What D&D Is (To Me)
Bookending my previous post, in which I speculated about what D&D means to different groups of players. I didn’t think this post was necessary, originally, but a comment by Brian Gleichman has convinced me otherwise. Tempting as it was to dismiss it, between the veiled insults and a self-evident failure on Brian’s part to read the page very carefully (in case any of the rest of you were wondering: I am not Ambrose Bierce, the renowned satirist who died in the early 20th century), I think it’s probably better addressed, because he raises at least one good point. I spent a fair amount of time talking about what I think D&D isn’t, but I left what I think it is mostly between the lines. It’s probably better to be clear, especially when making statements such as “the import of mechanics is limited.”
As an initial clarification, I’ll say: That’s not the same as “the rules don’t matter.” More on that in a little while, though.
What is D&D? To me, it isn’t any of those rules in my last post. It’s not 3d6 chargen, or 4d6, or point-buy. It’s not level draining, or lack thereof. It’s not wandering monsters and random treasure, or the absence of same. Those are just elements, and every one of them is dispensable. To re-use a metaphor I threw at Brian, they’re like team uniforms in baseball. It might (arguably) not be the Yankees without the pinstripes, but it’s still baseball. It might not be OD&D without level drains (at least, some people would say it wasn’t), but it’s still D&D.
Categories: Philosophy and Rants | Comments (11)
What is D&D, Anyway?
Jeff Rients of Jeff’s Gameblog, who ordinarily has interesting things to say, recently decided to instead rant about 4th edition in a couple of posts, starting with positing an unbridgeable gap between old-school and new-school. All of this was founded, mind you, on a misinterpretation of a single post by Trask of Living Dice. (Later he added a second post based on an editorial by someone at Wizards of the Coast.) Buried in the comments, though, he said something that’s actually thought-provoking and worth responding to:
3d6 chargen. Wandering monsters. Save or die. Rust monsters eatng my sword. Level draining. Random treasure (possibly no treasure). Dave the Game may be right and what I’m talking about is a ‘playstyle’ issue, but the playstyle that I learned from D&D is no longer one supported by D&D.
I find this interesting because it is, for the most part, a list of those things that I found most senseless and annoying as both a player and a GM in past editions. If this is how the “old school” contingent (and we really need a better name for them — too many of them, judging from other comments on Jeff’s post, are too ignorant or too vested in the One True Way of Gaming to allow them to co-opt “old school”) defines D&D, then I think it’s no surprise that the game no longer feels like D&D to them.
Categories: Philosophy and Rants | Comments (33)
Ten Monsters I Love (But Rarely Use)
I thought I’d chip in on the latest subject to be making its way around the RPG blogs. Instead of just my favorite ten monsters, which would include common reliables like kobolds, dragons, and vampires, though, I thought I’d list the ones that are favorites of mine but that I rarely find myself using. They might be too specialized, or might not fit the flavor of my plots often enough, or might just be obscure, but I love the concepts anyway.
Categories: My Campaigns, Philosophy and Rants | Comments (2)
Alignment Explained via Superheroes
These motivational posters are surprisingly apt. I like the conceit here: the superheroes (and villains) are, for the most part, pretty well-known figures, which makes this an easy encapsulation of the D&D alignment system. The one prior to fourth-edition, at any rate.
My favorite part is the quote chosen for each one. He’s a superhero; he’s a political philosopher. They Fight Crime.
It’s kind of an old post, but I just stumbled upon a link to it.
Categories: Websites | Comments (1)
