Great article but you overlooked one very important aspect of modern D&D, it’s dumbed down as shit. There is very little uniqueness between characters in 5e and it is way more forgiving to players than earlier editions where challenge was a core part of the game. It was one of the biggest reasons the “consume” crowd stuck with WotC over the other fantasy offerings.
I've heard this from multiple people in the comments and, so far as I'm aware, it seems to be an opinion a lot of veteran players have about 5e, but I'm also not the most savvy about differences between editions or the hard crunch of any TTRPG. I mentioned this in another reply to someone else but there's a group in town that plays "Classic DnD" only and everyone I know who's played has said it's significantly different and more difficult than 5e. There's definitely a market for people who want a challenge but it's not for the "consoomer" crowd.
Wizards of the Coast made fat stacks of cash because of it. The simplicity and forgiving gameplay was more geared towards non traditional players. Think dude bros over nerds. The result was it really went mainstream. The problem for WotC is they were always their own worst enemy.
Without any complexity, danger, or challenge to your characters in an RPG all the drama and action come from the players and game master. It's like playing a book but it will almost always be missing those dynamic elements that make for a good story. There are few instances for your characters to show ingenuity, unexpected surprises to take them out of their comfort zone, moments to push them in new and exciting directions, or struggles to help them grow. It's perfect for the theater club types but it will never equal a great tale of adventure.
You know, you are kind of right about the de-civilization thing. I didn't fully appreciate it until I got done writing my response but even the kinds of silly stories we make out of fictional tabletop characters say quite a bit about us.
You're absolutely right. It's difficult for a preening narcissist to engage in a narrative where their character could die permanently and their actions have legitimate, long-lasting consequences when all they really want is a game where they can pad their ego and always be the best, always overcome adversity, and are never genuinely challenged.
Yes--seems to me civilisation is as much a matter of the beauty, order and complexity invested in 'useless' things as it is a matter of mere 'technique'.
Yes. Aside from the theater kids, I think another problem is that the modern game has been influenced by movies and video games. New players expect a D&D campaign to be like a movie, with a plucky band of destiny-chosen adventurers who start small and end up saving the world. Maybe they face some dangers along the way, but ultimately you know that if they keep fighting, they'll battle through and get the job done, because that's the way the story has to end. For that to happen, the campaign has to be fairly on-the-rails, and the difference between a skilled DM and a poor one is that the skilled one, like a well-designed RPG video game, is better at hiding the rails and making it *seem* like anything could happen.
But that's not how D&D used to be at all. You started out a low-level nobody and were far more likely to be killed by a giant rat on your first adventure than to become a great hero. If you were trying to save anything, it was a town or a castle, not the world. It was *possible* to advance a character to high levels where he can lead armies or battle gods on astral planes. But that would take many campaigns played over years, skilled players and DM, and a decent amount of luck, because without the DM keeping the story on the rails, bad things really could happen anytime. But usually you're just having fun hacking around through dungeons, gathering loot and trying to stay alive.
New or old players who want a *game* like that instead of an interactive epic storytelling method are going back to the 70s/80s versions, which as our host said can largely be had for free. Some call it the Old-School Rennaisance. Just wish I had time to get back into it myself.
That's a very interesting point I didn't take into account before. Personally, I'm not sure why every story in modernity has to be on some world-spanning scope in which the band of the chosen ones are tasked with saving the world from some immense threat that realistically could not be stopped by a small group of people. There's nothing wrong with those stories, either, especially in fantasy, but I'm of the opinion that there's also nothing wrong with stories that focus on smaller stakes with more personal consequences. One thing that comes to mind is Spider-Man, who, from what I understand, was a more localized hero who dealt with localized threats in New York rather than engaging in world-saving theatrics. Peter Parker's whole bit was that he was a normal guy with extraordinary abilities and the whole conceit unravels once he becomes someone larger than life. When the new Spider-Man movie was announced to be another "multiverse" project, I heard a lot of grumbling and disappointment because people seem to want Spider-Man to go back to being a "street-level" hero that deals with "street-level" threats rather than literally the most important person in Marvel canon who's going to single-handedly defeat Doctor Doom.
There's a group that plays in my town that plays "classic DnD". I'm not sure if they're playing out of a first edition DnD book or if it's an altered ruleset for modern DnD to make it more aligned with the classic, but everyone I know who's played with them says it's significantly more difficult and character deaths are common. To this point, there's been a few ragequits over it, I've heard, but for the most part everyone who's played has really enjoyed it despite the differences.
As settings, both Marvel and the Forgotten Realms have the problem that there are such powerful characters that make any smaller-scale conflict feel pointless (if not incoherent).
(BTW, Greyhawk was actually the original official campaign setting, though I think it suffers from the same problems you describe as Faerun).
Theater kids have also colonized and are busily destroying not just the gaming and other scenes, but also they have taken over real historic sites like Williamsburg, Virginia and done the same thing, since costumed historical interpretation of course is catnip to theater kids. You can't go to Williamsburg, or any other historic site now without being forced to hear their version of history, which boils down to "white men bad".
That's disappointing but not surprising. I visited Williamsburg when I was 13 with my father and we had a great time. I remember the costumed performers being more interested in speaking about what life was like during the colonial era more than giving lectures on racial politics of the time. It makes me wonder when we'll get to the point where Civil War reenactments will turn into one sided Union grand-standing where people in blue uniforms just give polemics on the South because having a Confederate side to fight against will be verboten.
This is a direct quote from a dude I know about what Williamsburg is like now-
"Peter Alexander, a prominent figure in Colonial America. His wife too.
If you tour their house in Williamsburg all they talk about is how he owned slaves. If you ask too many questions about him and what he did, not the slaves, they will threaten to kick you out of the tour..."
That Williamsburg clique of activist historians have become like a nest of vipers, slithering into other positions at other historic sites, and replicating the process. Mount Vernon, Monticello, all the National Park sites.
I wonder if the Renaissance Faire still happens. That's about as blatant to celebration of Europeans as I can recall for the cosplay crowd. Is white man bad trendy there too? (I bet it is)
Hey Pickle Rick! I think we've seen each other around some FQ sections of the web too.
Your comment and this article got me thinking... I've often used Thomas Sowell's "vision of the anointed" as a handy marker for the distinction between political views. (Left/Right being divisible by anointed vs tragic views) But now I think an additional way of measuring it would be by those who believe in Year Zero - vs those who acknowledge history.
And as this articles shows - not even history as like a proper study or record of events - even history just within a lifetime or a previous generation ago, the experience and wisdom of your forefathers, vs those "unburdened by what has been."
As you said, the phenomenon occurred across different nerd subcultures. Maybe ten years ago, I remember HP Lovecraft fandom getting colonized. People new to HPL were fascinated by the setting and monsters, but I think most of them probably never read anything from the early 20th century, and there were many lamentations about the unacceptable content of HPL. Now, they could’ve fucked off and found something else to take over, but no, it was important that they stayed around to complain about HPL. At the same time, many were quite happy to create and sell games, books, and other merchandise using this preexisting fanbase, all the while complaining. I remember one other specially expressing the need to do over HPL to make it palatable for these people.
But here’s the other thing-while many of them may have been theater kids, indoctrinated young people who just didn’t understand the 20th century, there were a number of old heads who did know better but acted (suddenly) shocked and appalled, and were eager to toe the line, lest they be targeted. And that happened in gaming, too. I can forgive youthful stupidity, but not that.
As I commented on the other article, I welcome all of this foolishness in 5E, in the hope that it will attract these people to 5E and away from various OSR games that I like.
Oh, believe me, I've seen what they've done to Lovecraft. He's one of my favorite authors and to watch the works of what I believe to be quite possibly the most influential author in horror history, if not one of the most impactful of the 20th century, dumbed down and Funko-Pop-ized (I can't think of a better word for it) to meet the tastes of people who would never like, appreciate, or even really understand the source material is disheartening. What makes it even more humorous (darkly) is that they never - NEVER - stop bitching about the guy. I'll admit, he had some less than respectable qualities but at the same time, learn to appreciate him for who he was and his talents or just... go read something else? No one is putting a gun to your head and making you read Lovecraft. But, at the same time, Lovecraft is popular, and these pop culture parasites always have to be in on the "popular thing", which usually involves them debasing it down for the lowest common denominator.
I also agree with you on the turncoats among the old crowd. I've been seeing that a lot in the Warhammer community as of late. Oldheads who would have never accepted something like, say, female Custodes are now chiding those who are upset over that particular retcon as being "out of step". I think part of it definitely has to do with them wanting to not get targeted by the outrage mob, but I also think that, to a degree, they're also "consoomer" types to who will always go where the company goes out of loyalty rather than admitting that Games Workshop has been constantly shooting themselves in the foot for years now.
I think there’s a predictable chain of events that happens. There is a cultural genre thing (book, game, show, etc) liked by a certain fanbase. The thing becomes popular. Eventually, it becomes popular enough that people who probably wouldn’t like the thing or even the genre begin to consume it, simply for fear of missing out. Commercial entities then realize that they can make the thing much more profitable if they dumb it down to the new, much larger demographic, who are not core fans. Eventually, the elements that made the thing special go away, in an effort to reach a broader audience. Eventually this new consumer group moves on to the next shiny thing, leaving the desiccated corpse of the original thing. I can think of local food products that became shitty once they became popular and distributed nationally. Bands that become popular enough to go commercial and then suck. Various tv shows and movie franchises. And so on.
I never played 40k much, but did the fact that Sisters of Battle exist not satisfy people? I mean, the Empire is fascistic, but what, their DEI departments are addressing inequities in Custodes hiring?
I’d like to try out more historical miniature wargames, and now I wonder-has this sort of thing made its way into that realm? Will, um, all World War 2 armies need to feature “proper representation?” No question is too absurd to ask at this point.
1) I totally agree with you. I'm not really a Lovecraft fan, but I hate what people do to him and do think the man should be respected.
2) But along the lines of influential horror authors, you ever read William Hope Hodgson? He's the man that inspired Lovecraft. Definitely worth a look into him for he deserves to be remembered and respected also.
I played D&D when I was 10 or 11 at school. Ya might say I was *temperamentally unsuited*: I beat up the DM one day mid-game and never played again.
In my early 20s I played magic once. Dragged along by a friend, I found myself embarassed and confused by it all and never went back.
I enjoyed this article all the same.
I think what you're referring to with this hostile theatre kid takeover is what ya might call de-civilisation: the hollowing-out of Western culture so that things retain their names, and the bare mechanisms ncecessary for their functioning, while they're divested of content. The content--the essence of the thing--is then replaced to fit the resentful narcissism of regime client groups.
See also: establishment Christianity, liberalism, socialism, even communism.
Very astute observation. It really is a microcosm of the larger degredation of Western culture and society, which is why I think it's important to talk about. People can say, "Oh, it's just a game", and sure, that's true, but it's also happening across the board in just about every facet of life. Best example is the woman the Biden admin tapped to be the "truth czar" or whatever during the lockdowns who sang a cover of a Mary Poppins song about "misinformation". That was theater kid-ism at it's most offensively transparent and pernicious.
Oh damn, I'd almost forgotten that that really was an actual thing that happened, haha. The height of the virus hysteria was a weird time for sure. As easy as it is to laugh about, though, you're of course very right that the authoritarian impulse it represents is still present and a serious threat for all of us who value classic liberal (as in Enlightenment, not Democratic Party) values like freedom of speech. I'm sure they'd love to bring it back in a less outwardly pathetic and self-defeating form...
Most people have forgotten about it. But not me. I'll never forget. I can't forget if I tried, if only through the sheer absurdity of it.
I'm sure they'd love to give the "Ministry of Truth" another swing but the frightening prospect is that, if they do it less pathetically, it'll take the shape of Orwell's famous analogy of a boot stamping on a human face. Forever.
Good article, but I would really take note that AD&D 2nd edition is so different from its predecessor versions is that it's a completely different game. 1ed AD&D and the original D&D were wargames scaled down to first-person POV, but higher-level play was also built in. The transition from wargamer-led TTRPG to Frustrated Novelist / Director - led TTRPG, to what Jeffro Johnson and Brad Walker and aligned writers call "Conventional Play" (the current assumed model of play) is arguably what led to this phenomenon writ large. With the original D&D / AD&D being an outgrowth of wargaming, the barrier to entry was actually pretty high. Those versions of the game, played according to rules as written, are "always on" players playing at multiple levels - PC, faction, patron, and NOT having perfectly aligned interests - i.e, not the "One Party Uber Alles Get-Along-Gang" - no one would be able to play one and just one character forever. Because 1 to 1 time is assumed in that version, you have to play other characters, or you don't at all for long stretches. That's a wargame, which can be won, not a sit-down Improv session. The whole "There is no wrong way to play D&D" and "Rule 0" and "Session 0" culture that's built up is...wrong. It enables the Theater Kids.
That's a very interesting correlation between the game's history as a wargame and into it's transition into what it is now.
"Sit-down Improv session" is actually a great way of putting it, so much so I wish I'd come up with it. That's really what media like Critical Role feels like - a bunch of actors improvin, because that's what it is.
It's also funny you bring up the "One Party Uber Alles Get-Along-Gang" (again, banger line), because I feel like that's exactly what so many campaigns boil down to. As much fun as I'm having with my current group, the DM did make the caveat that no one could play an evil character because a lawful good and chaotic evil character couldn't get along in a party or work together, which I fundamentally disagree with. People with conflicting virtues and worldviews can definitely learn to put aside their differences when interests align, and especially in a life-or-death situation.
A lot of us call the contemporary DM style "Frustrated Novelist" or "Frustrated Director," because that's what it is. Railroading, taking away player agency, BS "arcs" no one gives a crap about. And it's too much for a GM. It's why if you back to the original books you realize it's okay to use players and deputize them to run NPCs for you. If you have a fully functional complete game, you don't need setting books, supplements, and modules. It's just shelves full of DLC.
But those are only temporary alliances, and that's the beauty of Braunstein style play, patron play, and faction play levels. Sooner or later, interests diverge. TSR's Western RPG Boot Hill and GDW's early Traveler did a good job, but you could apply it to Twilight 2000 for example. Or Shadowrun. You should be able to apply it to Palladium games if they were functioning games and not Dev Kits.
They're absolutely temporary, but that's what makes them so interesting. Two people who can't stand each other who have to put up with one another out of necessity, just waiting for the opportunity where it's no longer convenient to work together so they can turn on each other. You can get a lot of good story material out of that dynamic that's infinitely more interesting than a group of people who all fundamentally morally align with one another. Pigeon-holing everyone into "Good" and "Mostly Good" to me seems like a great way for there to be little in the way of inter-group conflict which... well, I'm not going into it now, but suffice to say that a group without some friction is usually pretty boring.
Also, you just reminded me that I'd love to run a Shadowrun campaign with these guys one day.
The Critical Role guys aren't improvising. It's scripted. It's just that their script allows some paraphrasing. And it's edited later.
Any real game session has people talking over each-other, someone occasionally saying something stupid and offensive, surprising successes and surprising failures, people ignoring the main quest and turning the side quest into a main quest, getting needlessly paranoid about some harmless NPC and ignoring the big bad NPC, and so on.
A real game session is messy, because spontaneous humans are messy. Only edited fiction is neat.
These bastards have ruined two cherished parts of my childhood now. Boy Scouts, where I was introduced to AD&D in the late 80s, got skinsuited first. Yeah 5e turned Leftist hard. A big part of the turn are the "inclusive" Critters.
I went to Comic Con last year. The cast was the Saturday keynote panel. Beforehand outside, the "official" fan club got together for pictures in front of the hotel next to the San Diego Convention Center. All I heard were a bunch of tearful sharings of how Crit Role made them feel better or included or saved their life. Wow, it was all sooo... dramatic.
I still love D&D. I would love to game with some not Left people. My last campaign group wasted the DM's night one time going completely off the rails to stop this jerk of a mayor from being mean to the townspeople. I spent the whole night "sitting in the tavern drinking" while the three millennials in the group went "crusading."
I wasn't even aware that there was an "official fanclub" for anything anymore. That sounds about right, though. You do see that a lot at conventions when certain creators or figures show up. I saw Steve Burns do a panel at Emerald City Comic-con and people were speaking to him with such reverence you would have thought he was the Messiah returned. Dramatic is almost an understatement. That does bring up a good point about Critical Role, streaming culture, and parasocial relationships. I've often said streaming is a "friend simulator" for people with very lacking social lives and I can easily see how lonely, wayward, isolated people might watch Critical Role as some sort of parasocial substitute for having actual friends to play a game with and get very, very attached to it. It probably goes a long way to explain why they act so vicious against any criticism leveled against the series - any polite critique isn't just criticizing a web series, they see it as an attack against their "friends".
Also, it's a shame what they did to the boyscouts. But that's a can of worms for another day.
It was definitely strange to see the adoration. Until you mentioned your experience, I forgot how the Q&A was almost like the girls in the 60s getting to ask the Beatles questions because well most of the Critical Role fans were female.
Your childhood is not ruined. AD&D 1st ed has not ceased to exist. The books exist in secondhand print, and current pdf.
With Scouts, if you want to participate then you have to join their organisation as it is. With tabletop gaming, you can start your own small group and play whatever you like.
I have first and second edition players handbook and dm guide in the case of second edition and the MM. The problem lies in finding fellow players.
As for Scouts, I'll skip the inclusive fun. I doubt "morally straight" and reverent are values of the current organization. Hell they made a DEI exercise a required merit badge. Nope not swimming in sewage.
What you do is go down to your local game store or CCG shop, and set up a regular open game table. Advertise it on their social media and with posters there. Show up regularly every Wednesday 7-9pm, or whenever. And run it for whoever shows up, even one person. Do that for three months.
I did that, and found that over three months I got something like 10 different players, 8 of whom came more than once, 3-4 of whom came regularly - and showed up for my campaign.
I did it with Classic Traveller, too, with similar results.
The most important things are commitment and enthusiasm. RPGs are like sex, enthusiasm is more important than skill.
For me, the D&D brand is dead. I've swapped over to other games that I enjoy far more whether solo or with friends and it's for the very reasons you mentioned.
Of course. I was looking for resources on the OGL controversy and The Man Behind the Screen very helpfully pointed me in your direction. I wanted to provide further reading on the topic from someone who understood it better for anyone who was interested in getting deeper into it.
Re: Forgotten Realms, yeah. It's bland, it's big, it's a patchwork of misappropriated tropes. The only thing worse is Pathfinder's in-house setting, which is like a parody of all the worst things about Forgotten Realms.
I guess the idea is that it's more of a framework than a setting. Here's all the generic bits and some maps, just add character (and characters).
I've never been a big fan of it. Some of the novels added some depth of history and culture to it, and that's the main reason why everything is centered around Waterdeep, etc. - because that's where all the good novels took place, on the northwest coast of (generic medieval european fantasy continent #1).
Some of the other canned settings are more interesting - Ravenloft, Dark Sun - but really, I don't think you can call yourself a DM/GM if you're not running your own thing. That's half the fun of it. Everybody else makes their characters, you make the world. If you're not doing that you're just a referee.
I'm glad I'm not alone in that opinion because I often feel as if I am. Forgotten Realms seems to be very well regarded by a lot of folks but at the same time... maybe that's just because it's so easily accessible and bland? Easy to build on? I've read some books in the setting I've enjoyed but overall I just don't care about it. As for some of the other settings, I agree. I really like Spelljammer and I really, REALLY like Planescape (though I think a lot of my love for it comes from the aesthetic and Tony DiTerlizzi's art. Something about the setting is so weirdly new age-y 90's that I can't help but love it in a nostalgic way). But I also agree that homebrew settings are the way to go. It's infinitely more interesting to see what your weird friend with way too much on his hands can cook up and worldbuild rather than revisiting Faerun for the Nth time.
Yeah, Spelljammer and Planescape are my personal favorites too, though they made an absolute mess of them in 5e, with Spelljammer somehow not revolving around spelljammers and planescape being sort of watered down, dissected and scattered across numerous sourcebooks. I have a homebrew that borrows my favorite elements from both of them with my own elaborations, which is what I usually run when I do D&D (not often, lately, been busy doing my own original systems & settings).
But they're more like meta-settings/cosmologies that plug in to any/all of the other settings (they've since done the same to Ravenloft, which I think they also made a mess of in 5e).
Here's the secret. No one needs prefabricated settings or modules at all. All you need is the 1ed DMG, PHB, and MM, and that's it. Sure, add in FF and DD if you want but they're optional.
You don't *really* need anything but paper, pencil, and some randomizer if the game calls for it. You can make your own rules. According to my kid you don't need the paper and pencil either, because laptops, like, exist, dad. But I'll stick to the pencil & paper.
Excellent work and excellent reading, as is so often the case with you, my good ape.
You've hit the nail squarely on the head with each point. I've been invested in this hobby for long enough that I witnessed this change happening in real time. I, along with many others, comprised a pair of the "boots on the ground," as it were. Back when I used to run my YouTube channel and speak more regularly about this sort of thing, I both got a lot of support from old heads like myself who were in the same boat, and a cavalcade of shit - a cacalcade, as I believe you recently put it? ;) - from the exact kind of shrieking neurotics you describe in this essay.
These troglodytes are a modern day form of low tier brigand; arrogant enough to think their ideas and desires are the end all, be all, and that all and sundry should cater exclusively to them, anyone else be damned. Yet the battlefields they choose, the tactics they use, and the reactions they give when pushed against reveal the truth of their weakness, particularly once greater public opinion comes into play. It's not just the hobbyist nerds and geeks, the *actual* ones like myself and my friends who did have to deal with being mocked daily for liking certain kinds of games, or the ones like my best friend's stepdad who lived through the Satanic Panic and had people try to throw blows at them over this, who dislike these trogs. Most everyone that exists outside of the "theater kid" bubble dislikes them, and deservedly so.
These "theater kids" are fucking insufferable. They're the Karens of the geek world, but worse because of the state of arrested development they're perpetually trapped in. And while it's already obvious from what I've said, I want the satisfaction of putting it to words: I hold these types in nothing but contempt.
Yes... the cacalcade. Like I said - I meant to do that.
I don't think I could add anything to your scathing rebuke of these types that you haven't already eloquently stated, but I also hold them in contempt as well. Really, nothing gets me more heated than these people who come into these spaces and act like the same bullies they claim to hate so much, especially when its towards people who really did have to put up with that shit. Like I said, I was blessed to never have to deal with that kind of harassment, but I know it happened and I have very little patience for anyone who wants to revise history and say, "Um, actually, it was ALWAYS cool to like [insert hobby here]" and then bash the very people they claim to want to join. It all feels like a sick power play, which, to a degree, I think it is.
I personally would completely drop the idea of saying that it's a power play, to a degree. I think it is absolutely a power play. These are the types of people who love exuding influence over others. They live for that shit. That's why whenever these hipster fucks hop into whatever they consider the next in-thing, it constantly involves them forcing their way into some established hobby or community. It's not just attention they want, it's the feeling of control.
Not only that but it is also why they need to change things. It's not just about politics when long established IP lore is changed to be more appropriate for "modern audiences," they are planting their flag and saying, "this is mine now".
That last sentence, holy moly it's all true. We're at the mercy of trained histrionics. I got into RPGs with Call of Cthulhu (which is just better designed and has a better setting). And I'll just say out of the several games I plaid from D&D none of them reached completion (yet). Why? Well here's my point: popularizing the game made everyone miss the point of why you play D&D or an TTRPG: for the social experience and not just for a story. I think stuff like critical role popularized and bastardized it simultaneously... but what am I complaining for. That's been the story of everything everywhere since stuff could be marketed and sold.
It's a scary thought, isn't it? I realized that when the government tapped that one woman to be their "misinformation czar" and she did a whole song about "misinformation" to the tune of a Mary Poppins song. Like, they literally tried to establish a Ministry of Truth and they were forcefeeding it to us through the worst musical theater by a woman who couldn't hack it on stage so she went into politics. It was a humiliation ritual if I've ever seen one.
Critical Role definitely played a role in bastardizing the game, I agree, but according to popular opinion in these comments 5e played no small role in doing that as well. You're right that everything everywhere is watered down to be accessible to the lowest common denominator so companies can sell to more people, and in the process strip everything that made the original thing fun, charming, and entertaining to begin with out of it because those qualities could turn off X amount of potential customers (a number that has been scientifically and meticulously calculated by a crack team of market analysts on company payroll). Nothing can be special. Nothing can be unique. Nothing can be bespoke anymore - it has to be for everyone. But my biggest problem with that is, when everything is for everyone... well, I always go back to that one line from The Incredibles, which I hate to quote, but everyone knows it: "When everyone's super, no one will be." That kind of spiteful, petty mindset where others have to be torn down rather than focusing on building yourself up is exactly why we're in the societal position we're in and, to a great extent, why everything is so bland and milquetoast these days.
But on a lighter note, I agree. Call of Cthulu is awesome. I love that shit.
It's a tale as old as time: replace the old guys with new people who like the *thing* but don't like/understand the *things* that made the original special! Gygax had an appendix of works that inspired D&D... maybe people should return to those things are revive what makes scifi/fantasy great.
From what other comments have said, it sounds like a lot of people have or have at least tried. Sounds like some have found niche success, but niche success is both perfectly acceptable if a niche audience (i.e. DnD oldheads) is who you're trying to cater to.
I've toyed around with the idea of an OSR (Old School Renaissance) campaign with friends but the number of people in my sphere who have time for that shrinks more and more. Maybe I'll write my own gamebook for the time-challenged (ultimate disability)
This is exactly why so many have fled to Warhammer. You can't un-male it, dumb it down, make it flamboyant and theatre kid friendly. Its nature is anathema to these types, with the exception of some slightly autistic youtubers.
That and it brings the monster out to the surface of the feminine. For some reason Tyranids are the usual pick for woman, whether they play or merely paint. Gieger was on to something deep in the female psyche, about forced unions and consuming anatomy. I have yet to hear about one such women being a source of drama.
A total freak like Gieger was tapped into a lot of weird shit that I don't think most folks are ready to really get into (i.e. the thin line between eroticism and horror). I will say that Warhammer has intrinsic qualities to it that do and always will appeal to young men - what guy doesn't love just the basic concept of a space marine? - but Games Workshop is working overtime to try and shed the image of Warhammer being a game for "neckbeards". Which it's not and never was but they're so afraid of being seen that they're making some weird decisions. Seems like they're trying to play both sides these days.
I detect same estrogenic energy as motivates anti-'incel' and 'JD Vance is WEIRD' psyops (SHAME & SHUN non-vetted/non pre-approved male speech and activity)
Eh, I don't know. They sure seem be trying their damndest there too. :P I suspect it's only a matter of time. See: the whole female Space Marine* kerfuffle.
On a slightly more serious note, considering how over the top, flamboyant and yes, even camp WH is in many ways, I think there's definitely an avenue for the theater kids there.
*Or whatever pseudo-Latin term it was, I only played WH Fantasy back in the day and never got too much into 40K lore
Erm, ackshually, they're female CUSTODES, not space marines. There's a difference. *Straightens glasses*
But yes, they are trying to tow the party line while also not pissing off their core fanbase. It's interesting to see them try and walk that tightrope. That being said, you're actually not wrong that WH is, in many ways, camp. But that's what makes it so fun. It's camp in the way that Heavy Metal magazine art is. It's very... very 80's. It's tasteless but awesome. Kind of like the image of a wizard blasting lightning from his fingers airbrushed onto the side of a van. As the series has gone on and the lore began to take itself way too seriously, it lost a lot of that camp, though. The original lore was a lot more humorous and sarcastic and didn't always take itself too seriously, and as that was weeded out, it lost a lot of that campy, Heavy Metal flavor. To be fair, I do like the oppressively dark, very grim, very serious Warhammer flavor... but I also fucking loved the old style, over-the-top, "Ridiculous Factor turned up to 11" flavor as well. Neither is better than the other, in my opinion, they're just different types of good.
Okay, but sperging about WH lore aside and getting to the point... like I said, a lot of that hyper-camp and flamboyance has been largely removed from the setting. Unfortunately.
Play the game you want, build the world you want, run it how you want. That was the premise in the original game. I know; I'm that old I was playing it.
I prefer RuneQuest III rules with my own setting, built from the ground up.
Once the wokester trash/theater kids/emo moron fucks take over something, it's as dead as Julius Caesar. Dump it and move on.
WOTC always sucked dong; we felt the life go out of DnD when Gygax was oustered. We moved on to other RPGs and left our favorite game in the dust. It was turning into something we didn't want and couldn't afford.
Forgotten Realms was also a long running series of books; read the books to get the feel of the realm.
>Though they weren’t strictly fantasy themselves, I believe the popularity of Harry Potter and the Twilight series softened hearts on the fantasy genre as a whole.
I agree with this, but I would argue the massive success of the LOTR movie trilogy played a larger role in normalizing “generic fantasy.”
You're right about this and not mentioning that was an oversight on my part. Unfortunately, I must admit that I respect Tolkein more than I really am a fan of his works. I enjoyed the movies, I think that his books are some of the most if not the most important pieces of literature of the 21st centuries, but I'm not by any means of LotR mega-fan like I know some people are. But you're absolutely right, there's no way that the LotR movies winning scads of Oscars and being some of the most popular films of the 2000's didn't open the door to a wider fantasy revival in pop culture.
They really are to blame for SO MUCH. I was a theater adjacent kid in the 90s-00s. I was never under any illusions about what most of them were at heart and they were bad enough back then, but good grief nothing could have prepared me for the flood of histrionic losers that have settled on the top of our culture and sucked out all the oxygen like pond scum.
This might be a self-report but I was in theater class in high school. I know them well because I had to deal with them for two years and it was intolerable, which is part of the reason I quit (other than just I don't particularly like doing live theater, even if I was good at it and got the lead part in several projects). Lots of "theater kids" in band, as well. Same kind of psychological disposition with a different focus, that's why I think the "theater" part more accurately describes the theatricality of their conduct rather than being strictly being involved in theater.
Interestingly, it was the people less inclined to theatricality in their personalities who were usually more talented at theater/dance/music performance than the other more stereotypical "theater" kids. But that might just be self reporting as well.
Might be self-reporting but it's also true in my experience. I think the theatricality in their actions stems from a kind of internal insecurity. It's like, if you were really as good a person as you want to make sure EVERYONE around to know you are... would you have to let them know in the first place? That kind of mindset is poison for creative ambition.
Always enjoy reading your articles; they're very well explained. Hearing Wizards on the Coast accommodating all the changes is bizarre to me, though. As someone who only played Avengers and Star Wars knock-off versions of DnD, I thought the whole point was that you could make your own character and story within the set outline. There's no real need to make an official change, they could just...imagine it. It's like they want to play DnD with as little imagination as possible, which goes against the point of DnD, which adds to the idea of the hostile takeover. I also like how you brought up that all the nerds are slowly being ostracized from their nerd spaces...unfortunate.
That's exactly the thing - there's no need for the changes they demand to be made, so it all comes down to a power play to exert control over the community. Like, the wheelchair thing - no one ever said a player couldn't play a wheelchair bound character. It's a bit silly since you'd think that, in a world where the dead can literally be resurrected, someone could heal a set of lame legs, but you could still do it. You could also easily tweak the rules for your own campaign and make the orcs not evil in your own little spin-off of Forgotten Realms. Like I said - it's all about power.
It is also unfortunate. The entire thing is unfortunate and entirely avoidable. If people in all the various nerd cultures had just refused to acquiesce to outsider demands it would have ended then and there, but most, like I said, were a little too trusting and a little too eager to give the benefit of the doubt to bad actors than they should have been. That's not to say I blame anyone for being fooled. But we've established a solid track record of a very definitive archetype of people who do these things and, these days, anyone who wants to give a 'theater kid' the benefit of the doubt is only setting themselves up for failure.
Homebrew is the way to go. My pathfinder campaign is set on a post-apocalyptic Vancouver island run by genocidal gnomes who are busy killing off all animal-adjacent PC races (like rat people, cat people, etc).
Homebrew is always going to supercede the "official settings" just though sheer creativity alone. I don't think any major company could put out anything like what you just mentioned because it would be "too weird".
Great article but you overlooked one very important aspect of modern D&D, it’s dumbed down as shit. There is very little uniqueness between characters in 5e and it is way more forgiving to players than earlier editions where challenge was a core part of the game. It was one of the biggest reasons the “consume” crowd stuck with WotC over the other fantasy offerings.
I've heard this from multiple people in the comments and, so far as I'm aware, it seems to be an opinion a lot of veteran players have about 5e, but I'm also not the most savvy about differences between editions or the hard crunch of any TTRPG. I mentioned this in another reply to someone else but there's a group in town that plays "Classic DnD" only and everyone I know who's played has said it's significantly different and more difficult than 5e. There's definitely a market for people who want a challenge but it's not for the "consoomer" crowd.
Wizards of the Coast made fat stacks of cash because of it. The simplicity and forgiving gameplay was more geared towards non traditional players. Think dude bros over nerds. The result was it really went mainstream. The problem for WotC is they were always their own worst enemy.
Oh the joys of THAC0
'it’s dumbed down as shit.'
Exactly so--this is de-civilisation
Without any complexity, danger, or challenge to your characters in an RPG all the drama and action come from the players and game master. It's like playing a book but it will almost always be missing those dynamic elements that make for a good story. There are few instances for your characters to show ingenuity, unexpected surprises to take them out of their comfort zone, moments to push them in new and exciting directions, or struggles to help them grow. It's perfect for the theater club types but it will never equal a great tale of adventure.
You know, you are kind of right about the de-civilization thing. I didn't fully appreciate it until I got done writing my response but even the kinds of silly stories we make out of fictional tabletop characters say quite a bit about us.
You're absolutely right. It's difficult for a preening narcissist to engage in a narrative where their character could die permanently and their actions have legitimate, long-lasting consequences when all they really want is a game where they can pad their ego and always be the best, always overcome adversity, and are never genuinely challenged.
Yes--seems to me civilisation is as much a matter of the beauty, order and complexity invested in 'useless' things as it is a matter of mere 'technique'.
Yes. Aside from the theater kids, I think another problem is that the modern game has been influenced by movies and video games. New players expect a D&D campaign to be like a movie, with a plucky band of destiny-chosen adventurers who start small and end up saving the world. Maybe they face some dangers along the way, but ultimately you know that if they keep fighting, they'll battle through and get the job done, because that's the way the story has to end. For that to happen, the campaign has to be fairly on-the-rails, and the difference between a skilled DM and a poor one is that the skilled one, like a well-designed RPG video game, is better at hiding the rails and making it *seem* like anything could happen.
But that's not how D&D used to be at all. You started out a low-level nobody and were far more likely to be killed by a giant rat on your first adventure than to become a great hero. If you were trying to save anything, it was a town or a castle, not the world. It was *possible* to advance a character to high levels where he can lead armies or battle gods on astral planes. But that would take many campaigns played over years, skilled players and DM, and a decent amount of luck, because without the DM keeping the story on the rails, bad things really could happen anytime. But usually you're just having fun hacking around through dungeons, gathering loot and trying to stay alive.
New or old players who want a *game* like that instead of an interactive epic storytelling method are going back to the 70s/80s versions, which as our host said can largely be had for free. Some call it the Old-School Rennaisance. Just wish I had time to get back into it myself.
That's a very interesting point I didn't take into account before. Personally, I'm not sure why every story in modernity has to be on some world-spanning scope in which the band of the chosen ones are tasked with saving the world from some immense threat that realistically could not be stopped by a small group of people. There's nothing wrong with those stories, either, especially in fantasy, but I'm of the opinion that there's also nothing wrong with stories that focus on smaller stakes with more personal consequences. One thing that comes to mind is Spider-Man, who, from what I understand, was a more localized hero who dealt with localized threats in New York rather than engaging in world-saving theatrics. Peter Parker's whole bit was that he was a normal guy with extraordinary abilities and the whole conceit unravels once he becomes someone larger than life. When the new Spider-Man movie was announced to be another "multiverse" project, I heard a lot of grumbling and disappointment because people seem to want Spider-Man to go back to being a "street-level" hero that deals with "street-level" threats rather than literally the most important person in Marvel canon who's going to single-handedly defeat Doctor Doom.
There's a group that plays in my town that plays "classic DnD". I'm not sure if they're playing out of a first edition DnD book or if it's an altered ruleset for modern DnD to make it more aligned with the classic, but everyone I know who's played with them says it's significantly more difficult and character deaths are common. To this point, there's been a few ragequits over it, I've heard, but for the most part everyone who's played has really enjoyed it despite the differences.
As settings, both Marvel and the Forgotten Realms have the problem that there are such powerful characters that make any smaller-scale conflict feel pointless (if not incoherent).
(BTW, Greyhawk was actually the original official campaign setting, though I think it suffers from the same problems you describe as Faerun).
In modern D&D, you survive because you are the hero.
In old D&D, you are the hero because you survived.
Think on this lesson, young padawan.
Theater kids have also colonized and are busily destroying not just the gaming and other scenes, but also they have taken over real historic sites like Williamsburg, Virginia and done the same thing, since costumed historical interpretation of course is catnip to theater kids. You can't go to Williamsburg, or any other historic site now without being forced to hear their version of history, which boils down to "white men bad".
That's disappointing but not surprising. I visited Williamsburg when I was 13 with my father and we had a great time. I remember the costumed performers being more interested in speaking about what life was like during the colonial era more than giving lectures on racial politics of the time. It makes me wonder when we'll get to the point where Civil War reenactments will turn into one sided Union grand-standing where people in blue uniforms just give polemics on the South because having a Confederate side to fight against will be verboten.
This is a direct quote from a dude I know about what Williamsburg is like now-
"Peter Alexander, a prominent figure in Colonial America. His wife too.
If you tour their house in Williamsburg all they talk about is how he owned slaves. If you ask too many questions about him and what he did, not the slaves, they will threaten to kick you out of the tour..."
That Williamsburg clique of activist historians have become like a nest of vipers, slithering into other positions at other historic sites, and replicating the process. Mount Vernon, Monticello, all the National Park sites.
I wonder if the Renaissance Faire still happens. That's about as blatant to celebration of Europeans as I can recall for the cosplay crowd. Is white man bad trendy there too? (I bet it is)
Hey Pickle Rick! I think we've seen each other around some FQ sections of the web too.
Your comment and this article got me thinking... I've often used Thomas Sowell's "vision of the anointed" as a handy marker for the distinction between political views. (Left/Right being divisible by anointed vs tragic views) But now I think an additional way of measuring it would be by those who believe in Year Zero - vs those who acknowledge history.
And as this articles shows - not even history as like a proper study or record of events - even history just within a lifetime or a previous generation ago, the experience and wisdom of your forefathers, vs those "unburdened by what has been."
As you said, the phenomenon occurred across different nerd subcultures. Maybe ten years ago, I remember HP Lovecraft fandom getting colonized. People new to HPL were fascinated by the setting and monsters, but I think most of them probably never read anything from the early 20th century, and there were many lamentations about the unacceptable content of HPL. Now, they could’ve fucked off and found something else to take over, but no, it was important that they stayed around to complain about HPL. At the same time, many were quite happy to create and sell games, books, and other merchandise using this preexisting fanbase, all the while complaining. I remember one other specially expressing the need to do over HPL to make it palatable for these people.
But here’s the other thing-while many of them may have been theater kids, indoctrinated young people who just didn’t understand the 20th century, there were a number of old heads who did know better but acted (suddenly) shocked and appalled, and were eager to toe the line, lest they be targeted. And that happened in gaming, too. I can forgive youthful stupidity, but not that.
As I commented on the other article, I welcome all of this foolishness in 5E, in the hope that it will attract these people to 5E and away from various OSR games that I like.
Oh, believe me, I've seen what they've done to Lovecraft. He's one of my favorite authors and to watch the works of what I believe to be quite possibly the most influential author in horror history, if not one of the most impactful of the 20th century, dumbed down and Funko-Pop-ized (I can't think of a better word for it) to meet the tastes of people who would never like, appreciate, or even really understand the source material is disheartening. What makes it even more humorous (darkly) is that they never - NEVER - stop bitching about the guy. I'll admit, he had some less than respectable qualities but at the same time, learn to appreciate him for who he was and his talents or just... go read something else? No one is putting a gun to your head and making you read Lovecraft. But, at the same time, Lovecraft is popular, and these pop culture parasites always have to be in on the "popular thing", which usually involves them debasing it down for the lowest common denominator.
I also agree with you on the turncoats among the old crowd. I've been seeing that a lot in the Warhammer community as of late. Oldheads who would have never accepted something like, say, female Custodes are now chiding those who are upset over that particular retcon as being "out of step". I think part of it definitely has to do with them wanting to not get targeted by the outrage mob, but I also think that, to a degree, they're also "consoomer" types to who will always go where the company goes out of loyalty rather than admitting that Games Workshop has been constantly shooting themselves in the foot for years now.
I think there’s a predictable chain of events that happens. There is a cultural genre thing (book, game, show, etc) liked by a certain fanbase. The thing becomes popular. Eventually, it becomes popular enough that people who probably wouldn’t like the thing or even the genre begin to consume it, simply for fear of missing out. Commercial entities then realize that they can make the thing much more profitable if they dumb it down to the new, much larger demographic, who are not core fans. Eventually, the elements that made the thing special go away, in an effort to reach a broader audience. Eventually this new consumer group moves on to the next shiny thing, leaving the desiccated corpse of the original thing. I can think of local food products that became shitty once they became popular and distributed nationally. Bands that become popular enough to go commercial and then suck. Various tv shows and movie franchises. And so on.
I never played 40k much, but did the fact that Sisters of Battle exist not satisfy people? I mean, the Empire is fascistic, but what, their DEI departments are addressing inequities in Custodes hiring?
I’d like to try out more historical miniature wargames, and now I wonder-has this sort of thing made its way into that realm? Will, um, all World War 2 armies need to feature “proper representation?” No question is too absurd to ask at this point.
1) I totally agree with you. I'm not really a Lovecraft fan, but I hate what people do to him and do think the man should be respected.
2) But along the lines of influential horror authors, you ever read William Hope Hodgson? He's the man that inspired Lovecraft. Definitely worth a look into him for he deserves to be remembered and respected also.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/10662
I played D&D when I was 10 or 11 at school. Ya might say I was *temperamentally unsuited*: I beat up the DM one day mid-game and never played again.
In my early 20s I played magic once. Dragged along by a friend, I found myself embarassed and confused by it all and never went back.
I enjoyed this article all the same.
I think what you're referring to with this hostile theatre kid takeover is what ya might call de-civilisation: the hollowing-out of Western culture so that things retain their names, and the bare mechanisms ncecessary for their functioning, while they're divested of content. The content--the essence of the thing--is then replaced to fit the resentful narcissism of regime client groups.
See also: establishment Christianity, liberalism, socialism, even communism.
Very astute observation. It really is a microcosm of the larger degredation of Western culture and society, which is why I think it's important to talk about. People can say, "Oh, it's just a game", and sure, that's true, but it's also happening across the board in just about every facet of life. Best example is the woman the Biden admin tapped to be the "truth czar" or whatever during the lockdowns who sang a cover of a Mary Poppins song about "misinformation". That was theater kid-ism at it's most offensively transparent and pernicious.
Oh damn, I'd almost forgotten that that really was an actual thing that happened, haha. The height of the virus hysteria was a weird time for sure. As easy as it is to laugh about, though, you're of course very right that the authoritarian impulse it represents is still present and a serious threat for all of us who value classic liberal (as in Enlightenment, not Democratic Party) values like freedom of speech. I'm sure they'd love to bring it back in a less outwardly pathetic and self-defeating form...
Most people have forgotten about it. But not me. I'll never forget. I can't forget if I tried, if only through the sheer absurdity of it.
I'm sure they'd love to give the "Ministry of Truth" another swing but the frightening prospect is that, if they do it less pathetically, it'll take the shape of Orwell's famous analogy of a boot stamping on a human face. Forever.
Thank you very much
I guess I could have written 'skin-suiting'. But 'de-civilisation' gets at something more than that--as I see it, at least.
Good article, but I would really take note that AD&D 2nd edition is so different from its predecessor versions is that it's a completely different game. 1ed AD&D and the original D&D were wargames scaled down to first-person POV, but higher-level play was also built in. The transition from wargamer-led TTRPG to Frustrated Novelist / Director - led TTRPG, to what Jeffro Johnson and Brad Walker and aligned writers call "Conventional Play" (the current assumed model of play) is arguably what led to this phenomenon writ large. With the original D&D / AD&D being an outgrowth of wargaming, the barrier to entry was actually pretty high. Those versions of the game, played according to rules as written, are "always on" players playing at multiple levels - PC, faction, patron, and NOT having perfectly aligned interests - i.e, not the "One Party Uber Alles Get-Along-Gang" - no one would be able to play one and just one character forever. Because 1 to 1 time is assumed in that version, you have to play other characters, or you don't at all for long stretches. That's a wargame, which can be won, not a sit-down Improv session. The whole "There is no wrong way to play D&D" and "Rule 0" and "Session 0" culture that's built up is...wrong. It enables the Theater Kids.
That's a very interesting correlation between the game's history as a wargame and into it's transition into what it is now.
"Sit-down Improv session" is actually a great way of putting it, so much so I wish I'd come up with it. That's really what media like Critical Role feels like - a bunch of actors improvin, because that's what it is.
It's also funny you bring up the "One Party Uber Alles Get-Along-Gang" (again, banger line), because I feel like that's exactly what so many campaigns boil down to. As much fun as I'm having with my current group, the DM did make the caveat that no one could play an evil character because a lawful good and chaotic evil character couldn't get along in a party or work together, which I fundamentally disagree with. People with conflicting virtues and worldviews can definitely learn to put aside their differences when interests align, and especially in a life-or-death situation.
A lot of us call the contemporary DM style "Frustrated Novelist" or "Frustrated Director," because that's what it is. Railroading, taking away player agency, BS "arcs" no one gives a crap about. And it's too much for a GM. It's why if you back to the original books you realize it's okay to use players and deputize them to run NPCs for you. If you have a fully functional complete game, you don't need setting books, supplements, and modules. It's just shelves full of DLC.
But those are only temporary alliances, and that's the beauty of Braunstein style play, patron play, and faction play levels. Sooner or later, interests diverge. TSR's Western RPG Boot Hill and GDW's early Traveler did a good job, but you could apply it to Twilight 2000 for example. Or Shadowrun. You should be able to apply it to Palladium games if they were functioning games and not Dev Kits.
They're absolutely temporary, but that's what makes them so interesting. Two people who can't stand each other who have to put up with one another out of necessity, just waiting for the opportunity where it's no longer convenient to work together so they can turn on each other. You can get a lot of good story material out of that dynamic that's infinitely more interesting than a group of people who all fundamentally morally align with one another. Pigeon-holing everyone into "Good" and "Mostly Good" to me seems like a great way for there to be little in the way of inter-group conflict which... well, I'm not going into it now, but suffice to say that a group without some friction is usually pretty boring.
Also, you just reminded me that I'd love to run a Shadowrun campaign with these guys one day.
The Critical Role guys aren't improvising. It's scripted. It's just that their script allows some paraphrasing. And it's edited later.
Any real game session has people talking over each-other, someone occasionally saying something stupid and offensive, surprising successes and surprising failures, people ignoring the main quest and turning the side quest into a main quest, getting needlessly paranoid about some harmless NPC and ignoring the big bad NPC, and so on.
A real game session is messy, because spontaneous humans are messy. Only edited fiction is neat.
These bastards have ruined two cherished parts of my childhood now. Boy Scouts, where I was introduced to AD&D in the late 80s, got skinsuited first. Yeah 5e turned Leftist hard. A big part of the turn are the "inclusive" Critters.
I went to Comic Con last year. The cast was the Saturday keynote panel. Beforehand outside, the "official" fan club got together for pictures in front of the hotel next to the San Diego Convention Center. All I heard were a bunch of tearful sharings of how Crit Role made them feel better or included or saved their life. Wow, it was all sooo... dramatic.
I still love D&D. I would love to game with some not Left people. My last campaign group wasted the DM's night one time going completely off the rails to stop this jerk of a mayor from being mean to the townspeople. I spent the whole night "sitting in the tavern drinking" while the three millennials in the group went "crusading."
I wasn't even aware that there was an "official fanclub" for anything anymore. That sounds about right, though. You do see that a lot at conventions when certain creators or figures show up. I saw Steve Burns do a panel at Emerald City Comic-con and people were speaking to him with such reverence you would have thought he was the Messiah returned. Dramatic is almost an understatement. That does bring up a good point about Critical Role, streaming culture, and parasocial relationships. I've often said streaming is a "friend simulator" for people with very lacking social lives and I can easily see how lonely, wayward, isolated people might watch Critical Role as some sort of parasocial substitute for having actual friends to play a game with and get very, very attached to it. It probably goes a long way to explain why they act so vicious against any criticism leveled against the series - any polite critique isn't just criticizing a web series, they see it as an attack against their "friends".
Also, it's a shame what they did to the boyscouts. But that's a can of worms for another day.
It was definitely strange to see the adoration. Until you mentioned your experience, I forgot how the Q&A was almost like the girls in the 60s getting to ask the Beatles questions because well most of the Critical Role fans were female.
Your childhood is not ruined. AD&D 1st ed has not ceased to exist. The books exist in secondhand print, and current pdf.
With Scouts, if you want to participate then you have to join their organisation as it is. With tabletop gaming, you can start your own small group and play whatever you like.
I have first and second edition players handbook and dm guide in the case of second edition and the MM. The problem lies in finding fellow players.
As for Scouts, I'll skip the inclusive fun. I doubt "morally straight" and reverent are values of the current organization. Hell they made a DEI exercise a required merit badge. Nope not swimming in sewage.
What you do is go down to your local game store or CCG shop, and set up a regular open game table. Advertise it on their social media and with posters there. Show up regularly every Wednesday 7-9pm, or whenever. And run it for whoever shows up, even one person. Do that for three months.
I did that, and found that over three months I got something like 10 different players, 8 of whom came more than once, 3-4 of whom came regularly - and showed up for my campaign.
I did it with Classic Traveller, too, with similar results.
The most important things are commitment and enthusiasm. RPGs are like sex, enthusiasm is more important than skill.
Thanks. That's not a bad idea. The local store has a game room.
Thanks for the shout-out, I really appreciate it.
For me, the D&D brand is dead. I've swapped over to other games that I enjoy far more whether solo or with friends and it's for the very reasons you mentioned.
Of course. I was looking for resources on the OGL controversy and The Man Behind the Screen very helpfully pointed me in your direction. I wanted to provide further reading on the topic from someone who understood it better for anyone who was interested in getting deeper into it.
Re: Forgotten Realms, yeah. It's bland, it's big, it's a patchwork of misappropriated tropes. The only thing worse is Pathfinder's in-house setting, which is like a parody of all the worst things about Forgotten Realms.
I guess the idea is that it's more of a framework than a setting. Here's all the generic bits and some maps, just add character (and characters).
I've never been a big fan of it. Some of the novels added some depth of history and culture to it, and that's the main reason why everything is centered around Waterdeep, etc. - because that's where all the good novels took place, on the northwest coast of (generic medieval european fantasy continent #1).
Some of the other canned settings are more interesting - Ravenloft, Dark Sun - but really, I don't think you can call yourself a DM/GM if you're not running your own thing. That's half the fun of it. Everybody else makes their characters, you make the world. If you're not doing that you're just a referee.
I'm glad I'm not alone in that opinion because I often feel as if I am. Forgotten Realms seems to be very well regarded by a lot of folks but at the same time... maybe that's just because it's so easily accessible and bland? Easy to build on? I've read some books in the setting I've enjoyed but overall I just don't care about it. As for some of the other settings, I agree. I really like Spelljammer and I really, REALLY like Planescape (though I think a lot of my love for it comes from the aesthetic and Tony DiTerlizzi's art. Something about the setting is so weirdly new age-y 90's that I can't help but love it in a nostalgic way). But I also agree that homebrew settings are the way to go. It's infinitely more interesting to see what your weird friend with way too much on his hands can cook up and worldbuild rather than revisiting Faerun for the Nth time.
Yeah, Spelljammer and Planescape are my personal favorites too, though they made an absolute mess of them in 5e, with Spelljammer somehow not revolving around spelljammers and planescape being sort of watered down, dissected and scattered across numerous sourcebooks. I have a homebrew that borrows my favorite elements from both of them with my own elaborations, which is what I usually run when I do D&D (not often, lately, been busy doing my own original systems & settings).
But they're more like meta-settings/cosmologies that plug in to any/all of the other settings (they've since done the same to Ravenloft, which I think they also made a mess of in 5e).
Here's the secret. No one needs prefabricated settings or modules at all. All you need is the 1ed DMG, PHB, and MM, and that's it. Sure, add in FF and DD if you want but they're optional.
You don't *really* need anything but paper, pencil, and some randomizer if the game calls for it. You can make your own rules. According to my kid you don't need the paper and pencil either, because laptops, like, exist, dad. But I'll stick to the pencil & paper.
Excellent work and excellent reading, as is so often the case with you, my good ape.
You've hit the nail squarely on the head with each point. I've been invested in this hobby for long enough that I witnessed this change happening in real time. I, along with many others, comprised a pair of the "boots on the ground," as it were. Back when I used to run my YouTube channel and speak more regularly about this sort of thing, I both got a lot of support from old heads like myself who were in the same boat, and a cavalcade of shit - a cacalcade, as I believe you recently put it? ;) - from the exact kind of shrieking neurotics you describe in this essay.
These troglodytes are a modern day form of low tier brigand; arrogant enough to think their ideas and desires are the end all, be all, and that all and sundry should cater exclusively to them, anyone else be damned. Yet the battlefields they choose, the tactics they use, and the reactions they give when pushed against reveal the truth of their weakness, particularly once greater public opinion comes into play. It's not just the hobbyist nerds and geeks, the *actual* ones like myself and my friends who did have to deal with being mocked daily for liking certain kinds of games, or the ones like my best friend's stepdad who lived through the Satanic Panic and had people try to throw blows at them over this, who dislike these trogs. Most everyone that exists outside of the "theater kid" bubble dislikes them, and deservedly so.
These "theater kids" are fucking insufferable. They're the Karens of the geek world, but worse because of the state of arrested development they're perpetually trapped in. And while it's already obvious from what I've said, I want the satisfaction of putting it to words: I hold these types in nothing but contempt.
Yes... the cacalcade. Like I said - I meant to do that.
I don't think I could add anything to your scathing rebuke of these types that you haven't already eloquently stated, but I also hold them in contempt as well. Really, nothing gets me more heated than these people who come into these spaces and act like the same bullies they claim to hate so much, especially when its towards people who really did have to put up with that shit. Like I said, I was blessed to never have to deal with that kind of harassment, but I know it happened and I have very little patience for anyone who wants to revise history and say, "Um, actually, it was ALWAYS cool to like [insert hobby here]" and then bash the very people they claim to want to join. It all feels like a sick power play, which, to a degree, I think it is.
I personally would completely drop the idea of saying that it's a power play, to a degree. I think it is absolutely a power play. These are the types of people who love exuding influence over others. They live for that shit. That's why whenever these hipster fucks hop into whatever they consider the next in-thing, it constantly involves them forcing their way into some established hobby or community. It's not just attention they want, it's the feeling of control.
Not only that but it is also why they need to change things. It's not just about politics when long established IP lore is changed to be more appropriate for "modern audiences," they are planting their flag and saying, "this is mine now".
That last sentence, holy moly it's all true. We're at the mercy of trained histrionics. I got into RPGs with Call of Cthulhu (which is just better designed and has a better setting). And I'll just say out of the several games I plaid from D&D none of them reached completion (yet). Why? Well here's my point: popularizing the game made everyone miss the point of why you play D&D or an TTRPG: for the social experience and not just for a story. I think stuff like critical role popularized and bastardized it simultaneously... but what am I complaining for. That's been the story of everything everywhere since stuff could be marketed and sold.
It's a scary thought, isn't it? I realized that when the government tapped that one woman to be their "misinformation czar" and she did a whole song about "misinformation" to the tune of a Mary Poppins song. Like, they literally tried to establish a Ministry of Truth and they were forcefeeding it to us through the worst musical theater by a woman who couldn't hack it on stage so she went into politics. It was a humiliation ritual if I've ever seen one.
Critical Role definitely played a role in bastardizing the game, I agree, but according to popular opinion in these comments 5e played no small role in doing that as well. You're right that everything everywhere is watered down to be accessible to the lowest common denominator so companies can sell to more people, and in the process strip everything that made the original thing fun, charming, and entertaining to begin with out of it because those qualities could turn off X amount of potential customers (a number that has been scientifically and meticulously calculated by a crack team of market analysts on company payroll). Nothing can be special. Nothing can be unique. Nothing can be bespoke anymore - it has to be for everyone. But my biggest problem with that is, when everything is for everyone... well, I always go back to that one line from The Incredibles, which I hate to quote, but everyone knows it: "When everyone's super, no one will be." That kind of spiteful, petty mindset where others have to be torn down rather than focusing on building yourself up is exactly why we're in the societal position we're in and, to a great extent, why everything is so bland and milquetoast these days.
But on a lighter note, I agree. Call of Cthulu is awesome. I love that shit.
It's a tale as old as time: replace the old guys with new people who like the *thing* but don't like/understand the *things* that made the original special! Gygax had an appendix of works that inspired D&D... maybe people should return to those things are revive what makes scifi/fantasy great.
From what other comments have said, it sounds like a lot of people have or have at least tried. Sounds like some have found niche success, but niche success is both perfectly acceptable if a niche audience (i.e. DnD oldheads) is who you're trying to cater to.
I've toyed around with the idea of an OSR (Old School Renaissance) campaign with friends but the number of people in my sphere who have time for that shrinks more and more. Maybe I'll write my own gamebook for the time-challenged (ultimate disability)
This is exactly why so many have fled to Warhammer. You can't un-male it, dumb it down, make it flamboyant and theatre kid friendly. Its nature is anathema to these types, with the exception of some slightly autistic youtubers.
That and it brings the monster out to the surface of the feminine. For some reason Tyranids are the usual pick for woman, whether they play or merely paint. Gieger was on to something deep in the female psyche, about forced unions and consuming anatomy. I have yet to hear about one such women being a source of drama.
A total freak like Gieger was tapped into a lot of weird shit that I don't think most folks are ready to really get into (i.e. the thin line between eroticism and horror). I will say that Warhammer has intrinsic qualities to it that do and always will appeal to young men - what guy doesn't love just the basic concept of a space marine? - but Games Workshop is working overtime to try and shed the image of Warhammer being a game for "neckbeards". Which it's not and never was but they're so afraid of being seen that they're making some weird decisions. Seems like they're trying to play both sides these days.
I detect same estrogenic energy as motivates anti-'incel' and 'JD Vance is WEIRD' psyops (SHAME & SHUN non-vetted/non pre-approved male speech and activity)
Eh, I don't know. They sure seem be trying their damndest there too. :P I suspect it's only a matter of time. See: the whole female Space Marine* kerfuffle.
On a slightly more serious note, considering how over the top, flamboyant and yes, even camp WH is in many ways, I think there's definitely an avenue for the theater kids there.
*Or whatever pseudo-Latin term it was, I only played WH Fantasy back in the day and never got too much into 40K lore
Erm, ackshually, they're female CUSTODES, not space marines. There's a difference. *Straightens glasses*
But yes, they are trying to tow the party line while also not pissing off their core fanbase. It's interesting to see them try and walk that tightrope. That being said, you're actually not wrong that WH is, in many ways, camp. But that's what makes it so fun. It's camp in the way that Heavy Metal magazine art is. It's very... very 80's. It's tasteless but awesome. Kind of like the image of a wizard blasting lightning from his fingers airbrushed onto the side of a van. As the series has gone on and the lore began to take itself way too seriously, it lost a lot of that camp, though. The original lore was a lot more humorous and sarcastic and didn't always take itself too seriously, and as that was weeded out, it lost a lot of that campy, Heavy Metal flavor. To be fair, I do like the oppressively dark, very grim, very serious Warhammer flavor... but I also fucking loved the old style, over-the-top, "Ridiculous Factor turned up to 11" flavor as well. Neither is better than the other, in my opinion, they're just different types of good.
Okay, but sperging about WH lore aside and getting to the point... like I said, a lot of that hyper-camp and flamboyance has been largely removed from the setting. Unfortunately.
Here's a DnD 2e clone/knock-off freebie:
https://www.basicfantasy.org/
Play the game you want, build the world you want, run it how you want. That was the premise in the original game. I know; I'm that old I was playing it.
I prefer RuneQuest III rules with my own setting, built from the ground up.
Once the wokester trash/theater kids/emo moron fucks take over something, it's as dead as Julius Caesar. Dump it and move on.
WOTC always sucked dong; we felt the life go out of DnD when Gygax was oustered. We moved on to other RPGs and left our favorite game in the dust. It was turning into something we didn't want and couldn't afford.
Forgotten Realms was also a long running series of books; read the books to get the feel of the realm.
Good article!
>Though they weren’t strictly fantasy themselves, I believe the popularity of Harry Potter and the Twilight series softened hearts on the fantasy genre as a whole.
I agree with this, but I would argue the massive success of the LOTR movie trilogy played a larger role in normalizing “generic fantasy.”
You're right about this and not mentioning that was an oversight on my part. Unfortunately, I must admit that I respect Tolkein more than I really am a fan of his works. I enjoyed the movies, I think that his books are some of the most if not the most important pieces of literature of the 21st centuries, but I'm not by any means of LotR mega-fan like I know some people are. But you're absolutely right, there's no way that the LotR movies winning scads of Oscars and being some of the most popular films of the 2000's didn't open the door to a wider fantasy revival in pop culture.
They really are to blame for SO MUCH. I was a theater adjacent kid in the 90s-00s. I was never under any illusions about what most of them were at heart and they were bad enough back then, but good grief nothing could have prepared me for the flood of histrionic losers that have settled on the top of our culture and sucked out all the oxygen like pond scum.
This might be a self-report but I was in theater class in high school. I know them well because I had to deal with them for two years and it was intolerable, which is part of the reason I quit (other than just I don't particularly like doing live theater, even if I was good at it and got the lead part in several projects). Lots of "theater kids" in band, as well. Same kind of psychological disposition with a different focus, that's why I think the "theater" part more accurately describes the theatricality of their conduct rather than being strictly being involved in theater.
Interestingly, it was the people less inclined to theatricality in their personalities who were usually more talented at theater/dance/music performance than the other more stereotypical "theater" kids. But that might just be self reporting as well.
Might be self-reporting but it's also true in my experience. I think the theatricality in their actions stems from a kind of internal insecurity. It's like, if you were really as good a person as you want to make sure EVERYONE around to know you are... would you have to let them know in the first place? That kind of mindset is poison for creative ambition.
Always enjoy reading your articles; they're very well explained. Hearing Wizards on the Coast accommodating all the changes is bizarre to me, though. As someone who only played Avengers and Star Wars knock-off versions of DnD, I thought the whole point was that you could make your own character and story within the set outline. There's no real need to make an official change, they could just...imagine it. It's like they want to play DnD with as little imagination as possible, which goes against the point of DnD, which adds to the idea of the hostile takeover. I also like how you brought up that all the nerds are slowly being ostracized from their nerd spaces...unfortunate.
That's exactly the thing - there's no need for the changes they demand to be made, so it all comes down to a power play to exert control over the community. Like, the wheelchair thing - no one ever said a player couldn't play a wheelchair bound character. It's a bit silly since you'd think that, in a world where the dead can literally be resurrected, someone could heal a set of lame legs, but you could still do it. You could also easily tweak the rules for your own campaign and make the orcs not evil in your own little spin-off of Forgotten Realms. Like I said - it's all about power.
It is also unfortunate. The entire thing is unfortunate and entirely avoidable. If people in all the various nerd cultures had just refused to acquiesce to outsider demands it would have ended then and there, but most, like I said, were a little too trusting and a little too eager to give the benefit of the doubt to bad actors than they should have been. That's not to say I blame anyone for being fooled. But we've established a solid track record of a very definitive archetype of people who do these things and, these days, anyone who wants to give a 'theater kid' the benefit of the doubt is only setting themselves up for failure.
Homebrew is the way to go. My pathfinder campaign is set on a post-apocalyptic Vancouver island run by genocidal gnomes who are busy killing off all animal-adjacent PC races (like rat people, cat people, etc).
Homebrew is always going to supercede the "official settings" just though sheer creativity alone. I don't think any major company could put out anything like what you just mentioned because it would be "too weird".