Is D&D becoming more fantastical?

[DrunkonDuty]

Good point Hairfoot. The stuff you get in other media is much more high fantasy/video gamey than the stuff 30 years ago. It's all about better special effects selling better.

ANyway, doesn't much matter what the official game is doing as long as the people playing it are playing it the way they want to. Plus there'sother games systems out there. (I like Hero System.)

I have to disagree with you, Brazeku. I think the thrill of getting the one +2 sword in the campaign is far more thrilling than "Oh look, another +6 Vorpal Slaying sword." But this doesn't mean I think people who do like the +6 Vorpal swords are silly or childish or anything of the sort. No-one's right or wrong, just different is all.

 

[The Shaman]

You do realize you're actually *HELPING* the otherside, right?

I'm not "helping" anyone - it was an interesting observation, and all I did was see how it might play out, if . . .

15 or better is 30% of the time . . .

. . . I didn't make a huge frakkin' mistake right there.

Thanks for catching that, Tarek - wholly my bad. (I'm planning a Top Secret game, so I guess I let some roll-under mechanics slip into my thinking there . . . yeah, that's the ticket . . . )

So the 10th level fighter above probably makes short work of the dragon, since he's hitting far more often than she is - again, assuming that all of the advantages are breaking his way. Let her use her breath weapon, her spells, and her wings effectively, and it's likely a different story altogether.

 

[AllisterH]

So the 10th level fighter above probably makes short work of the dragon, since he's hitting far more often than she is - again, assuming that all of the advantages are breaking his way. Let her use her breath weapon, her spells, and her wings effectively, and it's likely a different story altogether.

Which is even more true in 3E thanks to the fact that a 3E character, unlike his 1E/2E counterpart, will fail his saving throw targetted at his weakest save.

People keep saying 3.x is *MORE* fantastic, but it was 1E/2E where a 13th level fighter was pretty much auto-hitting anything and this was 5 times per 2 rounds. I know it has been over a decade since I've played a 1E/2E high level (>13th level) adventure/campaign, but I distinctly remember it being a walk in the park compared to 3.x monsters.

Are people NOT remembering just how weak most of the opposition was?

 

[Son_of_Thunder]

I've been thinking about this in the light of rumours of rules from 4e, but also in the light of many recent releases from WotC and others.

Back at the start of 3e, you had a fighter, who was well, a human that was very good at fighting. But by his core he was still human. Much like a real human today.

These days you have classes like the warblade, for example, that is much more fantastical. He's not a mere human anymore. He's a magical human, that can create fire with his manuevers or other 'magical' effects.

It strikes me that the concept of being 'human' has changed through the years. The average 'person' in D&D is now a lot more magical, can easily gain supernatural abilities, and can use magic more often. D&D to me appears to be becoming more fantastical.

I suspect that 4e is going to go that way even more so. The average 'person' in the game will be able to likely utilise magic in some way, be it creating fire with his blade as a warblade, or healing supernaturally as a cleric. Gone is the concept of a human in a fantasy world, to be replaced by a race of human where fantasy pervades them more.

Is it just me, or has the 'norm' changed and the average person now better fits the fantasy world where things are supposed to be more fantastical.

Pinotage

Bingo! You hit the nail on the head. It's why I left 3.x and went back to 2e.

 

[Felon]

I've been thinking about this in the light of rumours of rules from 4e, but also in the light of many recent releases from WotC and others.

Back at the start of 3e, you had a fighter, who was well, a human that was very good at fighting. But by his core he was still human. Much like a real human today.

These days you have classes like the warblade, for example, that is much more fantastical. He's not a mere human anymore. He's a magical human, that can create fire with his manuevers or other 'magical' effects.

It strikes me that the concept of being 'human' has changed through the years. The average 'person' in D&D is now a lot more magical, can easily gain supernatural abilities, and can use magic more often. D&D to me appears to be becoming more fantastical.

OK, you said that 3e fighter was basically a normal person. Now, tell me about the ranger and all the threads we had objecting to it being a spellcasting class. Or the multitude of supernatural abilities a monk has; is he just a normal guy who knows some karate? Is a paladin just a guy with a do-gooder attitude?

Seems like you're hedging your bets with a few classes while overlooking others. Heck, we've had people grousing about spellcasting rangers since day one of 3e.

What you seem to channeling is the shift away from vancian spellcasting being the sole source of active magical abilities, in particular that there's going to be a new power source alongside arcane and divine: "martial". But there's no speculative musing about game design evolution there. That's a conscious, specific, and intentional change.

 

[JDJblatherings]

Baseline D&D has gotten more fantastical in a sophmoric, cheesie, watered-down sort of fashion. (I'm recalling a barfight ad for 3.x here) When your halfdragon-tiefling sorceror walks into a tavern someone should notice but you actually aren't all that different from the half-gith assassin in the corner or the beholderkin serving drinks at the bar. The fantastical nature of the original character becomes meaningless as it is washed out in a tsunami of "unique" and wonderous characters.

 

[Thurbane]

Baseline D&D has gotten more fantastical in a sophmoric, cheesie, watered-down sort of fashion. (I'm recalling a barfight ad for 3.x here) When your halfdragon-tiefling sorceror walks into a tavern someone should notice but you actually aren't all that different from the half-gith assassin in the corner or the beholderkin serving drinks at the bar. The fantastical nature of the original character becomes meaningless as it is washed out in a tsunami of "unique" and wonderous characters.

While I don't neccessarily agree with you 100%, you raise an interesting point...

 

[SSquirrel]

Seems like you're hedging your bets with a few classes while overlooking others. Heck, we've had people grousing about spellcasting rangers since day one of 3e.

OOH OOH ME!!

I replaced the Ranger w/the Scout from the first Star Wars d20 book. I still prefer the scout, but I know the Ranger beat up the Scout and took his stuff, so we'll see what happens.


As far as magic becoming technology and such, just look at Eberron. It really is a setting where you follow the influence of magic to logical conclusions. One of the reasons it interests me, even tho I've only ever picked up the main book for it heh. I do reccomend the Dreaming Dark trilogy by Keith Baker tho. Very good Eberron book series.

 

[Brazeku]

I have to disagree with you, Brazeku. I think the thrill of getting the one +2 sword in the campaign is far more thrilling than "Oh look, another +6 Vorpal Slaying sword." But this doesn't mean I think people who do like the +6 Vorpal swords are silly or childish or anything of the sort. No-one's right or wrong, just different is all.

Ah, sorry- I didn't really mean that. The thrill of rare magic is going to be the same regardless of how much magic is in a setting because rare is a relative measure. It was an example, intended to illustrate that in a setting with small amounts of magic, you're more limited in considering its applications and impact.

I don't throw vorpal swords and half dragon/ogre living constructs around. Fantastical done well isn't goofy, it's actually fascinating. This doesn't really apply so much to D&D because the trappings that people seem to associate with magic are more about glitz than content.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

As an aside, I find myself in complete agreement with Steel_Wind, his statements are pretty much an expansion of his "rant" thread which again I found myself nodding my head to for the majority.

For myself, Fantasy can be best described by the fantasy fiction I have read, enjoyed and loved:

- Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings
- Lieber's Lankhmar Books
- Eddings’ The Belgariad and Mallorean
- Feist’s Magician Books
- Howard's Conan Stories
- Vance’s Lyonesse Trilogy (much more so than Dying Earth)
- Gemmel’s Drenai Novels
- Martin's Ice & Fire Series

To Pinotage's question of whether D&D has become more fantastical is perhaps asking the wrong question - many have pointed out that D&D has always has very "fantastical" elements (although as time has progressed, I think more weird things have been developed than mundane/medieval).

For me and I sense a lot of others, the real question is "Can I shoehorn D&D to fit my concept of a fantasy world?" and "Is this shoehorning becoming more and more difficult as D&D has evolved?"

For me, yes it is more difficult as the rules have so many assumptions about magic, health, magical items, rate of progression that are at discord with the above fiction (which pretty much makes up MY Fantasy World and game space). For others who as Steel_Wind describes like "magic as the main rather than the salt", having to shoehorn is close to irrelevant.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise