Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Pickaxe" data-source="post: 3594679" data-attributes="member: 10812">Let's say we can divide up the elements of D&amp;D into those things that ultimately come from other influences and those that originated with D&amp;D. To use a biological analogy, these are &quot;shared derived characters&quot; that denote the uniqueness of D&amp;D, at least in a historical sense. Of course, many other games have adopted these &quot;characters&quot;, so they are no longer unique to D&amp;D, but D&amp;D did not get them from anyone else.Any or all of these &quot;characters&quot; of D&amp;D could be called &quot;sacred cows&quot;. Usually, the term &quot;sacred cow&quot; is reserved for things that stick around because they've always been around, or things that we cherish not because of their utility, but because they are part of the history of the game. Of course, &quot;sacred cow&quot; is usually used in these forums as a derogatory term for suboptimal rules or elements that are retained in subsequent editions. &quot;Vancian&quot; magic is an example of something that is often declared to be a sacred cow.Of course &quot;sacred bovinity&quot; is in the eye of the beholder, in the sense that the call that something is an unnecessary vestige is a subjective one. But whenever an element of the game looks less like a vital organ and more like an appendix, the term &quot;sacred cow&quot; is likely to pop up.And this brings me back to the point of this thread. I'm arguing that what is essential to the game is what ties it to its original influences, and that ultimately determines whether an element (in this case the rogue) is something that should never be removed from the game. Others have argued that D&amp;D is its own genre, and therefore everything that is identified with D&amp;D (including the rogue) is essential. But this is the same argument for anything that's declared a sacred cow, and it's refuted by the fact that people house rule these things away without ever feeling like they're no longer playing D&amp;D. (Note that I'm not talking about setting-specific house rules-- &quot;There are no clerics in this world.&quot;-- but changes in how one articulates the basic elements of the game-- &quot;We use vitality points and mana instead of hit points and Vancian magic.&quot;)So, to answer your question, yes, all of these things are sacred cows. That doesn't necessarily make them bad; it just means that our reasons for resisting changing them may not have anything to do with optimal rules function nor with adhering to the archetypes of the fantasy genre. That's what I'm asking when I ask whether or not the rogue is a sacred cow: Is it a creation of D&amp;D or of the fantasy genre in general?--Axe</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Pickaxe, post: 3594679, member: 10812"] Let's say we can divide up the elements of D&D into those things that ultimately come from other influences and those that originated with D&D. To use a biological analogy, these are "shared derived characters" that denote the uniqueness of D&D, at least in a historical sense. Of course, many other games have adopted these "characters", so they are no longer unique to D&D, but D&D did not get them from anyone else. Any or all of these "characters" of D&D could be called "sacred cows". Usually, the term "sacred cow" is reserved for things that stick around because they've always been around, or things that we cherish not because of their utility, but because they are part of the history of the game. Of course, "sacred cow" is usually used in these forums as a derogatory term for suboptimal rules or elements that are retained in subsequent editions. "Vancian" magic is an example of something that is often declared to be a sacred cow. Of course "sacred bovinity" is in the eye of the beholder, in the sense that the call that something is an unnecessary vestige is a subjective one. But whenever an element of the game looks less like a vital organ and more like an appendix, the term "sacred cow" is likely to pop up. And this brings me back to the point of this thread. I'm arguing that what is essential to the game is what ties it to its original influences, and that ultimately determines whether an element (in this case the rogue) is something that should never be removed from the game. Others have argued that D&D is its own genre, and therefore everything that is identified with D&D (including the rogue) is essential. But this is the same argument for anything that's declared a sacred cow, and it's refuted by the fact that people house rule these things away without ever feeling like they're no longer playing D&D. (Note that I'm not talking about setting-specific house rules-- "There are no clerics in this world."-- but changes in how one articulates the basic elements of the game-- "We use vitality points and mana instead of hit points and Vancian magic.") So, to answer your question, yes, all of these things are sacred cows. That doesn't necessarily make them bad; it just means that our reasons for resisting changing them may not have anything to do with optimal rules function nor with adhering to the archetypes of the fantasy genre. That's what I'm asking when I ask whether or not the rogue is a sacred cow: Is it a creation of D&D or of the fantasy genre in general? --Axe [/QUOTE]

Verification