Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 8691103" data-attributes="member: 4937">It's interesting that I focused on mechanics, but you focused on flavor, and I think you are absolutely right that there are things that D&amp;D absolutely has to have if it is D&amp;D and that there are also things tangential enough to being D&amp;D that their inclusion in the base game would seem sketchy to me.But I think that even more so than mechanics, the exact space that that flavor was and where you drew the line could get fuzzy.&nbsp; One thing I did notice is that there are virtually no iconic D&amp;D monsters introduced since 1e.&nbsp; No monster introduced post 1e has really caught on that much.&nbsp; The closest we can get to that are things like Tieflings and Dragonborn where the monster became a much beloved PC race.And yeah, &quot;Tieflings&quot; and &quot;Dragonborn&quot; don't feel like D&amp;D to me, but I don't think I would go so far as to say that they aren't D&amp;D.&nbsp; And most of the rest of the things you list, I can imagine things that don't feel like D&amp;D but I can also imagine settings with those things that I would classify as D&amp;D.&nbsp; Like Golems are basically robots, and Spelljammer though it isn't my thing is D&amp;D.&nbsp; ESP exists in 1e AD&amp;D, which is surely D&amp;D if anything is, and so do ninjas.&nbsp; And while I don't include firearms in my campaign mostly because I don't find that they make the game better, I would be pretty happy to call a game that had firearms in it D&amp;D.But although I quibble about your particular choices, I do agree that if you changed enough flavor and removed enough of the things that we associate with the flavor of D&amp;D that this would be a D20 game of some sort, but not D&amp;D.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 8691103, member: 4937"] It's interesting that I focused on mechanics, but you focused on flavor, and I think you are absolutely right that there are things that D&D absolutely has to have if it is D&D and that there are also things tangential enough to being D&D that their inclusion in the base game would seem sketchy to me. But I think that even more so than mechanics, the exact space that that flavor was and where you drew the line could get fuzzy. One thing I did notice is that there are virtually no iconic D&D monsters introduced since 1e. No monster introduced post 1e has really caught on that much. The closest we can get to that are things like Tieflings and Dragonborn where the monster became a much beloved PC race. And yeah, "Tieflings" and "Dragonborn" don't feel like D&D to me, but I don't think I would go so far as to say that they aren't D&D. And most of the rest of the things you list, I can imagine things that don't feel like D&D but I can also imagine settings with those things that I would classify as D&D. Like Golems are basically robots, and Spelljammer though it isn't my thing is D&D. ESP exists in 1e AD&D, which is surely D&D if anything is, and so do ninjas. And while I don't include firearms in my campaign mostly because I don't find that they make the game better, I would be pretty happy to call a game that had firearms in it D&D. But although I quibble about your particular choices, I do agree that if you changed enough flavor and removed enough of the things that we associate with the flavor of D&D that this would be a D20 game of some sort, but not D&D. [/QUOTE]

Verification