D&D General D&D is now Steampunk (poll)

[Micah Sweet]

One has to question just how accurate a depiction of history those 60s/70s wargames were though.

Does one? They were clearly making an attempt, within the bounds of the simulation they had created, to the best of their ability to do so. That's pretty much all I want out of an RPG.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The aesthetic changes continually, as you would expect for something 40 years old. But my point is it was never "medieval", and the original aesthetic certainly wasn't.

The expression of that point you're using has the effect of attempting to invalidate the OP's entire argument, which at least to me does have some validity.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The expression of that point you're using has the effect of attempting to invalidate the OP's entire argument, which at least to me does have some validity.

The OPs argument is invalid - they claim it was medieval (which it never was) then they list a bunch of things that have always been part of D&D, and for some unaccountable reason call them Steampunk.

 

[Micah Sweet]

See, I don't even think it's "dark ages" per se.

I think the key difference is that D&D went from something kinda-sorta-ish like realpolitik and logistics, to something kinda-sorta-ish like romanticism and adventure.

Folks who like realpolitik see romanticism as gaudy, garish, childish, a colorful but unserious profusion of silly nothings that never cohere--even when that description is blatantly biased, inaccurate, and unfair. Folks who like romanticism see realpolitik as dingy, drab, pretentious, a bleak and depressing profusion of self-congratulatory nothings that never cohere--even when that description is blatantly biased, inaccurate, and unfair. Folks who see HIGH ADVENTURE! as the core of the experience find logistics plodding, time-wasting, and just generally pointless busy-work, "filling out your taxes" and the like. Folks who see campaign logistics as the core of the experience find "high adventure" nonsensical, slapdash, time-wasting, and just generally pointless play-acting, "shouting your combos" and the like.

D&D has been offering something to both groups for a while now, but trying to pretend that the two have completely copacetic goals and interests. I obviously think that position is mistaken.

They have been offering something to both groups, true, but I feel it is undeniable the proportion of what they offer has in the last several years (Tasha's or before) been leaning much more obviously in favor of romanticism and high adventure, leaving fans of realpolitik and logistics in the cold vis a vie the official game.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Does one? They were clearly making an attempt, within the bounds of the simulation they had created, to the best of their ability to do so. That's pretty much all I want out of an RPG.

Maybe they were doing their best, but our understanding of history has changed since the 70s, and American education has always been pretty sketchy on anything that happened more than 400 years ago.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't know. I think mutually understood definitions of terms allows us to have fruitful conversations, rather than descending immediately to name calling.

I think the problem is that a great deal of time is spent arguing over said definitions, and mutual agreement (so we can move on to the actual topic) is often elusive.

 

[Reynard]

I think the problem is that a great deal of time is spent arguing over said definitions, and mutual agreement (so we can move on to the actual topic) is often elusive.

Sometimes, I suppose, but I actually think this thread has been pretty good about pointing out that it is not steampunk, but then tackling the subject anyway.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The OPs argument is invalid - they claim it was medieval (which it never was) then they list a bunch of things that have always been part of D&D, and for some unaccountable reason call them Steampunk.

Well, I disagree (at least in part), so expect some pushback.

 

[Epic Meepo]

Obligatory pedantry: “genus” and “species” are used in Roman-era Latin translations of Aristotle, which made them standard terms through all the following eras. Our current usage of them begins in the early modern era, in the late 1600s, but the words were there, referring to a kind of animals and to a specific form within that kind, everywhere scholars regarded Aristotle as hot stuff.

To expand on your point, I'll add some D&D-specific pedantry: "species" is used in the 1989 AD&D 2e Player's Handbook, page 29: "Before advancing to 2nd level, every ranger must select a species enemy. Typical enemies include giants, orcs, lizard men, trolls, or ghouls." Note that orcs are listed as an example of a species.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I dont think a good Conan-esque Setting can be done in core DnD even is an individual Conan character could join a party

I would agree that there are better systems out there if you want to run a full-on Conan-esque setting. But there have also been scads of lines written about how you can't do X with D&D, yet that doesn't stop people from trying. Sometimes they make it work, sometimes not.

1966 TIME magazine article about The Hobbit craze in the US: Students: The Hobbit Habit

That article is such a fascinating glimpse into the past. I've long said that "mathom" needs to get more use.