You understand that people aren't saying "I want this out of the game and banished to the void!" and are actually saying "I don't want this in the core edition and would prefer if it were put in a sourcebook or PHB2", right?I'm sorry, I'm just getting a little fed up with people saying that this thing doesn't belong in D&D and that thing doesn't belong in D&D when most of the things they're bitching about were part of D&D since before they were-- it's one thing to say that something new and different "isn't D&D" or "doesn't feel like D&D" and it's quite another to run around saying that things that have been part of D&D for thirty goddamned years aren't legitimate parts of D&D because they don't fit inside this tidy little Eurocentric wankfest they've constructed, that D&D itself has never actually fit into and was never actually intended to fit into.
He wants to run a particular kind of game at his table, that's fine-- I'm not even saying that, as a matter of taste, I even particularly disagree with him. I've run different kinds of D&D with different kinds of rules all the time, and there's nothing wrong with that. But if someone is sitting there saying that such-and-such class or such-and-such culture "doesn't fit" or "doesn't belong" in D&D, when it has been a part of D&D for as long as there has been D&D, then the problem isn't the class or the culture-- it's their narrow perception of what D&D is and what it's supposed to be.
It's all well and good for us to have our individual tastes and our individual wants and needs for the game, and I don't mean to imply that people shouldn't express those desires-- of course we should all be telling the designers what we want and don't want in our D&D.
I'm just baffled how anyone could have played D&D and read any of the D&D rulebooks published in the last thirty-some years and still somehow come away with the misapprehension that any D&D setting ever was supposed to look like Middle Earth.
The game changes with each edition. There are people who thought that having races and classes separate ruined the game. Then that removing to-hit tables to use THAC0 (and removing assassins and monks for the record from the game) ruined it. Then that using ascending AC ruined it. Then that releasing a glorified errata as a "new edition". Then powers (in an edition which also didn't have monks as a core class).
If you're going to use the argument that "D&D has always been like this", then you're probably wrong because almost every aspect of the game has been different in each edition. The only things that pretty much have been constant are attributes, hit points, armor class, classes, and rolling funny-shaped dice. That's pretty much it.