Slashdot Mirror
30 Years Of Dungeons And Dragons
vasqzr writes "CNN has a story about Dungeons and Dragons celebrating its 30th birthday. 'An estimated 25,000 fans in 1,200 stores celebrated the anniversary Saturday, said Charles Ryan, brand manager for role-playing games at Wizards of the Coast, a Renton, Washington, company that owns Dungeons & Dragons.'"
I didn't know either, but completely coincidentally I was playing my first Saturday-night D&D session since 1986 yesterday!
Says something about the bell-curve my life has taken I guess...
you should clarify, you know 4 people out of at least 2000 who _admit_ to having every played D&D.
You forget one very important thing about D&D and RPGs in general... the game is what you make of it. The system is incidental. If your GM and players all want a game about hacking and slashing, then the d20 rules will give you a great place to do that. If your group wants action, adventure, character development, intrigue, and all of the "flavor," then you can also do that within the framework that WoTC has provided with third edition. Or you could use another system. Or use no system at all.
Personally, I'm thrilled with the changes made from 2nd edition to 3rd. 3.5 doesn't sit as well, but they really did fix a lot from 3.0. But the books themselves are there as tools to help GMs (sorry, DMs) build worlds, and it's up to the storyteller to create a world in which the players can find adventure. You don't need rules for that... you need rules to keep everyone from arguing with each other when you do need to figure out what happens to the kobold when it gets hit with the +5 axe of vorpal soothing.
-- Minds are like parachutes... they work best when open.
The biggest flaw with D&D 3.5 is the fact that it still requires people to use obscure polyhedral dice. How many times have you rolled a d12 in a game?
I'm surprised that the folks working on D&D didn't take stock of what kind of dice get rolled most frequently and migrate the system to using one kind of die like other gaming systems.
You know, I've found the opposite to be true (although the joke is very well timed and very funny :) )
Most people I know that play D&D (not a great sample size, but I think I meet the requisite 34) are sexual maniacs. But then again, it may be countered by the prudes.
Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
Well, from my experience, rules are useful (and perhaps necessary) to hack-and-slash games. Those games require a lot dice rolling whereas the more-talk-less-fight games generally don't need very detailed rules. Immersive story-telling games need only a reasonable DM. And to those who hate hack-and-slashing, D&D was born from war games, so it only makes sense that violence and killing be part of it.
I am partial to 2nd ed, and I loved the first ed Gygax modules (the Vault of the Drow series and Giants series). And I've got a shelfload of Dragon magazines. But really, the whole point was never the rules, but what you did with them. The nice thing about D&D was the fudge factor--as the DM, you could scale the difficulty level as you went to bring the party to the edge of defeat without wiping them out. More strictly defined rules systems didn't leave this leeway, because players could tell from the dice roll whether they had succeeded or not. In D&D the DM was always the final arbiter. Now you can run online adventures with Neverwinter Nights, so if your old D&D group has split up into different cities, you can still play together, but I'm not sure it gives the same leeway.
I was lucky in that I played in university with a bunch of people with multiple degrees. We had people in history, philosophy, english, political science, psychology, and engineering, all voracious readers, and a couple of hard core gamers. The interesting thing about running in a tabletop game is that the DM plays God, so you really get to see what their idea of justice, politics, economics, and human nature is. This led to a lot of interesting discussions on subjects like the nature of evil or medieval politics. We used to have pitched arguments about the difference between religion in the game world vs. the medieval world. The gods in the game world took active roles, while the God of the medieval church never intervened. This meant that religion in the game world was actually controlled by the gods--a very interesting premise.
Another interesting thing about D&D is that it is intended as a fully cooperative game. A lot of cooperative games were created in the 70's, but D&D is the only one that caught on. The opponents are provided by the DM, who nevertheless is not playing against the players. This was always missed by the hysterical critics, who were obsessed with the violence in the game or the mythical elements (eewwww--the occult!) Media coverage of the game in the early days was pathetic. They were always so intent on looking for a scare story that they couldn't see what was going on right in front of them: players working together in a creative hobby.
I have never had any problem finding players, so I guess I'm different in that regard.
My problem is finding players that don't utterly piss me off. You know, the guys that waste 30 minutes in the middle of initiative rolls reading passages from the PHB to the DM when the result is inevitably going to be what the damned DM said in the first place.
Another group that really annoys me are guys that aren't necessarily "power gamers", but don't realize that flaws in a character, well... add character. I find that most of these people have never played in a game of GURPS, where choices like this are required and a good GM will enforce that you RP them.
Oh well. To be honest, my favorite RPG has and always will be Vampire. However, especially nowadays I can't stand that group in general, to a point where a D&D game with the players I described above sounds like a joyous session in comparison. And LARP is like ripping your imagination out and replacing it with really bad acting and replacing any tactical action with a large chance of success, regardless of challenge. (as most LARP actions are decided by Rock, Paper, Scissors) And of course, LARP DM's (if you can find them) don't care about any of this.
Vampire used to be a fun political RPG that had little to do with Vampires and more to do with intrigue. Now everyone paints their face white and for some fucking reason, thinks that Vampire is a Goth RPG. Good god, I wonder if they dress in cherokee headwear for Werewolf games. Oh well.
Well, at least no one has fucked with Shadowrun. Oh, wait, someone actually needs to fuck with Shadowrun. Oh well.
D&D was always a wonderful exercise of mentality -- specifically, visual imagination, numerical computing, and social foresight.
... it was just another hobby in life. All those dire predictions during the 1980s about D&D's harm had come to naught ... and in fact, all those worried parents instead did far more damage than D&D ever did by working all the time instead of keeping a presence at home with their children.
Science Fiction and D&D are wonderful jump-starts to young intellects. The downside to them is that they are elitist and promote insular behavior.
Now collected around age 40, the people I knew who played D&D often still do, and on average the game didn't help or harm them
[You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
Back when the D&D-is-evil crap started, I researched news stories about teenagers who committed suicide because they got kicked off the swim team, blew their 4.0 GPA, broke up with girl/boyfriend, parents were assholes, etc. I read that the suicide rate among RPG players was below that of the general population.
That was back in the pre-Internet days when these things took time to find. Here is an article that summarizes some of that info. I used to keep some actual numbers in my head to toss out whenever some cross-waving idiot blamed RPGs for the ills of the world. If the anti-D&D crusaders actually looked up suicide statistics, they would probably be campaigning against report cards, team sports, the senior prom, and a lot of other time-honored institutions. In the real world, fantasy gaming is generally harmless fun.
Finally, someone old sk001.
I started playing back in the late 70's and Greyhawk was all there was for pre-made campaign settings. It was a great inspiration for us newbie DM's - and one that I don't think I could ever live up to.
Mystera and Forgotten Realms (majority of 1st and 2nd edition settings, respectfully) were great too.
Sigh, I have fond memories of travelling from kingdom to kingdom. Sometimes running from the authorities, sometimes working for them. But mostly working for myself.
I was never big on the hack-n-slash, although it was fun when needed. I liked the interaction and the exploration. All of that seems missing these days... games like Neverwinter Nights and Dungeon Seige just emphasize hack-n-slash. After a few hours of mowing down kobolds or goblins or the creature de jour it gets really old. Give me a mystery to figure out, or a war to prevent any day.
Give the guy a break. At least he didn't say it was ironic.
From the economic point of view 2nd edition really felt exploitive with the never ending range of class and race specific handbooks. TSR were known for their heavy handed tactics with website owners and small publishers, and indeed anyone they felt was a threat.
After WotC bought TSR things immediately improved. 3rd edition is a much more consistent and intuitive set of rules. The few badly abused rules in 3rd edition (like critical ranges) have been mostly fixed up in 3.5. The Open Gaming License and free availability of the System Reference Documents make WotC at least appear to be much more friendly, fair, and reasonable with their customers than TSR was in the later years. There is also a huge amount more free content available from WotC than TSR ever provided.