D&D General Fifty Years of Dungeons & Dragons, collection of essays published by MIT Press

[Cadence]

Ongoing review part II - Chapters 6-10:

Ch.6 - Iantorno interviews Dancey on the OGL. I'm not sure if there is tons new here that we haven't heard before, but it was a solid interview with long answers from Dancey, and it's very nice to have it all in one place. I wish there could have been a short follow-up added for comments on the events of 2023 (the interview was conducted in 2021).

Ch.7 - I never played any of the D&D video games mentioned in Chapter 7 by Felczak about mods. (The OG Adventure on the 2600, Castle Telengard and Bard's Tale on the C64, and a really old Sid Meier's Pirates' are the closest I've come). I was still able to follow the chapter and it seemed a fine read. But I'll leave the review of this one to those who played at least one of the Gold Box, Infinity Engine, or Aurora or Electron games. (I will also note that Castle Telengard on the C64 could be broken open and you could change some of the basic code -- iirc if you set your hit points too high they would wrap around to negative when you leveled and stop things from popping up to steal from you).

Ch.8 - Webley provides a memoir laced with breezy historical reminiscence and tie-ins. For the part in the 80s, I'm not sure if all of it follows actual real world chronology. (Wait, when did you start playing? When did Tomb of Horror Come out - was it different in England? When did these video games with these things hit? etc...) For the part on the reformed group during COVID it was a bit wordy and repetitive at times without the hook of being about about my own formative years (like the part on the 80s) to draw me back in. I wonder what those who weren't teenagers in the 80s will think of the first part. I wonder what those who were teens during COVID and discovered gaming then will write about it in 40 years.

The second batch of Designer Vignettes didn't stand out to me like the first batch did.

Ch.9 - The title of MacCallum-Stewart's chapter is about the Mercer Effect and performative play, but I was pleasantly surprised that its true focus seemed to be on the switch from game rules heaviness to imagination heaviness (something that began happening in the mid 70s). I imagine some of the parts on 4th edition would lead to some quick thread closures if we tried to have a "discussion" about them. The switching between more academic and more personal/conversational stood out at one point toward the end. And the author really loves to use the word "ludic" - I don't think that technical term is well played here for a general audience. Overall, as someone who been playing since 1981 but has never seen Critical Role, I was glad I read it.

Ch.10 - Hermann's chapter is on my favorite class, the Cleric, and who they serve. It's a seemingly thorough overview (with references) of everything clerical and divine in the various D&D editions. A few side notes: It took me a while to realize the (#) starting part way through were page numbers. I'm embarrassed to say I had never heard of "The Church of the Facts of Life" and "Church of Crom, Scientist" before. And it showed how many game supplements that I never played with or even saw, a few of which I might have to look into and maybe pick up.

 

[Cadence]

Ongoing review part III - Chapters 11-12:
[Off camping for the weekend sans book and computer, hence the delay. Getting these up before the thoughts are too far in the past.]

Ch. 11 by Nikolaidou is about the influence of D&D on speculative fiction (sci-fi, fantasy, etc...). Going back through the chapter typing this, I find myself wishing the author was given two chapters to cover two of the topics hit in the last (a bit over) half of this one. (1) The section "Of Dice and Pen" begins with a list of 25 authors who were gamers. I really wanted more than one page to go into the specifics of how they were influenced and what changes it made in their works and how it differentiated their works from what came before. (2) I wonder how my brain would have approached the section "Reclaiming Speculative Narratives" differently if it started with something blunt like "Unsurprisingly, given that it originated in the 1970s with its main influences being from the 40's to 60's, <bad stuff>", but I like how that section as a whole demonstrates the authors wide perspective. I would be interested to see what the author could do with more space to parallel the evolution from Appendix N to modern speculative fiction, US Culture from the 1970s to 2020s, and 1e to 5e and play culture. Finally, I keep feeling like the first five and a half pages were a bit long, but on rereading I guess it all makes important points - maybe my problem is that they just weren't the one I was most interested in.

Ch. 12 by Sidhu is on "Learning from Dungeons and Dragons". It is chock full of references on the benefits of playing games like D&D in general, and on uses of them in the classroom. I found myself thinking a few times that it all read a bit too positive. I also wonder if some threads on ENWorld set me up to be a bit iffy about the third and fourth sentences in the chapter: "D&D prioritizes player satisfaction above all else. The game's flexible rule set, safe play environment, and reliance on imagination give players greater control over the game, allowing for more personalized and enjoyable play experiences" (pg. 179). I kind of wonder what the reaction of some folks on here who have had many really bad experiences with DMs would be to that statement (not wondering enough to actually go out and ask them!).

 

[overgeeked]

I'm interested in the book, but the reviews by Cadence are making me second guess that interest. Thanks for the reviews, by the way. Some of the chapters are clearly written by people with years of experience playing and running the game. Other chapters sound like someone read about the platonic ideal of an RPG and wrote about it without ever even seeing an RPG book or dice before in their life.

 

[LordEntrails]

I also wonder if some threads on ENWorld set me up to be a bit iffy about the third and fourth sentences in the chapter: "D&D prioritizes player satisfaction above all else. The game's flexible rule set, safe play environment, and reliance on imagination give players greater control over the game, allowing for more personalized and enjoyable play experiences" (pg. 179). I kind of wonder what the reaction of some folks on here who have had many really bad experiences with DMs would be to that statement (not wondering enough to actually go out and ask them!).

Yea... this is... seems to be a very sheltered perspective. I don't think the game itself does any of this. Portions of the community and individual tables certainly do (and that's a good thing!) but this is not baked into the game itself.

 

[Cadence]

I'm interested in the book, but the reviews by Cadence are making me second guess that interest. Thanks for the reviews, by the way. Some of the chapters are clearly written by people with years of experience playing and running the game. Other chapters sound like someone read about the platonic ideal of an RPG and wrote about it without ever even seeing an RPG book or dice before in their life.

I sometimes feel that way about posters on here It's felt so far like all of them knew what they were talking about I think - and there are lots of references backing things up. Short academish chapters aren't always the best place to show that off.

3, 5, 6, 9, and 10 were really strong as written for me as the audience. I want to see a review of 7 by someone who played those games and 12 by an middle/high school educator..

Still 8 more chapters to go!

 

[overgeeked]

I sometimes feel that way about posters on here

Yeah, that's fair.

It's felt so far like all of them knew what they were talking about I think - and there are lots of references backing things up. Short academish chapters aren't always the best place to show that off.

I think that's what's causing my second guessing, honestly. I don't care if someone's read a lot about D&D and has an opinion. I only really care if they've played a lot of D&D and have an opinion. If they've done both, great. But actual hands on experience trumps pure research, for me at least.

3, 5, 6, 9, and 10 were really strong as written for me as the audience. I want to see a review of 7 by someone who played those games and 12 by an middle/high school educator.

I played one or two of the Gold Box games, but never modded them.

It really will be interesting to see what people are doing with RPGs generally in educational and therapeutic contexts. But as I have zero interest in diving into reading proper research papers, it's either second hand or through a book like this.

Still 8 more chapters to go!

Thanks again for the reviews.

 

[Cadence]

Yeah, that's fair.

I think that's what's causing my second guessing, honestly. I don't care if someone's read a lot about D&D and has an opinion. I only really care if they've played a lot of D&D and have an opinion. If they've done both, great. But actual hands on experience trumps pure research, for me at least.

The author of 12, for example has played D&D for 8 years (she gives her gaming background starting at around 4:00 at Is D&D a Secret Architect of Global Culture? | Gaining Advantage 038 - Wyrmworks Publishing ). Her PhD work is on D&D: Premeet Sidhu and she is a co-editor of the book.

I was just assuming they had all played or wouldn't have been asked to participate. Are there any you were particularly wondering about? (Like 12, they don't all mention playing it in their bio in the back of the book so I wonder if they thought it was assumed too).

 

[LordEntrails]

The author of 12, for example has played D&D for 8 years (she gives her gaming background starting at around 4:00 at Is D&D a Secret Architect of Global Culture? | Gaining Advantage 038 - Wyrmworks Publishing ).

Children these days...

Her PhD work is on D&D: Premeet Sidhu and she is a co-editor of the book.

Er, well, smart children.
Now get off my lawn!

I agree opinions are much more valuable if the author has played the game. But it depends upon a lot more than that. A person who has played for 40 years with the same group in the same way and doesn't interact with the larger community... well their opinion is very sheltered. While some who has always done organized play will have a very different perspective. And someone who has played with dozens of long term groups of different players, has engaged in organized play and done cons and reads about play aspects for decades will have another perspective. And all of those will be tempered by the personality of the author.

It would be interesting to take one of these topics and see perspectives based upon individuals' play experiences and perspectives.

 

[overgeeked]

The author of 12, for example has played D&D for 8 years (she gives her gaming background starting at around 4:00 at Is D&D a Secret Architect of Global Culture? | Gaining Advantage 038 - Wyrmworks Publishing ). Her PhD work is on D&D: Premeet Sidhu and she is a co-editor of the book.

I was just assuming they had all played or wouldn't have been asked to participate. Are there any you were particularly wondering about? (Like 12, they don't all mention playing it in their bio in the back of the book so I wonder if they thought it was assumed too).

It was specifically that one. The review of the chapter made it sound like the author had some platonic ideal of D&D, not actual experience playing D&D, because their description (that you quoted) in no way even remotely corresponds to any gaming experience I've ever had.

 

[Cadence]

Ongoing review part IV - Chapters 13-17:
[work and illness delayed this one a bit, yay for long weekends!

As usual, the chapters are generally chock full of references.

Ch. 13 by Harris and Lulham is an interview/qualitative based look at the cross-over between D&D and performance. In particular it had how folks who were performers of different types felt their performance background influenced their D&D and vice-versa. That is totally not a group I am part of, but I enjoyed the read. I can picture a big contentious thread on here about the concluding sentence "We, the players, are artists." (although I'd like the participants in the thread to have read the chapter first to see what direction it is coming from).

Ch. 14 by Malouf-Grice focusses on the author's D&D experience participating with a group of "queer nerds". The writing style/organization of it wasn't my thing and if I weren't typing this review I'm not sure if I would have kept reading - for a while it alternates between what was observed and explaining the details of it in ways I wasn't expecting and wasn't sure was helpful. (For example, showing a group chat message with emoji's and then explaining the significance of the emoji's). Maybe it's an academic writing style I'm not used to? I could imagine the author's group's pain when a game of Werewolf (not the ttrpg) with another group they just met didn't go well -- but finding that they all ended up chatting on their phones at one point made it feel different. I wonder if the authors specifying "homosexual" groups instead of "queer" signifies something.

The third set of vignettes was a mixed bag. The first of this batch looked like it was heading somewhere and veered off. The second's "The brain can't distinguish between what's real and what's vividly imagined" felt a little ironic given how the first started.

Ch. 15 by Cote and Saidel was on "Race" in D&D Character Creation. I thought it was a solid chapter on the subject. As it focuses on character creation in particular, it doesn't have some of the appalling monster descriptions and creator quotes that would come up in a more broadly based discussion of race/racism in D&D. I probably would have given a bit of etymology/definitions/usage of "race", besides the way it is commonly used today, on either page 232 or 241. I didn't recall that 2e explicitly said race in that edition meant fantasy species and not human "races" (which fits with one of the obsolete meanings). When calling out racial ability modifiers they note that halflings had physicial stat limitations but were also very small compared to humans - but I was disappointed that they didn't have more detail on the problematic issues related to ASIs occurring for mental stats. I think they overplay 4e's introducing more races in Player's Handbooks than other editions - it had three PHBs, how many species do we get if we give other editions more books too? It felt odd having Tieflings on the list of positively called out 4e contributions, are they problematic in the way half-elves and half-orcs are?

Ch. 16 by Justice (subtitled "Reflections on settler colonialism, indigeneity, and otherwise possibilities of [D&D]") is a memoir/reflection of a queer Cherokee gamer and professor. I'm glad I read it and I hope I continue to think about it. It has me wondering what a book full of nothing but memoirs from D&D players of various backgrounds could be.

Ch. 17 by Trammell and Antero also focuses on race in D&D. If you want to briefly read that D&D is an irredeemable excrement-pile of racism that has possibly "colonized the hearts and minds of designers in games across all genres" (Trammell, pg. 278), then these two short (a bit under three pages each) memoirs try to give you that. Even if that was the message the editors were looking for, it feels like these "meanderings" (pg. 281) do a poor job of conveying it in a fashion that is supposed to be widely edifying or meaningfully referenced in the the future. (Maybe neither of those is supposed to be true of anthropological sketches. I can imagine someone whose first book was the 2e PHB, like for Antero, putting in the note mentioned above in Ch.15, and the quote from the PHB about the variety of humanity - and then saying in what ways that failed them. Since the focus of this chapter was ostensibly on mixed-race kids trying to find themselves in the game, maybe talk about half-elves more than in a foot-note, like noting 2e says their experience could range from acceptance to bigotry? Maybe put half-orcs in the footnote since they didn't show up in 2e, possibly to hint at issues they raise?).