Yeah! I'm in Dragon (again). Want to argue?

[Mark]

On at least a couple of instances I've heard some kids some up what it is like to play D&D now: "like a video game...but slow!"

WotC's new marketing slogan!

Dungeons and Dragons: Like a Video Game...but SLOW!

 

[Brennin Magalus]

Also Tolkien had no influence on D&D and he should never get any.

What is this, revisionist history?

 

[SSquirrel]

Janx I was comparing her to R.A. Salvatore and not in a good way that dirty chewbacca killer.

Of course, Salvatore was told by Lucas he had to pick one of the main characters to kill, he didn't care which one. Luke was obviously right out. Chewie, I suppose, was considered the most expendable and there was a definite chance for some serious character development, which did in fact occur. Everyone needs to stop whining about Chewie already.

Hagen

 

[SSquirrel]

What is this, revisionist history?

<sarcasm>
Yeah, 1st Ed AD&D didn't have fat halflings. It didn't have elves who had tons of abilities stacked up. It didn't have orcs, trolls, giant spiders, Rangers, etc. No it owed absolutely NOTHING to Tolkien.
</sarcasm>

The magic system itself may have been based upon the Dying Earth books, but whole chunks of the original game goes right to Fritz Leiber's works, Conan, Tolkien, etc. Hell, Gary Gygax even admits the Tolkien influence.

Hagen

 

[wedgeski]

Really, if the goal of "getting more youth into the hobby" results in a bunch of books for beginners and not a lot of books that I'm interested in (which, based on the results of such books that have come out, seems to be true), then that goal is, in fact, a bad one. (For me, duh.)

And yet if they don't keep the game alive and bring in new players, there will be no books at all, because the hobby may die. And really, if, in the mass deluge of d20 material on the market, you can't find any books to be interested in, then I don't think there's much anyone is going to be able to do to help you.

Back on topic, I think the editor's reply to the OP was spot on. Spot on to the point that I'm even happier to have renewed my subscription to the magazine.

 

[BelXiror]

I'm 23, and I have no problem with the current art. It looks fine to me, and I don't really see the "punk."

Then again, I am a Final Fantasy player, so what do I know? My first fantasy books where the original Dragonlance novels. But then, my second fantasy books where Weis and Hickmans Darksword trilogy, which is Uber-high magic.

I've never read Tolkien either, only seen the movies. I remember, years ago, finding and reading about a quarter of the first book, but I got bored with it and stopped.

I havn't read Conan, or whatever other books your refering to, so my version of "Classic Fantasy," is quite likely very different from those older than me.

As for the spikey thing, with all the critters that either try to bite and/or swallow you, the more spikes the better.

After all, would you eat something wrapped in barbed wire?

 

[diaglo]

i agree with Zander and with Matt.

i don't like the dungeonpunk art. (thanks Zander)

(and from Matt): I'll be happily playing D&D when I'm in a retirement home, but I'll be happier if the teenagers I'll be complaining about play too. I'll be happier still if we both play the same edition of the game; then I can invite them to share a few raucous hours playing the best game in the world.

OD&D(1974) is the only true game. All the other editions are just poor imitations of the real thing.

i'll get them to play even if i have to drag them in kicking and screaming. that's why i disagree with Matt about who promotes or has the most influence on who plays/buys.

 

[Keeper of Secrets]

I can see where the body piercings and tatoos may bug some but I don't see it as a big deal. Remember those old Erol Otis pics? I swear it looked like they had bellbottoms.

I can see where 'pandering' might be bothersome but I don't think its an enormous point of trouble or anything, honestly. I guess we'll see. Tell ya what: check back with me in 8 years and I'll see if my position is right and if you're right, you can publicly give me an 'I told ya so.'

 

[Henry]

I think Mark's analogy is the best one: You can argue about whether or not the new looks and themes are "hurting" D&D, but in the end, it's attracting a large number of people in their early 20's and younger, and that's what is making the game grow.

I have to differ with Zander in the presumption that the younger people playing it recently will "stop" playing it when it no longer resembles its current form in the future. Zander, nor Diaglo, nor myself stopped playing it when it no longer resembled its previous forms! My first real fantasy series was DragonLance, like many people - and I suspect it's why Tolkien's books do not excite me. I liked Leiber and Howard, but I came to them LONG after I started playing D&D. Heck, most of Howard's stories I did not read until last year.

The important point is to interest young gamers in the game itself, and the interactive tale; in EVERY generation the majority will grow bored and stop playing it, but there is also the core of solid gamers that will embrace it, and keep it running for another 30 years.

 

[Scribble]

The important point is to interest young gamers in the game itself, and the interactive tale...

I agree with this.

As I said in an earlier post, I'm not a big fan of the Anime style I see of the games now. That doesn't mean, however, that just because the current artwork trend is that way, that that is how I imagine the scenes playing out before me.