D&D should be its own genre is far more wanting D&D to not be D&D than Badapple's post ever was. Badapple requested a new class in the PHB. 1e had new classes in the PHB (Assassin, Monk). 2e had a new class in the PHB (Bard - and yes I know 1e had a class called a Bard). 3.0 had a new class in the PHB (Sorceror). 4e had a new class in the PHB (Warlord). Every edition of D&D except 3.5 has had at least one new class in the PHB. Badapple requested meaningful options for all classes. Well, yes. 1e wasn't so combat focussed so gave meaningful options. 3e tried. 4e did. This is not against the legacy of D&D. Badapple wants scary monsters. Is this not a part of D&D? Do curses and geasa not exist? Does mummy rot not? And even 4e has petrification. Badapple wanted a decent amount of balance and teamwork. So did Gygax. This is a matter of public record. Wanting it to be easy to design and run adventures? Are you saying that a defining feature of D&D is that it is an unnecessary headache for the DM? And he wants something new. Literally every edition of D&D right back to 1974 has given us something new. Prior to D&D Next, if you haven't had anything new to say you haven't tried producing a new edition. We've got an edition that does that. You sell people based on what something can do. Which gives a reason to switch. @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=71811" target="_blank">Badapple</a> is simply requesting a D&D for 2014 (estimated) rather than one for people trying to relive the 1990s. D&D has historically done almost everything he requested with every edition. Yet somehow sticking with the traditions of D&D and the way it has forged forward with almost every edition means wanting it to not be D&D? I'd argue that Badapple wants D&D to be D&D far more than anyone who wants D&D's "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D6vQpW9XRiyM&sa=U&ei=HqoWUM2fM-iw0QW7goHgDw&ved=0CBIQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNH95ooL6Q2x9GrLiS_ckwwXUORfGQ" target="_blank">Glory Days</a>" does.  But as normal, the accusation of Not D&D has been used to try to cut down conversation. We shouldn't have more fun because it might not be D&D. We shouldn't allow more visions to contribute. And my apologies to @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=71811" target="_blank">Badapple</a> for waiting so long to come to the defence of a good post saying things that need to be heard of D&D is to continue to thrive.</blockquote>

Verification