Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jessica" data-source="post: 6717149" data-attributes="member: 6796107">Why are we worried about gatekeeping material for not being &quot;D&amp;D enough&quot;? IMO D&amp;D is at it's best when it is being the least self-referential and trying new things and breaking new ground and maybe even eating a couple of burgers made out of sacred cow. The Player's Options series weren't terribly well balanced and I'm not even sure they were entirely compatible with each other much less other 2e books, but it's existence took guts and pushed the game in new and interesting directions that really sparked the imagination in a lot of ways. Player's Options, Requiem: the Grim Harvest, all of those crazy 3.5 prestige classes, the entire 4th edition. D&amp;D in my opinion has always been at it's best when it's thrown caution to the wind and tried to be revolutionary even when the end result is a flaming wreck. Right now D&amp;D is trying to be &quot;safe&quot; and really it's coming off as being milquetoast. It's not taking any risks and it's not being all that innovative. In the last twenty years we went from a game with about a dozen campaign settings where D&amp;D could pretty much be anything you wanted it to be where one game you could be space explorers and the next game a party of zombies and ghouls and vampires, to a game where large amounts of detail and simulationism in some ways almost made the game classless and tried to bring life to even the weirdest concepts like nature-destroying Druids and atheist Clerics in addition to the insane level of support from non-WotC designers, to a game that reached the heights of amazing and engaging game design that made combat feel like a battle of wits between two opposing minds and stimulated you on a level you had yet to experience, to a game that tries to be as inoffensive as possible and do what it can to make people not be angry with them. It's D&amp;D asking itself what D&amp;D is and trying to be the D&amp;Diest D&amp;D that ever D&amp;Ded and D&amp;D is just not that good when it's trying it's hardest to be as D&amp;D as it can be.Even though we'll probably never see it again because D&amp;D is now an office staffed with a skeleton crew who coordinate brand management while publishing a handful of house rules every month or so, since we live in a world where if you aren't an M:tG-practically-printing-your-own-currency level of profitable then people with money don't give a crap, but I wish we lived in a time where the company that owned D&amp;D would go back to being like &quot;f*** it! you do you, boo!&quot; when it came to their writers. :/</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jessica, post: 6717149, member: 6796107"] Why are we worried about gatekeeping material for not being "D&D enough"? IMO D&D is at it's best when it is being the least self-referential and trying new things and breaking new ground and maybe even eating a couple of burgers made out of sacred cow. The Player's Options series weren't terribly well balanced and I'm not even sure they were entirely compatible with each other much less other 2e books, but it's existence took guts and pushed the game in new and interesting directions that really sparked the imagination in a lot of ways. Player's Options, Requiem: the Grim Harvest, all of those crazy 3.5 prestige classes, the entire 4th edition. D&D in my opinion has always been at it's best when it's thrown caution to the wind and tried to be revolutionary even when the end result is a flaming wreck. Right now D&D is trying to be "safe" and really it's coming off as being milquetoast. It's not taking any risks and it's not being all that innovative. In the last twenty years we went from a game with about a dozen campaign settings where D&D could pretty much be anything you wanted it to be where one game you could be space explorers and the next game a party of zombies and ghouls and vampires, to a game where large amounts of detail and simulationism in some ways almost made the game classless and tried to bring life to even the weirdest concepts like nature-destroying Druids and atheist Clerics in addition to the insane level of support from non-WotC designers, to a game that reached the heights of amazing and engaging game design that made combat feel like a battle of wits between two opposing minds and stimulated you on a level you had yet to experience, to a game that tries to be as inoffensive as possible and do what it can to make people not be angry with them. It's D&D asking itself what D&D is and trying to be the D&Diest D&D that ever D&Ded and D&D is just not that good when it's trying it's hardest to be as D&D as it can be. Even though we'll probably never see it again because D&D is now an office staffed with a skeleton crew who coordinate brand management while publishing a handful of house rules every month or so, since we live in a world where if you aren't an M:tG-practically-printing-your-own-currency level of profitable then people with money don't give a crap, but I wish we lived in a time where the company that owned D&D would go back to being like "f*** it! you do you, boo!" when it came to their writers. :/ [/QUOTE]

Verification