quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawkins

Which is not the entirety of the content of this blog post on Kobold Press, but definitely has merit.

---

quote:

---

Penny Dreadfuls: Against the Nostalgia Fetish in Fantasy Roleplaying

May 20, 2013 / Neal Hebert

Penny Dreadfuls: Adapted from the Spring Heeled Jack Penny DreadfulEver since the announcement of “D&D Next”—or, to translate marketing-speak into actual English, Dungeons & Dragons: 5th Edition—more than a year ago, Wizards of the Coast’s efforts to unite the disparate tribes of fantasy roleplaying enthusiasts under one system of roleplaying has been contentious at best. Fans of disparate—and mutually exclusive, in some cases—styles of roleplaying have been contesting and debating the merits of each edition to assess whether elements of that edition should be included in the Frankenstein’s monster that is Next.

The results have been ugly, retrograde, and entirely predictable. Wizards of the Coast’s promises of modularity and freedom of choice have all been silenced by the advent of the unelected “But that’s not D&D!” committee that lurks on every forum. Its members revel in speaking out against progressive design, clutch tightly to every mechanical cow in the event that someone, somewhere might believe it sacred despite its age or dissociation from the remainder of its herd, and rejoice in purging the unclean from the hobby because of their conviction that there is only one ideologically acceptable way to pretend to be an elf.

Theirs.

People who’ve talked with me know I have never been on board with D&D Next—its design philosophy’s attempt to unite the tribes struck me as remarkably tone deaf, naïve, and harmful to the state of play we have been gifted with since the hobby’s inception in E. Gary Gygax’s basement four decades ago. While some view crowdsourcing as a viable way forward, I predicted that Wizards of the Coast’s tactics to engage fans in the design of the next edition of the game would reignite the most-recent edition warfare that’s infected gaming discussions since the launch of D&D 4E and the release of Pathfinder RPG. Rather than encouraging gamers to have an honest discussion about the role nostalgia should play on mechanical design, the openness of the process has caused numerous players—most frequently those who prefer older editions of the game—to come forward and out themselves as members of the “That’s Not D&D” committee.

I suspect part of the reason I find the views of the “That’s Not D&D” committee so bizarre and unhelpful for the hobby is that I don’t particularly value nostalgia. As I get older, I’ve come to accept that the ways I played roleplaying games in the past—particularly my start in the hobby with AD&D—had little to do with mechanics and more to do with where I was at in my life. I’m from rural Louisiana, and when my friends and I discovered a game where we could pretend to be heroes, we used the rules to make stuff up that we thought would be fun. Our creativity and happiness to play together was part and parcel of being young kids happy to hang out with each other, and we didn’t really let the mechanics of the game get in our way.

I know game designers can’t recapture the esprit de corps of my early forays into gaming, no matter how hard they try; the mechanical design of the games I loved had very little to do with the fun those games facilitated. We didn’t think deeply about concepts like simulation, if it was necessary for D&D to have draconic kobolds or doglike kobolds, or whether warlords could “shout wounds closed.” Our games were laissez faire and au courant. Now that I’m older and have done a bit of game design, the idea that any game designer would try to recreate the games of my youth strikes me as quixotic and impossible—nostalgia is not empirical, and it cannot be mechanically modeled.

May Garl Glittergold go with those who try.

But to the members of the “That’s Not D&D!” committee plaguing RPG forums, the type of fun roleplaying games facilitated should be subordinated to nostalgic purity (in general) and their particular nostalgia (in specific). Did you like 4E? Tough luck. Were warlords the class you were looking for way back when you were playing 2E and wanted to create a fantastic version of Alexander the Great or Zhuge Liang? Sorry, that’s not D&D because the game is and must be Eurocentric. Are you interested in non-Vancian magic options? Too bad. That’s not D&D even if 2E psionics provided just such a system (and even if it were awesome!). Did you play 13th Age and decide that (what they call) narrative mechanics might be interesting in your fantasy game? Leper. Outcast. Unclean. Forge-ite. Swine.

The problem with the “That’s Not D&D!” committee is not the fact that they are attempting to use the Internet to silence and shame those who want D&D to continue moving forward. The issue is these men and women do not understand the extent to which they are fetishizing the past—and in so doing, contributing to the culture that’s making it harder and harder to introduce new players to the hobby. Nostalgia and fantasy roleplaying’s history have their place in this hobby—but to the loudest subset of message board denizens, that place is decidedly not as a reference to where the hobby’s been. History and nostalgia have become Gygax ex cathedra, rigidly constraining our understanding of the hobby’s past and constricting the mechanical designs that will define our hobby’s future.

But what do I know? Nostalgia über alles. After all, that’s not D&D (and it shouldn’t be to you or anybody else)!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kentinal

I do not think many to want a return to THAC0 or best possible AC is -10, however with the quicker turn over of Editions I certainly can understand some push back.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kentinal

But they promised 4th Edition was so flexible that there would never be another Edition. Something along the concept of rules revisions I suspect was the talking point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Markustay


So, the only way to sell a new (popular) edition of a game is to create a feeling of dissatisfaction with the previous version. One could do this by releasing tons of 'patches' (we call them splats), until the thing is an unplayable, Frankensteined mess. Then we yearn for a simpler, faster system (which we get when the first 3 books come out for the new edition... before the never-ending series of game-breaking splats). Rinse and repeat.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Markustay

Because Paizo and so many other companies didn't get onboard with the new edition, and instead 'fixed' the old version, the plan didn't work (so good), and they tried other methods. I think most of us remember them bad-mouthing previous editions. Unfortunately for them, that backfired, and was a PR nightmare. This business model only works when all companies involved are on the same page (so basically, Paizo was the company that refused to put more air in their lightbulbs).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Markustay

So to continue this analogy, what WotC needs to do is go with something completely new, like those LED bulbs. It will probably be slow going at first (much like 4e), but in the long run I think it will pan-out. People have to eventually get tired of 3e/OGL, because its human nature to want something 'new and improved'. The problem is, it has to feel like something we are already comfortable with, like how the new LED bulbs screw into the old, standard sockets.

Thats going to be a neat trick to pull off with a game system - I wish them the best of luck.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kentinal

But they promised 4th Edition was so flexible that there would never be another Edition. Something along the concept of rules revisions I suspect was the talking point.

---

There was also an employee at European Gencon - soon after 4e's release - who was asked (jokingly), "when will 5e be out?"

He actually responded honestly - he said something like, "Of course we are already thinking about 5e, but thats still years away."

And so it was.

They will be planning 6e they DAY 5e comes out, otherwise they are not doing their jobs. What is fun for us puts food on their table - thats why fans have a completely different mindset then those in charge.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Diffan

Currently the wizard has cantrips that are usable At-Will and the damaging spells scale with character level. A ray of frost deals 5d8 damage with a failed Dexterity saving throw at 20th level. Some people like me enjoy this because it changed the fundamental idea behind what a cantrip is (for me, they're not 'minor magics' but a staple-point in wizardry. They're the backbone and starting point for wizards that will hone these skills and spells to become their go-to attacks when the situation isn't in need of powerful magic). Others, however, hate this idea that cantrips become more than just 'minor spells'. They want cantrips to only be useful out of combat and some people want them to have spell slots too. Hopefully a Wizard tradition is created that allows wizards to choose between different casting styles so that people get the feel they want.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sleyvas

quote:

---

Originally posted by Diffan

Currently the wizard has cantrips that are usable At-Will and the damaging spells scale with character level. A ray of frost deals 5d8 damage with a failed Dexterity saving throw at 20th level. Some people like me enjoy this because it changed the fundamental idea behind what a cantrip is (for me, they're not 'minor magics' but a staple-point in wizardry. They're the backbone and starting point for wizards that will hone these skills and spells to become their go-to attacks when the situation isn't in need of powerful magic). Others, however, hate this idea that cantrips become more than just 'minor spells'. They want cantrips to only be useful out of combat and some people want them to have spell slots too. Hopefully a Wizard tradition is created that allows wizards to choose between different casting styles so that people get the feel they want.

---

Just thought I'd butt my nose here on this one, because of my interest. Personally, I'd like to see a book of "optional" wizard types. Sure, they can have the "standard" wizard being this kind that does magic missile or whatever everytime they fight. However, I'd like to also see the wizard who CAN'T draw on that much magic. Maybe they're just not that attuned to it. Both should still memorize spells, etc... with similar mechanics. However, the non "cantrip" using one should have weapon "feats" to make up for their lack of having infinite magic to hurl. They should be better in combat, maybe even more hit points. Maybe they can even wear certain special armors. Both can fit in quite well in the same world, and in fact in some worlds, maybe the one who uses weapons is more common. Note, this isn't a "battlemage" because this other type of wizard might be just as versatile as the other wizard (carrying utility, combat, and defensive spells), just their usual form of combat is say a crossbow or a bow and they might wield a short sword instead of a staff at close range.

Then they could turn around for the same add-on book and create certain special "wizards" like they also did (i.e. warmages, dread necromancers, beguilers, wu jen, elementalists, spellthieves, etc..)

---