D&D 5E A new Golden Age for D&D

[Mercurius]

Stepping back a bit, it certainly helps that we are in a period where all "geek" stuff has gained much in popularity and is now considered more mainstream, so it's easy to see how that might help give a "golden age" feel.

I guess I use different criteria; for me the "golden age" was when I could walk into my hobby store and always find new and interesting products to try out in my game (many just got read, but even that was good!), or inspire new games and settings and the choice seemed limitless (Al-Qadim, Greyhawk, FR, Ravenloft, Dark Sun and Planescape were all being published!).

So for me, as a gamer and especially as a consumer, the "golden age" is the height of 2e.

I can definitely empathize with that. A related, but different inquiry, might be to talk about what period of our own D&D history do we look back at most nostalgically. For most it would be the early years of getting into the game. I certainly feel that way to some degree, although I look somewhat nostalgically at the entire 80s and early 90s period when I was a kid and teenager (in terms of D&D, that is!).

One thing that your post made me think about is the nostalgia I feel with a certain experience that I no longer have, or at least rarely and never like in "the good old days": going to a game store and browsing new and obscure books. I felt that most especially in the 80s and 90s, less so later on. This might even have something to do with the internet, that it has taken away a bit of the mystique of new products because we can learn so much about them now before we buy them. But it also has a lot to do with the loss of FLGS. I know there are some still out there, but it has been a long time since I've been to one that had a feeling of magic about it. But that could also be because I'm no longer a kid.

 

[mflayermonk]

How similar to the ideas that:
Rock is Dead
Punk is Dead
Cyberpunk is Dead

is D&D?

 

[Mercurius]

How similar to the ideas that:
Rock is Dead
Punk is Dead
Cyberpunk is Dead

is D&D?

Every movement or new form has its inception and early ears, and than a burst of popularity, and either some or all of this could arguably be considered its "golden age." So when people say "Punk is Dead," they are referring to the 70s and 80s. But then after the popular years, it declines - and each movement or form does so differently.

For instance, it is rumored that at its height in the early 1980s, 20-25 million people were playing D&D. Fast forward twenty years, and I've heard the figure of somewhere between 2 and 6 million in the 90s and 00s. So is D&D "dead" simply because far fewer people are playing? I wouldn't say so. 2-6 million is still a lot.

Anyhow, one difference between D&D and, say, punk, is that D&D has editions and edition cycles. Punk, as far as I know, doesn't have the equivalent. It might have a new group that becomes popular and brings punk back on the map, but it isn't quite the same thing.

 

[mflayermonk]

Looking at 5e and the 5e release, it is a very derivative work-not the rules, the rules should be derivative-but the adventures are all derived from story and plot that existed in D&D at some other point in the brand's lifetime.
I remember during 4e (which did try to innovate) they talked about "how much it felt like 1e" and really tried to wrap that old-brand strength around the edition, and this was a mistake.

When you look at Pathfinder, what PF really did was innovate in story and villains, and it worked.

 

[Zak S]

Whether or not it's a golden age for the popularity of the game as a whole, it's undeniably an amazing time for new DIY-RPG content.

Stuff like Yoon-Suin and Fire On The Velvet Horizon, for example, are far better than anything that's been produced in ages.

 

[Lanefan]

I can definitely empathize with that. A related, but different inquiry, might be to talk about what period of our own D&D history do we look back at most nostalgically. For most it would be the early years of getting into the game. I certainly feel that way to some degree, although I look somewhat nostalgically at the entire 80s and early 90s period when I was a kid and teenager (in terms of D&D, that is!).

Interesting point.

For me, it's the run from about 1984 to 1987. I'd gotten in before that, but those years were the best. I was cutting my DM teeth, playing in a great game, enjoying all the new product coming out, and helping redesign 1e to become the system we still use.

I've a hunch, however, that ten years from now I'll look back on the run just completed - say, 2009-2014 - with every bit as much fondness. My current campaign has been wonderful (entirely thanks to the players!), I've made it to several GenCons in that time, I'm enjoying the new 5e products more than almost anything from the 3e-4e years, and I've been playing in a great game as well.

One thing that your post made me think about is the nostalgia I feel with a certain experience that I no longer have, or at least rarely and never like in "the good old days": going to a game store and browsing new and obscure books. I felt that most especially in the 80s and 90s, less so later on. This might even have something to do with the internet, that it has taken away a bit of the mystique of new products because we can learn so much about them now before we buy them. But it also has a lot to do with the loss of FLGS. I know there are some still out there, but it has been a long time since I've been to one that had a feeling of magic about it. But that could also be because I'm no longer a kid.

Our FLGS here in town is actually quite good, but I've been spoiled: I feel that magic now in the GenCon dealers' hall.

You're quite right that the internet has greatly reduced the 'wow' factor in many ways.

Lan-"looking round the game store, at the new things trying to tempt us - not a glimpse of the magic found in the early days [from 'Edition List']"-efan

 

[epithet]

Some of that magic, for me, was probably because I had to save up for the books I wanted. 30 years later, I buy all the books that seem interesting and have to find the time to try to read them.

 

[Hussar]

Looking at 5e and the 5e release, it is a very derivative work-not the rules, the rules should be derivative-but the adventures are all derived from story and plot that existed in D&D at some other point in the brand's lifetime.
I remember during 4e (which did try to innovate) they talked about "how much it felt like 1e" and really tried to wrap that old-brand strength around the edition, and this was a mistake.

When you look at Pathfinder, what PF really did was innovate in story and villains, and it worked.

Hoard of the Dragon Queen was original. Princes of the Apocalypse was derivative and Rage of Demons is original. I'm not sure I agree with your premise.

 

[mflayermonk]

Hoard of the Dragon Queen was original. Princes of the Apocalypse was derivative and Rage of Demons is original. I'm not sure I agree with your premise.

Aspects of HotDQ/RoT reminded me of Red Hand of Doom. I haven't played Rage of Demons but the main cast seems like it builds upon the demon princes from MM1 and MM2 (and the adventures).

 

[Mad Zagyg]

The three core rulebooks and the Starter Set were gold, for sure.

Unfortunately, that's all I have to report that's been really awesome. I strongly disliked Hoard of the Dragon Queen, after which Rise of Tiamat could have nothing to offer me. I'm running Princes of the Apocalypse now, and I think it will be okay with some changes. So far, I'm still on the fence about it. Rage of Demons does not seem like my taste at all, but I'm interested in looking at how they stat out the demon lords.

I would really love to see some softcover modules added to the release schedule in between these hardcover storybooks.