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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Arcane Runes Press" data-source="post: 357609" data-attributes="member: 402">Well, I suppose I'll respond to each point in order.#1) Regardless of why it was done (which I agree was, at the time, rather sissy) I have no problem with the idea of demons, devils, etc. as outsiders. In fact, I prefer it. When demons are also "outsiders" you can work the dichotomy of their nature into your games. For example: two nations. The beliefs of number 1 teach that demons are creations of the hell lord, an abomination sent by him to tempt and deceive mortals. The beliefs of nation number 2 teach that demons are simply creatures from another plane of existance, who are "evil" only in as much as they have no respect for mortal concerns of morality or life. Who's right? Potentially both are. It's an approach that hasn't been directly addressed by WotC, either in Dragon or in their books, but it leaves the game "canon" open to a broader range of interpretation and leaves the inclusion or dismissal of real world religious tropes more fully in the hands of the DM.    #2) What LW did or did not do is not really important anymore. For all its faults (and I think there are some), the WotC of modern times is NOT the T$R boogie man of the mid-90's rpg community. In addition, while I agree that there was alot of crap in the latter days of TSR, the end of 2nd edition gave us some absolutely terrific modules. Return to White Plume Mountain was fun, Rod of Seven Parts and Dragon Mountain were enjoyable, and I will put Return to the Tomb of Horrors up against ANYTHING published in any edition of any game. They also put out some bang up sourcebooks, which I will discuss later. #3) Suggestive and lurid art means squat-all to me. Wish fulfillment garbage, derivative novels and Gor are also all "staples" of the fantasy genre, and I don't care if they pull a vanishing act as well. I LIKE naked women, and I enjoy a good spot of violence as well, but I would argue that most people would consider the absence of both to be signs of D&D's maturing. #4) I will agree that D&D can feel very restrictive. I've got a love/hate thing for classes and levels, but I still don't consider D&D an "immature" system because it includes both. Classless stuff (GURPS, HERO, BRP) all have plenty of room for immaturity (Just look to HERO 4th's tongue in cheek description of the rules-rape characters that system can produce).#5) All a matter of taste. I consider Planescape (at its core) to be a brilliant reconception of what the fantasy genre is capable of, predating by a decade or more China Mieville's Perdidio St. Station, which gets RAVE reviews for dabbling in much the same territory. Ravenloft is, at its core, my favorite setting ever, rife with possibilities for intense RP. Birthright had some very advanced ideas as well, though I do believe that it was hampered by 2nd Ed's cludgy rules set. #6) I doubt that it's fear of political correctness. Rather, it's a desire to reach as wide an audience as possible. In this respect, WotC is like a major movie studio: make a rated R film and you cut out a sizeable market chunk. Again, I don't think that "mature" concepts are necessarily a mark of maturity at all.#7) 1st Ed. was revolutionary, but it didn't come anywhere close to "embracing all of its [the genre's] staples". It was, and is, firmly in line with Jack Vance and the Sword & Sorcery genre, but that is far from the entirety of fantasy. For example: I wouldn't dream of trying to run an Earthsea game using 1st Ed, nor would I touch a 1st Ed. game of Dragonriders of Pern. A campaign based on traditional faerie tales would also be piss poor in 1st Ed. (though I don't like ANY edition of D&D for these). Hell, the fire & forget default magic system of ALL editions of D&D is completely alien to 90% of fantasy. #7A) Beyond that, it's a bit silly to disparage WotC's 3E marketing savvy; obviously they've satisfied PLENTY of customers, since D20 is an enormous hit in the RPG community. Might it be even bigger if they'd been more "gutsy"? Maybe, but that's a guessing game with no definable answer. In essence, it all boils down to this. You've discovered a new system/world that makes you happier than D20. That's good for you. It makes me happy when people find something to be passionate about. Hell, I bet it makes most of the people on this board happy. What doesn't make me happy, however, is when people mistake personal taste for objective quality. In effect, when you say that D&D is obsessed with "childish, immature concepts", you are saying that those people who enjoy D&D above other systems are ALSO childish and immature. In closing, since you like marketing/advertising so much, here's a loose analogy for you: I like to dabble in the kitchen, primarily as a desert maker. I take great pride when people like my chocolate chip cookies better than they like any that they've had before. But if I serve my wonder cookies with curdled milk, it doesn't really matter how good the cookies are, cause all anyone remembers is the sour. Harn and D&D are the cookies, your endorsement is the milk. Don't serve it sour.Patrick Y.</blockquote>

Verification