Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TwinBahamut" data-source="post: 5968985" data-attributes="member: 32536">I'm going to drop the first part of your response since that debate has been going on just fine without me while I wasn't paying attention. This part, though, really needs to be addressed much more than it has been.Honestly, I'm amazed you are actually making the claim that the desire of fans is, in of itself, not enough to warrant change to D&D. You are saying that D&D's traditions are more important than the desires of the fanbase, otherwise arguing that the tastes and preferences of older fans are more important than the tastes and preferences of newer fans or perhaps arguing that D&D is somehow above criticism and that, despite having clear flaws for decades, it is better to preserve those flaws for tradition's sake rather than fix them and create a better game. No matter what the reasoning is, I won't accept it.If tradition is more important than actually making the game appeal to a greater number of fans, then D&D won't grow and expand and make people it happier. Instead, it will share the fate of the fans who want to preserve that tradition: death of old age. It will slowly fade into irrelevancy. Games new to grow, change, and adapt to the tastes of new fans if they want to survive. D&D is no different. If it fails to change and grow, then I see little reason to continue to financially support it. If 5E fails to even build upon 4E's progress on the very subject we're talking about, then I most certainly will never purchase it. I imagine many others will do the same. I wouldn't even mourn D&D's death if it chooses such a path.Also, I really don't get at all what your Elric vs. Heracles discussion is all about. You don't even bother explaining why Elric would win... Not that I really care, since I've never read the Elric stories and absolutely do not care to. The idea of a drug-addled angsty anti-hero who kills everything he cares for with a soul-sucking sword doesn't really appeal to me, to be honest (and given that I like many crazy videogame plots, that's saying something). Is this some argument that only "Appendix N" books are allowed to be inspiration for D&D or something? If so, that's simply absurd.Anyways, if you think I have been asking for specifically mythological inspiration, you're mistaken. As I believe someone else has stated, the kind of genuinely powerful fighter we are asking for is a trope of pretty much all of fantasy outside of D&D's own tiny little world. This includes myth, folktales, classical literature, historical pop culture, fantasy precursors like John Carter of Mars, modern fantasy works, anime, and videogames. Saying that D&D shouldn't emulate any of those is asking it to not emulate an awful lot of things... Especially given the fact that various 3E supplements and the entire Fourth Edition have already made good strides to accommodate such things. Arguing against imporessive Fighters isn't an argument for tradition, it's an argument for a reactionary redefinition of tradition that aims to bring regression rather than progress.</blockquote>

Verification