rounser said:
Can't say I've noticed the "constant threads" that you're referring to, but I will comment on why I disagree with your assertion. It's because, at it's heart, D&D is trying to simulate a genre. Sometimes it fails (paladins and assassins casting spells etc.) or exposes nonsense parts of fantasy (why don't monsters destroy towns, why not use magical lighting everywhere etc.).
But I think it is a huge mistake to take that as a reason to put the cart in front of the horse, and say that because our simulation sucks in some ways or exposes nonsenses in S&S fantasy, we should make the setting reflect the nonsenses and failures of our genre and system in order to make it consistent. It leads to a crazy setting where D&D's idioms and sword & sorcery fantasy's idioms are magnified and dwelled on until the cat chases it's tail, and that which was supposed to be simulated becomes irrelevant as the simulation begins to define it instead. This leads to designs such as the 3.5 prestige classes that have names and no archetypes, and are there because of a failure in the rules, another example of the cart put in front of the horse.
It's more difficult to ignore these idioms as of 3E because they're spelt out in greater detail (X number of wizards per town, and explicit magic item creation), but they should be ignored if one can, IMO, not put up on a pedestal and have all they imply extended until it defines the setting more than what they were originally trying to simulate does.
(I hope that's intelligible; I'm having difficulty getting across the concept because it's a little convoluted, but hopefully you can make sense of it.)
So you are basically saying that any straying from genre would constitute a betrayal of some 'genre' reason unless they went into inane detail to explain why this and why that?
I have news for you; DND does not simulate fantasy, but merely evokes it. First and foremost it acts as a game with real mechanical rewards costs. But beyond that I would say this; most players and dms don't really give a damn about coherence and details beyond having set rules for aforementioned rewards and costs. The appeal in creating hybrid fantasy (as oppossed to sci-fi settings) is not to justify the coexistence of themes and conventions, but merely to see how they interact. The wierdness and irrational play on genres is what makes such settings popular and truly 'fantastic'. Creating literalist detail and obvious coherence destroys that, and robs readers/players/dms from making up their own minds about how things should be done. Its the inconsistencies of the Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk which make them popular as settings and not merely modular material. This looks to do the same. As long as the setting can maintain this type of mystique while evoking SOMETHING, it will have more going for it than uninspired 'rational' settings like Kingdoms of Kalamar and its ilk.
Last edited: