I have to say, I wish Appendix N had not been included in the game. It's caused more useless internet arguments than almost any section of actual rules.

Not to mention some people think fantasy just froze in time at some point during the 1970's.

Quote from: Ladybird;537028You couldn't do Harry Potter with it. You couldn't do the Deptford Mice, Twilight, Dresden or Redwall (And that's the limit of my knowledge of even vaguely contemporary kid lit; get back to me when D&D7 is being developed and I'll doubtless know more). I can't actually think of many books it would be very good for.

And that's the sort of thing D&D5 needs to be able to give you the tools to do. Not to the exclusion of all else, obviously, but WotC needs to make it obvious that their game will cater to the younger audience, and the things that influence them.

Seems reasonable. D&D needs good combat, but combat shouldn't be the be-all end-all of D&D, and 4e did tend way too much that way.  That's true whether the primary inspiration is Fafhrd/Mouser or Harry Potter.

Quote from: danbuter;537037I have to say, I wish Appendix N had not been included in the game. It's caused more useless internet arguments than almost any section of actual rules.

Not to mention some people think fantasy just froze in time at some point during the 1970's.

As Melan indicates, Appendix N was mostly '30s-'60s swords and sorcery, not the doorstop-trilogy sub-Tolkien stuff that actually dominated the mid to late '70s (and '80s).

Here is the thing. You can make an rpg that does harry potter well. It would probably even be awesome because I can see a lot of the harry potter stuff working well in a lot of games. But it wouldn't be D&D. Generally I go to D&D because it is D&D, not because it has a bunch of stuff I really want to change. At the same time I like other style of games as well and play other systems that do those well. I just don't understand the drive to turn D&D into something it never really was. I mean if you don't like it (and I can see why some don't), you have options. There are more games out there today than ever before. Telling other customers to just go away because they wont buy D&D books filled with twilight inspired art and mechanics isn't going to change the fact that these guys still buy books (so wotc has to consider their preferences too).

This is like someone who really hates gurps, sticking around and playing gurps because he is waitin for the day it becomes like D&D (then getting mad at the current gurps fanbase for wrecking his hopes of change). The guy is at the wrong party.

That's funny, since there are books from the 70's in the Appendix. Maybe you should look at it. Unless you think Poul Anderson, Leigh Brackett, de Camp, Carter, Fox, Lanier, Leiber, Moorcock, Norton, Offutt, Pratt, Saberhagen, St. Clair, Vance, Williamson, or Zelazny were writing in the 30's. You know, 75% of the list. As usual, grognards post with an agenda, and his is pretty obvious.

Gygax did list a number of 30's authors as the main influences, but most of his list was contemporary fantasy.

Quote from: Melan, emphasis addedThe issue is, the "Appendix N" list was not the most popular selection of fantasy in the 1970s or the 1980s either.

Quote from: S'mon, emphasis addedAs Melan indicates, Appendix N was mostly '30s-'60s swords and sorcery, not the doorstop-trilogy sub-Tolkien stuff that actually dominated the mid to late '70s (and '80s).

Quote from: danbuter;537041That's funny, since there are books from the 70's in the Appendix. Maybe you should look at it. Unless you think Poul Anderson, Leigh Brackett, de Camp, Carter, Fox, Lanier, Leiber, Moorcock, Norton, Offutt, Pratt, Saberhagen, St. Clair, Vance, Williamson, or Zelazny were writing in the 30's. You know, 75% of the list.

Those goalposts are moving. Keep railing against those terrible grognards and their agendas, though.

(Also, if a particular example of modern fantasy, or even older fantasy Gygax neglected works well with D&D - why not add it to the list?)

Quote from: S'mon;537039As Melan indicates, Appendix N was mostly '30s-'60s swords and sorcery, not the doorstop-trilogy sub-Tolkien stuff that actually dominated the mid to late '70s (and '80s).

And yet D&D later abandoned its roots for the most part in favor of the doorstop trilogy route, most notably with Dragonlance(itself a doorstop trilogy) and codified in 2E. It was dragged there by D&D's own fans.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;537040Here is the thing. You can make an rpg that does harry potter well. It would probably even be awesome because I can see a lot of the harry potter stuff working well in a lot of games. But it wouldn't be D&D.

The problem with this is that D&D is synonymous with the concept of RPGs, and somebody without a strong connection to D&D's roots is going to project their own tastes and preferences on it. When I started playing in the mid-90s, I was into Final Fantasy 7 and Vampire Hunter D, and spent my entire time with 2E trying to force those things into the game.

Given its role as the gateway to the hobby, and being synonymous with the term RPG, D&D shouldn't be so dogmatic and inflexible that people can't render their own ideal of fantasy with it.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;537046The problem with this is that D&D is synonymous with the concept of RPGs, and somebody without a strong connection to D&D's roots is going to project their own tastes and preferences on it. When I started playing in the mid-90s, I was into Final Fantasy 7 and Vampire Hunter D, and spent my entire time with 2E trying to force those things into the game.

Sure. But D&D was never those things. You can make a game that does those things, but it won't be D&D. What you can do is play a D&D version of Vampire Hunter D. It will be D&D with Vampire Hunter D elements layered on top. But it won't perfectly simulate D. My point is regardless of what stuff went into making D&D what it is (and for now lets just say that stuff is Appendix N), even after people stop consuming that stuff they still expect D&D to have that core D&Dness to it. You can always make other games. But when you radically restructure D&D, what do you have? You have a new game, you don't have dungeons and dragons. And that is the fundamental problem with this idea that "the game" needs to progress.

Thinking D&D=RPGs isn't a good reason to alter the game itself in order to make it reflect what other systems in the hobby are doing.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;537046And yet D&D later abandoned its roots for the most part in favor of the doorstop trilogy route, most notably with Dragonlance(itself a doorstop trilogy) and codified in 2E. It was dragged there by D&D's own fans.
.

But the core mechanics were basically the same. The 2E dragonlance stuff was all primarily flavor and advice stuff (or trimming out monsters and classes they thought might be objectionable). There were some important rules changes as well (and a whole slew of options) but you could look at 2E and look at 1E and see the same core shape. Heck you could run a 1E modules using 2E very easily (I did it all the time). Even 3E has pretty much the general shape of D&D. It is only when you get to 4E people suddenly say "wait is this even D&D anymore?" (whereas before people would normally say "wait I don't like this version of D&D")

I'm not really sure why people get mad when pounding a round peg into a square hole doesn't work; it should be obvious from the onset.  I get that some people must do it for themselves even if they know intellectually the outcome, but I still don't why they are mad when it doesn't pan out.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;537047Thinking D&D=RPGs isn't a good reason to alter the game itself in order to make it reflect what other systems in the hobby are doing.

Very good point.  It's the difference between D&D being a RPG and D&D being a marketable brand.  D&D as an RPG can be the same for grandparents and grandkids.  D&D as a brand has to constantly reinvent itself based on whatever corporate monkey thinks will bring in "sub-demographic B5".

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;537046Given its role as the gateway to the hobby, and being synonymous with the term RPG, D&D shouldn't be so dogmatic and inflexible that people can't render their own ideal of fantasy with it.

You can always add in what flavor you want to D&D. 2E was great for this actually (just look at some of the monster customization rules from the Van Richten guides). But if you had front-loaded that ravenloft stuff into the PHB it would have turned off a more general audience. D&D is its own thing. It isn't meant to reflect what is going on in the fantasy lit genre. It has become its own genre of fantasy and people have expectations about what that means (lots and lots of people, who but lots and lots of books). As we saw with 4E, if you cater too much to a younger audience or an audience less enthralled with the core elements of D&D, you lose a lot of customers. So I am not being rigid or dogmatic here (actually you are the one insisting D&D be something it has never been, and being rather forceful about the need for D&D to convert to your way of thinking). My point is what D&D was doing worked, allowed it to retain the largest possible audience, but the moment they altered that and went down the path of reconfiguring the game to suit a "broader" or "younger" base, the game failed. This is because of product identity. All they did with 4E was make a new game among many new games out there.

Quote from: CRKrueger;537051Very good point.  It's the difference between D&D being a RPG and D&D being a marketable brand.  D&D as an RPG can be the same for grandparents and grandkids.  D&D as a brand has to constantly reinvent itself based on whatever corporate monkey thinks will bring in "sub-demographic B5".

And the issue is, I don't think the constant reinvention helps at all. By all means smooth out some of the wrinkles. But if you change it too much (as they did with 4E), it will fail because people come back to D&D for a reason (and the reason was never because they thought healing surges might one day be invented).

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;537047Sure. But D&D was never those things. You can make a game that does those things, but it won't be D&D. What you can do is play a D&D version of Vampire Hunter D. It will be D&D with Vampire Hunter D elements layered on top. But it won't perfectly simulate D. My point is regardless of what stuff went into making D&D what it is (and for now lets just say that stuff is Appendix N), even after people stop consuming that stuff they still expect D&D to have that core D&Dness to it. You can always make other games. But when you radically restructure D&D, what do you have? You have a new game, you don't have dungeons and dragons. And that is the fundamental problem with this idea that "the game" needs to progress.

Thinking D&D=RPGs isn't a good reason to alter the game itself in order to make it reflect what other systems in the hobby are doing.

It really wasn't, but we made do. Handing out Rings of Jumping and Boots of Flying like they were candy went a long way, as did making healing effectively unlimited and ramping up the violence. I came into this hobby with no attachment to core D&Dness from the very start, and never grew one. I just don't see D&D in those dogmatic terms, and I never have.

Thinking D&D=RPGs is just dealing with the reality of people coming into the hobby with no attachment to what has come before. People who walk up to a table and want to play Legolas like he was in the movie. Its not about reflecting what other systems do so much as reflecting the fantasy people have in their minds prior to playing D&D for the first time.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;537049But the core mechanics were basically the same. The 2E dragonlance stuff was all primarily flavor and advice stuff (or trimming out monsters and classes they thought might be objectionable). There were some important rules changes as well (and a whole slew of options) but you could look at 2E and look at 1E and see the same core shape. Heck you could run a 1E modules using 2E very easily (I did it all the time). Even 3E has pretty much the general shape of D&D. It is only when you get to 4E people suddenly say "wait is this even D&D anymore?" (whereas before people would normally say "wait I don't like this version of D&D")

Core mechanics were the same, but the tone of the rulebook and the advice they presented made all the difference in the world. OSR people say the same about the advice and presentation of older editions in achieving an "Old School" game.

I disagree with your assessment of 3E, assuming you go past the core 3. Once you get into flying Warlocks shooting laser beams at will, Tome of Battle, and monsters as PCs(including Half-Dragon templated ones) the general shape of traditional shape starts disappearing. A kitchen sink anything goes 3E game goes well past everything 4E did thematically, though 4E's core was much further away than 3E's core.

Its a trade off between keeping the grognards happy and letting the newbie play Legolas like he wants.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;537052You can always add in what flavor you want to D&D. 2E was great for this actually (just look at some of the monster customization rules from the Van Richten guides). But if you had front-loaded that ravenloft stuff into the PHB it would have turned off a more general audience. D&D is its own thing. It isn't meant to reflect what is going on in the fantasy lit genre. It has become its own genre of fantasy and people have expectations about what that means (lots and lots of people, who but lots and lots of books).

Putting it in yourself is no substitute for it being there in the first place, and we have a sort of pandora's box where 3E and 4E opened a lot of doors that allowed a lot of new things into D&D that just won't get back into the box.

D&D as its own thing only matters to people who have embraced D&D as its own specific thing. It doesn't matter to somebody like me who has been playing D&D for 17 years with utter disregard for the history of D&D, and it doesn't matter to somebody who just walked in the door.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;537058It really wasn't, but we made do. Handing out Rings of Jumping and Boots of Flying like they were candy went a long way, as did making healing effectively unlimited and ramping up the violence. I came into this hobby with no attachment to core D&Dness from the very start, and never grew one. I just don't see D&D in those dogmatic terms, and I never have.

That is fair, but it also means you have never really been a fan of what D&D is....while most who played the game playe it because of what it was, not what it could be. It sounds like you love the hobby but have never been in love with D&D...so why not play a different game? Or if you a going to play D&D why demand it bend to your tastes, when it really needs to get the biggest cross section of fans possible (incuding lots of old generation gamers). This isn't about being dogmatic (i can happily play new and interesting game like savage worlds). I just understand that changing D&D into another game is a recipe for failure.